Mark a survey and Inform Staff

Peer Review:
114.246.164.15:invalid:Content Nonsensical, Content Useless, :invalid
5.45.80.218:valid:Content Nonsensical, Duplicate Survey, High Vulgarity, High Grammatical Error, Probably Admissions, Content Useless, Malicious Intent/Faked, SPAM, :1
5.45.80.218:vali

Statistical Analyzer:

John,Fantastic Post, appreciate your eforfts. I have a couple questions:The unnatural links messages in webmaster tools, Matt Cutts has stated that these are manual actions (which would imply they were sent out manually, by a human), but in most cases these seem to correlate directly to Penguin Updates from what I have seen, with them appearing April 24th, June 8th etc. Do you think these could be generated by the Penguin Update or related to it? Are they being sent via the Google Algorithm or via manual web spam members? 700,000+ warnings is a large amount to be sent manually. I have discussed a couple cases with others where they have received multiple unnatural link warnings on the same day, this would lead me to believe that they are not manual actions, as why would after a manual action has happened would another manual action the same day? I have also heard about an unnatural links message being sent more than once to the same website each time a penguin update is run.Also, It seems that when a website gets an unnatural links message,the traffic has rarely dropped right away; it appears there is a time between 2-4 weeks when the manual action hits the website's traffic. What might be the purpose of this delay, are they giving you the opportunity to attempt to correct the situation? Perhaps the warning is algorithmic, and then the delay gives a site owner to correct the situation before the penalty drops (manually)? Or maybe if these warnings are related to the new methods the are using with Penguin, they assume that they will run the Penguin update between every 2-4 weeks, therefore it will re-inspect the back links algorithmically before a Google Web Spam team member re-reviews the website in question to see if they have corrected the issues prior to actually applying the manual action? If the warning is driven by an algorithm, then sending a reconsideration request would do no good, yet Google does suggest a reconsideration request in the unnatural links email. And before a penalty has even actually occurred. Any theories on all of this?Another point: Matt Cutts has stated that only 3% of the warnings were regarding unnatural links in first few months of the year, I find this nearly impossibly to believe based upon the volume of discussions and posts out there in regards to this? Do you have any thoughts about this?Thanks for your time, and appreciate your eforfts to share your knowledge with the community.