A domain spam check should distinguish suspected search-policy problems from security findings and third-party research scores. A ranking decline can trigger investigation, but it does not by itself establish a Google penalty.
Use the exact domain, authorised reports and specific observations to identify what, if anything, needs correction. This concerns website search and content, separate from email sender reputation.
Review relevant practices under your control
Google’s spam policies describe practices such as cloaking, link spam and low-value expired-domain repurposing. Examine actual implementation and content rather than inferring an issue solely from a metric.
Keep examples, affected pages and dates. An unexplained content or access change can create a different investigation from an ordinary publishing decision.
Check official property reports
For an authorised Search Console property, use Google’s Manual Actions report. Read the scope and examples if a finding is present.
The Security Issues report concerns different problems, including harmful or compromised content. Neither report should be replaced by a public score lookup.
No manual action does not guarantee strong rankings or complete security. Our warning guide helps keep the reporting systems distinct.
Interpret link research as evidence to inspect
Moz’s Spam Score documentation describes a feature-correlation metric. It is not an official Google status or an established probability that your site is penalised.
Use relevant link reports to identify source pages, then inspect current context and target URLs. A high referring-site score does not directly diagnose the queried site’s status.
Our metric guide explains the limits. Do not assume differently named provider measures use identical scales.
Correct the issue actually supported
Address documented policy or access problems and preserve the change record. Removing visible spam may not resolve the route that allowed unauthorised content.
Google’s disavow guidance describes limited advanced use. It should not become routine bulk action against every unfamiliar or high-scoring reference.
Follow the relevant review process when a reporting system requires it, after resolving the actual issue rather than only changing a dashboard number.
Verify and review the wider site
Recheck affected pages and reports with dates and scope clear. Our assessment guide adds performance, content accuracy and user-task checks.
Keep unknowns in the finding log. If evidence does not support a spam diagnosis, investigate other possible causes of the observed change instead of declaring a penalty from a drop alone.
For a hypothetical site with fewer recorded visits after a hosting change, inspect page availability, tracking configuration and actual traffic sources first. If pages fail to load or measurement stopped, those observations support technical investigation even without a new score result.
Record that evidence separately from a suspected search-policy issue.
A useful check produces a specific supported conclusion. It cannot guarantee future visibility or certify a domain universally free of spam.