Links from same IP

[nadlay]

Can anyone offer any advice on how links from different domains are treated if the domains are hosted on the same IP address?

I have about 20 domains, which all have the same IP. If one of the domains links to another of the domains, will this have the same value as a link from a domain on a different IP? (assuming all other factors being equal, eg PR, etc).

Additionally, if links on same IP are worth less, would links on related IP numbers also be valued less?

[schlottke]

Nobody knows *for sure* but I would suggest changing the IPs if possible, it can only help.

[digitalpoint]

I don't think there is a dampening effect. But if you are a big-time cross-linking abuser, could get penalized (regardless of your IPs).

[Nitin M]

Agreed - noone knows for sure.

There is no across the board rule in google that says links from same IP or same class C block are devalued or cause a penalty. There are too many examples of multiple sites on the same IP with heavy cross-linking that have high PR and strong SERP placement.

But, there is a theory out there that if a high percentage of overall links come from the same IP or even IPs on same class C block, then the links are devalued. Although I have no proof of this, I subscribe to this theory.

Personally, I have 5 different sets of class C IP's spread across 3 different servers and I am careful about high degrees of linking within the same class C.

I definitely have links between sites on same IP - just a very low degree of them relative to overall link count for any site.

[jarvi]

Now I realise this is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question, however, what do people class as heavy cross linking? For example, a site with say 500 pages with a link in the footer on each page to another site with the same IP.

Is this considered heavy cross linking?

[compar]

Nadlay,

Read these two papers. One is a paper called Hilltop, and the other is Google's Patent application for Local Rank:

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/%7Egeorgem/hilltop/

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,526,440&OS=6,526,440&RS=6,526,440

These are the two papers that discuss devaluing links from the same IP block. As has already been said, nobody knows whether these technologies have be implemented. My personal belief is that they have not.

[vlead]

I also strongly feel that they have yet not implemented the technology to devalue links from the same IP block. But I can't say about the next minute maybe they are evaluating this and might implement it...

[nadlay]

But, there is a theory out there that if a high percentage of overall links come from the same IP or even IPs on same class C block, then the links are devalued. Although I have no proof of this, I subscribe to this theory.



Sorry for so many questions, but I'm trying to learn this very quickly.

What is a Class C Block?

[compar]

Sorry for so many questions, but I'm trying to learn this very quickly.

What is a Class C Block?
A class "C" block is 256 IP addresses where the first 3 set of mumber are the same.

EG 100.125.150.001 to 100.125.150.225

The first three sets of number can be anything from 001 to 255 but they are consistent, or the same, within the block. That's what makes them a block.

Did you read the papers I suggested? This is pretty well explained in the Hilltop paper.

[nadlay]

Compar,

I hadn't ready the documents when I posted the previous message, as my wife was dragging me out to do some "weekend" things.

I've read them now, and understand the implications.

You say that you don't believe they've been implemented yet, but I suppose for someone like me who is just starting to develop my site, and start persuing links, and hopefully driving it up the SERPs, then it would be wise to consider these implications for my long-term game plan, otherwise I might go down the wrong track and lose out big-time, if, and when, Hilltop is implented.

The fact they Google have patented Hilltop, could be for either:-

1. They intend to implement it in their engine.
2. They wish to stop anyone else implementing it, and stealing a competitive advantage.

Thanks very much for providing the link. I'll bear in mind the implications as I develop my site.

And, thanks for confirming the definition of Class C blocks.

[nadlay]

A class "C" block is 256 IP addresses where the first 3 set of mumber are the same.

EG 100.125.150.001 to 100.125.150.225

The first three sets of number can be anything from 001 to 255 but they are consistent, or the same, within the block. That's what makes them a block.

Did you read the papers I suggested? This is pretty well explained in the Hilltop paper.

I have a reseller account, which has just one IP address, but I have several domains hosted on the account. I had considered upgrading the reseller account to one which provided 3 IPs, but, presumably, as the IPs are from the same hosting company, they will probably be in the same Class C block, and I wouldn't therefore gain any advantage from that.

[jarvi]

as the IPs are from the same hosting company, they will probably be in the same Class C block, and I wouldn't therefore gain any advantage from that.

That's why some people spread their sites among a range of hosts. They just get the simple/inexpensive packages across a number of hosts and that way they avoid the problem. Does make the administration side a bit more time consuming and depending on the number of sites it can be more expensive. It's important to check that you aren't signing up with a reseller of a host you already use though, as you may end up with the same class C block and higher costs.

[Nitin M]

If you go with a large hosting company such as lunar pages or valueweb, you just need to wait a week or so between your requests for new IP's and they will be on different class c's because they run through them very fast and they just dole them out sequentially.

This is probably easier to maintain and less expensive than multiple hosts.

When it comes to IP's and cross-linking I am admittedly overly paranoid. Most knowledgeable SEO'ers seem to agree there currently is nothing in google algos that are detecting/penalizing for this.

