May 5, 2024 Parasite SEO Prediction Thread

**casionmark** · 7 May 2024, 10:07 am

As far as I can tell the Telegraph and the Independent are the same model - 1000s of pages produced by Gambling.com / BettingExpert added to national newspaper domain with a 'in partnership with ...' printed at the top. So if one goes, surely the other should ... or will it be inconsistent?

And if those go, what about The Sun and Talksport? They produce their own content internally as far as I can tell, so maybe they pass the test.

**econfox** · 7 May 2024, 10:14 am

The manual actions have just begun. The algorithm update still needs to rollout.
More parasites will go down.
Enjoy today.

**baldidiot** · 7 May 2024, 11:07 am

Originally Posted by econfox

The manual actions have just begun. The algorithm update still needs to rollout.
More parasites will go down.
Enjoy today.

Yeah exactly, they said the manual actions "had started" - they aint done with them yet. And then we have the algo after that.

**bpmee** · 7 May 2024, 11:13 am

In the US, McClatchy media's websites partnered with multiple content producers, including Gambling dot com. They also posted cannabis and payday loan content.

Every article has the same note in the byline: "McClatchy’s Commerce Content team, which is independent from our newsroom, oversees this content."

Some also add an AI disclosure: "This article has involved AI in its creation and has been reviewed and edited by McClatchy’s Commerce Content team."

A simple quoted Google search for the first example shows some content still up and some 404s. Hope some of the obvious ones get creamed:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22M...his+content%22

Gambling added to the Miami Herald a few days ago. They think they're going to survive this one:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22M...tting+promo%22

**gm2891** · 7 May 2024, 2:29 pm

Cupon pages are getting smashed on big sites:

https://youtu.be/mQcJyCM2y90

I also don't see a few crypto casino parasite pages anymore.

Reddit right now rocks apparently.

**bpmee** · 7 May 2024, 4:17 pm

I think hitting coupons first (fairly low quality content to begin with) is a shot across the bow before other changes rollout.

Granted, coupon pages are apparently quite valuable.

**universal4** · 7 May 2024, 4:40 pm

This coupon thing is interesting. Are they hitting pages that happen to use the word "coupon" or is this targeted against pages that are nothing more then a "list" of coupons and their bonuses or discounts?

If the latter, could it lead to targeting and reducing value of pages that are nothing more then "bonuses" or "discounts" with very little other content. That could lead to targeting pages that are nothing more then "table" of promos.

Rick
Universal4

**bpmee** · 7 May 2024, 5:38 pm

Originally Posted by universal4

If the latter, could it lead to targeting and reducing value of pages that are nothing more then "bonuses" or "discounts" with very little other content. That could lead to targeting pages that are nothing more then "table" of promos.

Rick
Universal4

Seems more like coupon pages on domains that aren't primarily about coupons. Odd that they would hit newspapers as they've had coupon pages for ages, though not particularly as specialized as pure coupon sites.

Targeting bonus or promo lists would have far-reaching consequences, especially if those pages also contain respectable text content. Using comparison tables and summary lists is quite common in this industry as a call to action.

I'm not sure how else one could effectively expect to get clicks short of returning to banners or resorting to email harvesting. Expecting people to hunt for tiny blue text links wouldn't work even if they were strategically placed.

**econfox** · 7 May 2024, 6:46 pm

Still waiting for Techopedia to get slapped down

**baldidiot** · 8 May 2024, 4:28 am

Originally Posted by universal4

This coupon thing is interesting. Are they hitting pages that happen to use the word "coupon" or is this targeted against pages that are nothing more then a "list" of coupons and their bonuses or discounts?

Currently they're manual actions. So they're physically looking at the sites and saying "nah".

When the algorithmic portion kicks in, it sounds like it will be targeted at sections that have been tacked on. So a newspaper writes about news and they bang on a /coupons/ subfolder - this non-relevant add on is what they say they're going after, especially when it's not run by the parent site (ie: they've outsource it or sold it or used some kind of white label).

Originally Posted by bpmee

Seems more like coupon pages on domains that aren't primarily about coupons. Odd that they would hit newspapers as they've had coupon pages for ages, though not particularly as specialized as pure coupon sites.

That's the thing, they're not saying the newspapers can't have those sections for their users. They're just saying that they're not going to rank them in search. Which is fair enough.

So it's not really hitting newspapers (or, rather, the newspaper portion of the newspaper) they're just deciding against showing the "we did this solely to make money" bit.

Originally Posted by universal4

If the latter, could it lead to targeting and reducing value of pages that are nothing more then "bonuses" or "discounts" with very little other content. That could lead to targeting pages that are nothing more then "table" of promos.

Originally Posted by bpmee

Targeting bonus or promo lists would have far-reaching consequences, especially if those pages also contain respectable text content. Using comparison tables and summary lists is quite common in this industry as a call to action.

That's not what they're doing (or what they've said they're doing). They're targeting sections that have been added to high authority sites purely to make money. The issue is when someone has a high authority site about the news in New York, and then decides to show coupons for flower shops in Canada (or whatever).

Take the telegraph as an example. They're a newspaper, who have authority from writing about the news. They then rented out a subfolder to a completely different company (Better Collective) for the sole purpose of making money and their main editorial staff have nothing to do with the betting section.

