Should you translate your reconsideration requests into English for Google?

Why does Google specify this information about reconsideration requests?

This statement aims to reassure non-English-speaking webmasters who hesitate to submit reconsideration requests in their native language. Many still assume that Google operates solely in English for its technical processes.

In reality, Google has language-specific teams capable of processing requests without prior translation. For a manually penalized Japanese site, this means that the Japanese team will read the request directly, avoiding loss of meaning related to automatic or inaccurate translations.

What is a reconsideration request and when should it be used?

A reconsideration request is exclusively for manual actions notified in the Search Console. It does not apply to algorithmic drops, crawl issues, or unexplained ranking losses. If a human reviewer at Google has applied a manual penalty, you will receive a clear notification in the dedicated section.

The reconsideration request serves to document the corrections made after this penalty. You explain which manipulations have been removed, which toxic links have been disavowed, and which pages have been cleaned up. Without this precise documentation, lifting the penalty is compromised.

Does this rule apply to all languages?

Google explicitly mentions Japanese without providing a complete list of natively supported languages. It is reasonable to assume that major languages (French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese) enjoy the same treatment, but Google does not confirm this outright.

For less common languages or emerging markets, the situation remains unclear. Does Google have a team that speaks Indonesian, Polish, or Czech? No public data allows for verification. In doubt, some webmasters still prefer to double their request with a brief English version.

• Reconsideration requests are processed by local language teams at Google
• No need for translation for major languages like Japanese, likely French or German
• The exact language coverage remains undocumented by Google
• This rule applies only to manual actions, not to algorithmic issues
• Writing in one's native language avoids misunderstandings related to approximate translations

Does this statement really change anything on the ground?

Let's be honest: most French-speaking SEO professionals have been writing their reconsideration requests in French for years. Many have empirically observed that responses from Google arrive in French, proving that a French-speaking human has handled the case.

This official confirmation for Japanese thus validates a widely practiced approach. What is sorely missing is a comprehensive list of covered languages and processing times by language. A market with a small local team may have longer response times than a priority market like the United States.

What uncertainties remain in this statement?

Google does not clarify whether all languages benefit from the same level of support. Will a request in Thai be processed as quickly as a request in English? Do certain languages still go through internal translation before reaching a reviewer? [To be verified] as no real data confirms this.

Another point not addressed is the quality of writing. Does a well-structured request in French with clear evidence hold more weight than a clumsy translation in English filled with mistakes? Probably, but Google does not provide recommendations on the optimal format for these requests.

In what cases could this recommendation pose a problem?

For multilingual sites with a complex structure, the question of communication language becomes complicated. If a site.com/fr/ is penalized but the company is based in the Netherlands with an English-speaking SEO team, which language should be prioritized? The language of the penalized content or the language of the team managing the site?

Similarly, some webmasters are still reluctant to write in French out of fear of encountering a second-tier support that is less responsive than the American team. This psychological bias persists despite official statements, fueled by anecdotes of delayed or generic responses in certain markets.

Should you modify your reconsideration request strategy?

If you operate in the French, German, Spanish, or Italian market, write your reconsideration requests in the language of the concerned site. You will gain precision and avoid misunderstandings related to approximate automatic translations.

For less common languages, caution remains advisable. Consider doubling your request: one version in the site's native language with all technical details, and a summarized English version to secure understanding if the local team lacks resources.

What mistakes should be avoided when writing the request?

The main mistake is to justify instead of document. Google does not want to read a plea explaining why you didn’t intend to spam. The team wants to see which links have been removed, which pages modified, and which disavow files submitted.

Another common pitfall is writing a request that is too short out of fear of being verbose. A generic phrase like "We have fixed the issues" is not enough. Provide specific URLs, before/after screenshots, disavow file exports. Transparency drastically increases your chances of a quick lift.

How to structure an effective reconsideration request?

Start by clearly identifying the penalty: artificial link, generated spam, cloaking, or other. Then, explain the corrective actions taken with tangible evidence. If you disavowed 300 links, attach the file. If you removed 50 pages, list the URLs.

Conclude with a commitment to future compliance without falling into empty excuses. Google looks for signals that you understand the issue and have implemented processes to avoid recurrence. An external audit, internal training, or a change of provider are concrete examples.

• Write the request in the language of the concerned site for major markets
• Document each corrective action precisely with URLs, screenshots, and files
• Avoid emotional justifications or vague excuses
• Attach disavow files and evidence of content removal
• Explain the processes in place to prevent recurrence
• For rare languages, consider a complementary English summary