As FYI I have a lightning servers account i use for tests - all bogus, testing only domains reside there ... well maybe a couple of exemptions where a test turned into something real. ;)

Then I have 2 valueweb dedicated servers and really only need 1 for hosting. The other runs some spiders and publishing stuff that I want on a separate IP from all the sites.

[compar]

Even if they do implement Local Rank/Hilltop I don't think there is much to worry about. As I read these papers they seem to suggest to me that if your are linking to or have IBL from authority site they will garner extra relevance. I don't think they are saying they will penalize site for crosslinking off the same IP block. I just think they are suggesting they would not give these links the same relevance value.

I also think that you would have to be doing this to an excess --100s of crosslinks or more. It is entirely natural for an owner or webmaster to link to his multiple sites.

One of the reasons I don't think the technology has been implemented, or is not going to devalue natural linking, is that we link to every site we host from our company web site. These sites are all on 2 different IP blocks. So many of the links are to sites on the same block. These link are frequently the first ones to show up in Google's backlinks.

[digitalpoint]

In my opinion, excessive anything will be a problem. Excess cross-linking, excess anchor text targeting, excess H1 usage, etc.

Personally, I think there may be SEO "perfection" in imperfection. Search engines can pick up on over optimization or over usage of anything (and can take it into account for ranking). One can argue if they do or don't do it already, but even if they don't, why do things when you know it's *possible*?

[aspen]

We don't know if Google is doing this or not, but it is better to be safe than sorry. If you have a website with revenue of thousands of dollars a month or month and that website is dependent on links from other sites you own you may want to move them all to different IPs. You don't want Google making this change and leaving you out in the cold. IPs don't cost much, but losing your Google rankings for a month or two could cost a good deal.

The ranking changes after Florida probably cost me in total around $100,000, I'm only just now getting my rankings back.

[WilliamC]

David, It is indeed wise to make sure that your links are from different IP's. As far as I have seen, google has not added an automatic filter for IP range, however, if they ever have reason to look closer at your site and links, numerous domains on same IP would be a red flag.

[nadlay]

I am currently looking at ways to upgrade my reseller account so that I obtain multiple non-contiguous IPs.

[WilliamC]

It should not be difficult if you have a solid host. Most true hoists will have several class B or C's to play with, so giving you a few extra IP's will not be hard for them. Some small hosts will only have a half range from a class C and you may have trouble getting them from them.

[nadlay]

After considering all the discussions on links from the same IP, and seeing some of the threads about sites losing SERP ranking due to possible downgrading of links in the last week or so, and also taking into account that my main site needs to be considered a "UK" site, I decided to obtain a UK hosted reseller account in addition to my US hosted reseller account. The small monthly charge is worth it just for the peace of mind.

But, while I was ordering the new account I found the following in the Reseller FAQ of my new UK-based host :-

Can I have lots of IP addresses?
No. The regulations governing the use of IP addresses in Europe are very strict. They can only be provided when required for SSL certificates, name servers or other technical reasons.
Search engines know these rules and do not give lower rankings to sites on shared IP addresses.

So, what is different in Europe to the USA? Or is this just BS by the hosting company?

[WilliamC]

Icann controls IP allocation worldwide so it is just BS by that hosting company. They are probably a reseller themselves and dont have any other IP's

[digitalpoint]

It is definitely BS... Money talks. I just got off the phone with SBC, and noticed I can buy up to 2,000 static IP addresses for my single DSL line. :)

On an unrelated note, SBC doesn't offer 6Mbit DSL anymore, so I'm grandfathered in with it. Kind of sucks if I ever move... :)

[flawebworks]

After considering all the discussions on links from the same IP,

So, what is different in Europe to the USA? Or is this just BS by the hosting company?

This is happening in the US too. Supposedly; there is a shortage of ip addresses and hosting companies are moving to a shared ip addressing system - virtual hosting.

I worked for one hosting company whose upstream provider required all kinds of info before giving *one* ip. It depends on the company and the upstream provider.

In my opinion; but I cannot see Google or any other search engine being difficult about linking from the same ip. Joe user is being forced into this kind of situation. Alot of hosting companies are going to the shared ip; that is unless you're verio or one of the phone companies.

[flawebworks]

Here we go. I knew I had something about this floating around here:

http://www.arin.net/library/guidelines/ipv4.html

Under the IPv4 Allocations to ISPs section : "When an ISP submits a request for IP address space to be used for IP-based web hosting, it will supply (for informational purposes only) its technical justification for this practice. ARIN will analyze this data continuously, evaluating the need for future policy change."

There are no technical justifications for http web hosting. SSL and DNS are a couple examples of what they will accept.

[WilliamC]

arin will accept lists of domains being used by each IP. The problem is crap host syndrome. Get a real host.

[compar]

But, while I was ordering the new account I found the following in the Reseller FAQ of my new UK-based host :-
Quote:
Can I have lots of IP addresses?
No. The regulations governing the use of IP addresses in Europe are very strict. They can only be provided when required for SSL certificates, name servers or other technical reasons.
Search engines know these rules and do not give lower rankings to sites on shared IP addresses.
So, what is different in Europe to the USA? Or is this just BS by the hosting company?
I think you are all missing the point somewhat. It is true that Google will not devalue a site for being on a shared IP. There is no difference on that point on either side of the ocean.

