Are parasites safe to use for a whitehat site?

[Sutra]

There's some parasites in my niche that are ranking well (some in spots 1-3 for competitive keywords). I'm wondering if I should use them too. However, I'm concerned about being hit with some penalty down the line. My site is whitehat and a strong amount of authority, so I don't want to fuck myself over.

I was thinking of just creating a relevant article on the parasite then linking it to my money page. Are parasites safe to use for a whitehat site?

 

[Calamari]

I was thinking of just creating a relevant article on the parasite then linking it to my money page. Are parasites safe to use for a whitehat site?

For what you just described, yes. Reverse engineer the competitors and "one up" them ftw!

 

[Philip J. Fry]

I wouldn't do it. Read On War by Carl Von Clausewitz.

If your competitor(s) are using Parasites, the last thing you should do is use a parasite. What it'll do is this: if your parasites out-rank them, they'll just get stronger parasites. You'll then have to resort to stronger parasites in return. In the end, all it does is cause you two of you (or three or whatever) to build parasites all day and share the top positions temporary.

If I were you, I'd just build a better site and get links that a parasite would never be able to get. In, lets say, 2 years, you can have a few magnitudes more links then them and they'll never be able to compete with you -- they'll be history.

The desired end state for any business is not to be #1 in the search engine, its to have a monopoly (or as near as possible) in the market. Once you're there, you'll have a lot more cash flow to counter small parasites. Like, lets say a Pinterest parasite has 200 backlinks -- you'd be able to just buy 200 PBNs to your own landing page and have your PBN Specialist make them. Parasite countered and it'll just cost you $X,XXX to $XXX + probably a week of staff time.

 

[blackwar85]

I wouldn't do it. Read On War by Carl Von Clausewitz.

If your competitor(s) are using Parasites, the last thing you should do is use a parasite. What it'll do is this: if your parasites out-rank them, they'll just get stronger parasites. You'll then have to resort to stronger parasites in return. In the end, all it does is cause you two of you (or three or whatever) to build parasites all day and share the top positions temporary.

If I were you, I'd just build a better site and get links that a parasite would never be able to get. In, let's say, 2 years, you can have a few magnitudes more links then them and they'll never be able to compete with you -- they'll be history.

The desired end state for any business is not to be #1 in the search engine, its to have a monopoly (or as near as possible) in the market. Once you're there, you'll have a lot more cash flow to counter small parasites. Like, lets say a Pinterest parasite has 200 backlinks -- you'd be able to just buy 200 PBNs to your own landing page and have your PBN Specialist make them. Parasite countered and it'll just cost you $X,XXX to $XXX + probably a week of staff time.

Interesting take and very correct in theory. However, the thing with all these game theories and book wisdom is that they are not always applicable in practical world.

Here is an example:
Buying links - When I got started with editorials, buying links my criteria was that when competitor directly contacts the author that published my link ( posts ) he would not have access to the same services ( writer sells links only through specific channels ). Because what stops competitors just contacting the authors I got the link from and replicating it? Of course, no link provider could guarantee that to me so I went forward anyway and never had a competitor copying my links.

I'm not saying that Trankuility should go parasite route, but just that this type of in theory thinking that you both parties are going to build stronger parasites is often not right.

I have ranked in multiple niches where there were established websites ranking with PBN-s pulling in 10k/month. How I beat them when my budget was at that time their monthly earnings? Through PBN-s and content, meanwhile, top ranking competitors had shitty content, did not build any additional links. They had every advantage to replicate what I did and more because they had a steady cash flow, but they were lazy/focusing on others things.

I'm sure that this type of ideal theory thinking has more value in higher-value niches where stakes are higher, and competition is more competent.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

Interesting take and very correct in theory. However, the thing with all these game theories and book wisdom is that they are not always applicable in practical world.

Here is an example:
Buying links - When I got started with editorials, buying links my criteria was that when competitor directly contacts the author that published my link ( posts ) he would not have access to the same services ( writer sells links only through specific channels ). Because what stops competitors just contacting the authors I got the link from and replicating it? Of course, no link provider could guarantee that to me so I went forward anyway and never had a competitor copying my links.

I'm not saying that Trankuility should go parasite route, but just that this type of in theory thinking that you both parties are going to build stronger parasites is often not right.

I have ranked in multiple niches where there were established websites ranking with PBN-s pulling in 10k/month. How I beat them when my budget was at that time their monthly earnings? Through PBN-s and content, meanwhile, top ranking competitors had shitty content, did not build any additional links. They had every advantage to replicate what I did and more because they had a steady cash flow, but they were lazy/focusing on others things.

I'm sure that this type of ideal theory thinking has more value in higher-value niches where stakes are higher, and competition is more competent.

Yeah... the theory assumes that everyone in the niche is disciplined, educated, and professional. A good example would be couponing websites -- they usually have venture backing and a staff of SEOs, link builders, content marketers, etc. If there's a niche where the webmaster(s) are absent then, yeah, the theory wouldn't apply.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Yes, web 2.0's of all kinds, whether on your own subdomain or where it's user-generated content on a main domain... it's all safe. When you start spamming them to turn them into parasites, or barnacles as eliquid calls them, you leave the realm of white hat. They alone are fine but once you start treating them badly in combination with other bad things, they can get you in trouble. I've recently recovered a penalized site that was included in some Web 2.0 PBN as a co-citation.

As far as "do or don't"... that's a false dichotomy. The answer is usually "both" in these cases. Build a couple and move on. If they add one more you don't have to match and exceed it. But if Google wants to rank the page that brings them the best basket of fruit, are you going to leave out the banana just because your opponent has one and you fear that he'll add another banana and then you'll have to add two more? Just have a banana, one that's good enough. But by NOT having a banana in your fruit basket, you're not meeting the basic expectations of what a fruit basket should be. That nanner should be nestled in there with your oranges, grapes, pears, peaches, and apples. You do want to watch out for that one bad apple that'll spoil the bunch though.