The betting section of the telegraph doesn't help the original readership of the telegraph, and therefore isn't related to the authority that's making the betting section rank (or was).

Or to put it another way, there is a huge disconnect between the links that gave the site the authority and the writers of the content that gained those natural links, and the new affiliate section.

If you think about it logically, they were effectively using links from a local schools website to an article on a new roundabout to rank betting content written by someone completely different with no connection to that original editorial content.

And now google has decided that it is weird and it's time to go...

On the flip side, if you have a site about casino bonuses, that lists casino bonuses and all the links that provides the sites authority is to content related to casino bonuses (and related topics) then it's not an issue.

Then again, you never know with google

**casionmark** · 8 May 2024, 4:47 am

That's a good explanation and its logical.

If you follow that through then maybe even The Sun and Talksport might get taken down. Although they would argue that their betting sections aren't rented out, or 'powered by', and whilst its not the original purpose of the website, its something their readers are interested in and it's under the site's editorial control.

Is the ultimately goal here to say, newspapers can't get make affiliate revenues through organic search?

I guess we'll find out.

**gm2891** · 8 May 2024, 5:09 am

Here guys are talking that the Telegraph's betting section got hit as well, not only coupons:

https://youtu.be/xki1opFYd4Q

**baldidiot** · 8 May 2024, 5:12 am

Originally Posted by casionmark

Is the ultimately goal here to say, newspapers can't get make affiliate revenues through organic search?

The question is... should they be running affiliate content? Affiliate sites are biased, there's no way around that. Newspapers, in theory at least, shouldn't be biased.

Therefore there's a huge argument that newspapers and affiliate content don't really mix well.

**bpmee** · 8 May 2024, 9:19 am

Originally Posted by baldidiot

Or to put it another way, there is a huge disconnect between the links that gave the site the authority and the writers of the content that gained those natural links, and the new affiliate section.

If you think about it logically, they were effectively using links from a local schools website to an article on a new roundabout to rank betting content written by someone completely different with no connection to that original editorial content.

Excellent post @baldidiot.

A website should only rank for the content and inbound links to such content that make* it authoritative. Unrelated sections that "ride the coattails" of a domain's main purpose should be disregarded, especially sections created with the sole intent of making money.

* I used "make" instead of "made" because content and links are dynamic in nature. You could become authoritative for La Liga picks and then gain additional authority for building out similar pages for other football leagues. Then your site's authority would be - more generally - European football picks.

**bpmee** · 8 May 2024, 9:30 am

Originally Posted by baldidiot

The question is... should they be running affiliate content? Affiliate sites are biased, there's no way around that. Newspapers, in theory at least, shouldn't be biased.

Therefore there's a huge argument that newspapers and affiliate content don't really mix well.

Good point: newspapers and affiliate content do not mix well. In fact, a newspaper that hosts affiliate content should lose its disinterested or unbiased status. In essence, they were abusing the trust of their readers in addition to the authority and trust Google bestowed.

However, I do think there is a fine line here regarding newspaper advertising. It's bad when they use their authority to rank affiliate content. But I imagine it's still fine to say, monetize ordinary finance, news, or sports pieces with affiliate links or contextual ads. Conspiracy theorists might argue Google is trying to push newspapers towards Adsense of all things (if they're not using it already).

**bingoreviews** · 9 May 2024, 12:13 am

the Independent and City AM are the latest in UK betting to be hit

**casionmark** · 9 May 2024, 8:43 am

Originally Posted by bingoreviews

the Independent and City AM are the latest in UK betting to be hit

Yeah, I saw this.

Sun and Talksport still there. If they don't go, whats to stop independent / telegraph from rebuilding their content without reference to 'powered by ...'?

This from the Mirror remains:

hxxps://www.mirror .co.uk/partner-stories/slot-sites-available-uk-2024-31575899

Surely that should be going.

**baldidiot** · 9 May 2024, 9:13 am

Originally Posted by casionmark

Yeah, I saw this.

Sun and Talksport still there. If they don't go, whats to stop independent / telegraph from rebuilding their content without reference to 'powered by ...'?

This from the Mirror remains:

hxxps://www.mirror .co.uk/partner-stories/slot-sites-available-uk-2024-31575899

Surely that should be going.

Give them time, it's still rolling out. I think it's going to be a little slow going, especially for the manual actions as they're... well... doing it manually. There were two days between the telegraph and independent going down.

I can see that whole /partner-stories/ section in the mirror being ignored in the serps, they're clearly saying they're third party which is exactly what google is targeting.

Although maybe because they're identifying it, it will happen in the algorithmic portion rather than the manual.

**casionmark** · 14 May 2024, 12:41 pm

Looks like this might have gone too now:

hxxps://www.thesun .co.uk/betting/

Can only see 10 pages under site:hxxps://www.thesun .co.uk/betting/ now.

**bingoreviews** · 15 May 2024, 4:32 am

Originally Posted by casionmark

Looks like this might have gone too now:

hxxps://www.thesun .co.uk/betting/

Can only see 10 pages under site:hxxps://www.thesun .co.uk/betting/ now.

That's an interesting one as they didn't look like they were hosting anyone elses content but their own. That's further than I expected this to go

Thread: May 5, 2024 Parasite SEO Prediction Thread

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to baldidiot For This Useful Post:

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

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

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

Posting Permissions