But the debate, or discussion here, was about devaluing links from the same IP block. That quote from the UK ISP doesn't say anything about that.

[WilliamC]

Bob, someone else asked a question and several of us answered. Thats why the slight deviation in topic occured.


So, what is different in Europe to the USA? Or is this just BS by the hosting company?

[compar]

Bob, someone else asked a question and several of us answered. Thats why the slight deviation in topic occured.
Right, but I think he was taking from this statement, that links from the same IP would not be devalued. And I think you guys all missed that, and just jumped on the issue of hosting.

Sometime you have to try and look at what the writer means rather than what he says. Previous to this post he was on a head long panic, or investigation, about links from a single IP or block. There is little chance, if you look at his question in context, that he wasn't still talking about links.

So I repeat. I think you guys missed the point and answered the wrong question.

[Web Designer Leeds]

Agreed - noone knows for sure.

Personally, I have 5 different sets of class C IP's spread across 3 different servers and I am careful about high degrees of linking within the same class C.

I definitely have links between sites on same IP - just a very low degree of them relative to overall link count for any site.

Can google tell that an IP block is hosted on the same server?

[nadlay]

Bob was more correct than the rest of us, and cretainly steered me back on course for my original question.

The quote from the ISP made me think that I might be able to have several sites crosslinked in the UK.

But, Bob's reminder made me look at the quotation more closely, and I now realise that the ISP said that "the SE will not penalise SITES on a SHARED IP", but they did NOT say that "the SE will not penalise SITES linking from the SAME IP"

Well spotted BOB.

But also thanks to the others who replied.

[nadlay]

Oh, and Bob, I wouldn't say I'm in a headlong panic, but I'm at the very early stage of developing the site, and it just makes sound business sense to route out every possible advantage I can find in the early stages, before I go up some dead ends.

I've been trying very hard over the last few weeks to digest all the information on this site, guage where the SEs are headed in the coming months and years, and develop my web plan accordingly.

Before finding this site, I was just blindly throwing pages at the web. Now, thanks to everyone's contributions on this site, I have a better understanding of how to develop my internet prescence in a successful manner.

A big thanks to everyone on this forum.

[RickArcher]

This discussion is over a year old, but I just found it through a Google search. I hope you folks are still around.

Opinions, please, on the value of site-wide links. For example, http://travel.bc.ca/ includes links to other sites at the bottom of all it's pages (1-2 thousand of them) in the "BC Accommodation Partners" section. Some of these sites appear to be doing quite well for the key words used in the linking text. A few of them appear to have few links from sites other than this one, yet are still doing well. So it would appear that getting links from all the pages in a well-ranked site is a viable tactic. But is it frowned upon by Google, or soon to be?

A client of mine is considering doing this. They say this site charges $3,000/a year for these links, and they're wondering whether their money might be better spent building their own links from a variety of sites or having me do it.

[WilliamC]

to be honest, I am still seeing good results using sitewides. That said, I still am of the mindset that links from numerous sites on differing class C's are still the way to go for longevity.

[compar]

I offer sitewide links from a small collection of articles We call the InfoPool (http://infopool.compar.com). Three or four years ago sites purchasing sitewide links from these pages seemed to be doing well. Then Google started their series of unexplained updates. Sites that had ranked well for years drop totally off the face of the earth, others seemed to stay and the difference between them was virtually unexplainable.

At the same time Google's reporting of backlink changed. They originally seemed to report all backlinks from PR4 pages or higher, but now nobody understands the reporting criteria. What is clear is that the "link:" search does not give any kind of meaningful or factual listing of the backlinks pointing to a page. For a very long time Google only seemed to reporting about half of the sitewide links coming from my InfoPool. (see the daily results in the McDar thread for actual data on this)

The result of this was that several of the people who were buying sitewide links decided to stop paying and had their links removed from my InfoPool. To my knowledge there is no evidence that this improved their SERP placement.

In fact I have a site that is linked to from every page in my InfoPool. It had been very well placed in the SERP for a couple of years or more. And then last January it fell totally out of sight in Google -- not on top 200 SERP pages. However, I did nothing. Even if the sitewide links weren't helping at Google they still drove some traffic to the site. All of a sudden about two weeks ago the site jumped back into #1 , #2 and #7 place in the SERPs for relatively competitive keywords.

So I would guess the site wide links aren't hurting. Are they doing any good? I don't know, but I can tell you that shortly before my page resurfaced Google finally learned how to count and accurately report the number of pages and links in my InfoPool.

So has Google's backlink counting and reporting been broken all this time? Is it the broken count rather than the quality of the links or linking pages that caused sites to disappear? It seems entirely possible to me.

If anyone is looking for quality sitewide backlinks that are now accurately counted and reported by Google I suggest you let me know. For $100 per month I'll put your text link on 140 --current count and growing -- pages of good content.