Google Responds to Parasite Article on Harvard Webstie

**econfox** · 8 December 2023, 12:24 pm

Google responds to a parasite seo article on Harvard website.

https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1733165977288999305

"That particular situation seems, unfortunately, more likely a case that the site is unaware this content has been placed on it rather than a purposeful attempt to host the content. Hopefully, they'll attend to this. That said, we have taken steps to better deal with third party content of this nature, and we'll absolutely be continuing to do more. We'll also be looking to do better with this type of situation, too."

**newcustomeroffer** · 8 December 2023, 12:37 pm

On the radar at least.

In response to Barry Schwartz questioning whether anything has actually gone live yet (emphasis added):

We have a variety of systems to deal with things like this, and yes, we've taken steps. I think you're talking about the broader idea of how this might apply to the helpful content system in particular. That particular step still isn't yet live. But the advice we've given in relation to it and third-party content is still generally good advice to keep in mine for those who wish to create (or be seen as creating) helpful, people-first content. It's very likely we'll migrate or add that advice to our page about that.

**chaumi** · 8 December 2023, 12:53 pm

Hmmm Harvard have a number of VPN articles/PDFs that are obviously generated from within the organisation, designed to advise students on using VPNs. Most I looked at seem legit.

On first look at the title, this one seems published outside of that. But without seeing it and what it's actually saying, I wouldn't be 100% sure it fits the parasite profile. And I can't find it with a quick search, maybe G have already nailed it. Maybe Harvard took it down.

We'll assume the people on the X thread knew it was a genuine parasite case. Judging by some of the names, they would know.

But interesting that G have actually responded to it and not obviously just tried to brush it away with a 'this is normal and there's nowt we can do about it' comment.

Will be interesting to see if this is the precursor to actually doing something concrete about the 'problem'.

**bpmee** · 8 December 2023, 2:32 pm

Surprised they picked on this particular article as an example. As others have said, it's a close call.

There are other publishers with more obvious parasite articles. I suspect *some* of the losses these sites have taken in recent weeks might be part of the HCU.

Wondering what the next "step" is, and how avoid being a false positive?

**universal4** · 8 December 2023, 4:55 pm

Next step?
Maybe remove what ranking benefit they give .edu links. (even though they would likely never admit it) Sure colleges linking to each other or other educational related websites might make sense, but why would articles promoting online gambling, real estate pricing on the other end of the country, or who makes the best blue widgets have any merit on Harvard's site?

And the fact it has been stated that it appears that the content is likely posted without knowledge, that also means without permission that someone got paid for outside of what their contracted duties are. This should be a huge red flag to every educational institute everywhere. The tech guy accepting paid articles and pocketing the money is directly taking money away from the institution. (even if it was ethical, it should go to the university, not the employee - my guess is it absolutely does not)

Beyond just the .edu problem, maybe they are starting to realize the scope of the issue. A website selling cars that also accepts gambling articles or those detailing dating websites could be considered under a similar parasite article policy. Why do tech related sites accept articles selling red widgets unless there are technical aspects to the products.

Why do wedding dress websites have articles promoting real estate in another country, or why do lawyers have articles that promote restaurants on another city?

IMO, it gets back to the age old policy of why any article or link contained in such should get any rank benefit when contained on sites completely off topic or outside of the realm of being closely related.

Rick
Universal4

**baldidiot** · 9 December 2023, 5:08 am

Originally Posted by universal4

IMO, it gets back to the age old policy of why any article or link contained in such should get any rank benefit when contained on sites completely off topic or outside of the realm of being closely related.

I personally think that the best SERPs that we've had in recent years (as a user) was when they put more emphasis on niche authority. You got great answers by people that actually knew what they were talking about (which sounds like what the want from the PRU and HCU). Whereas now it's just unhelpful trash.

Searching for anything too specific these days is pointless because all you get is a larger vaguely related topic that doesn't actually answer the question.

As for link relevancy... someone from a large link building agency once told me that for relevancy they (the agency) only look at the category level, not the site. So for them if the site is about shopping but there's a "casino" category then they consider it niche relevant. Which is obviously ridiculous.

**bpmee** · 9 December 2023, 7:15 am

Yes, I share the same feelings as to what should happen next. I replied to someone recently suggesting Google should employ a "relevant expertise" test, like you said above.

https://www.dietistaktuellt.com/forum/3-my-page...tml#post994579

Not sure why Google would rank a Roulette Guide from a motor vehicle repair authority site in the first place (exaggerated but true).

I was asking what Google thinks its next step is...did Schwartz advise on that? Their cryptic, noncommittal responses, are almost meaningless most of the time. Most importantly, how to avoid false positives on our own sites!

**wonderpunter** · 12 December 2023, 3:56 am

The thing is certain sites are untoucahble, outlook india, miami herald, times union, etc etc. They cannot interfere in those companies making hundreds of millions. We all know that the bigges sites go against everything google says you shoudl not do but get away with it and I dont see anythign changing soon

**baldidiot** · 12 December 2023, 4:23 am

Originally Posted by wonderpunter

The thing is certain sites are untoucahble, outlook india, miami herald, times union, etc etc. They cannot interfere in those companies making hundreds of millions. We all know that the bigges sites go against everything google says you shoudl not do but get away with it and I dont see anythign changing soon

They've not done it in a while, but google didn't used to be shy in dishing out specific manual penalties to big name sites:

Overstock - https://www.reuters.com/article/over...F82CT20110408/
JC Penney - https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ga...ry?id=12911723
Ebay - https://www.seroundtable.com/google-...sts-18868.html
Interflora - https://searchengineland.com/google-...nalized-149308

They've also previously targeted big news sites for selling links:

Forbes - https://www.seroundtable.com/forbes-...lty-12967.html
Various Newspapers (albiet a PR penalty) - https://searchengineland.com/google-...g-links-149333

I think the washington post got hit around the same time as well.

I'm not saying that they will fix it, just that the argument that they won't target big name sites isn't true (or at least, it wasn't). A lot of those penalties were manual rather than algorithmic, so they specifically went after the sites.

**universal4** · 12 December 2023, 4:42 pm

Thanks baldidiot, you made a good point about niche authority, was kinda the thought I was going for and I think many of us agree it would be helpful if google got back to that a bit more.

Odd you bring up those penalties as I had forgotten a few of those cases.

Clearly they saw it as an issue previously and now that it is hugely a bigger problem then previously, are we living in a dream world of we think they should in fact place a bit more focus in that again?

Why stop at the newspaper or other news aggregators? In addition to the aggregators, Universities just seem like one of the most logical targets where they can study what is happening and how bad it has been skewing results.

Rick
Universal4

**Niko** · 15 December 2023, 4:20 am

We live in era of Parasite SEOs obviously. Harvard is not the only case

**wonderpunter** · 17 December 2023, 7:00 am

Originally Posted by baldidiot

They've not done it in a while, but google didn't used to be shy in dishing out specific manual penalties to big name sites:

The problem is everyone is on it. it has been surprising to see how many big million bllion dollar corps are not afraid to risk it all, its the same repated ai layout and text all over no real expertise., i see catena media have joined up with Oregon live to get on the gravy train. i rememebr years ago trying to change a sports site into casino and the algo would'nt allow it. Now any site can rank for anything once you have authority status

**digioutsourcing** · 18 February 2024, 8:11 am

Surely they will clamp down on parasite posts!? Google is very aware of what's happening, its just how do they deal with it.

Thread: Google Responds to Parasite Article on Harvard Webstie

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Google Responds to Parasite Article on Harvard Webstie

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to econfox For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to universal4 For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to baldidiot For This Useful Post:

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions