1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Links from same IP

Discussion in 'Link Development' started by nadlay, Jun 19, 2004.

  1. WilliamC

    WilliamC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #21
    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
     
    WilliamC, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  2. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,333
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    Best Answers:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #22
    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... :)
     
    digitalpoint, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  3. flawebworks

    flawebworks Tech Services

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    36
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #23
    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, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  4. flawebworks

    flawebworks Tech Services

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    36
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #24
    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.
     
    flawebworks, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  5. WilliamC

    WilliamC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #25
    arin will accept lists of domains being used by each IP. The problem is crap host syndrome. Get a real host.
     
    WilliamC, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  6. compar

    compar Peon

    Messages:
    2,705
    Likes Received:
    169
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    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.
     
    compar, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  7. WilliamC

    WilliamC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #27
    Bob, someone else asked a question and several of us answered. Thats why the slight deviation in topic occured.


     
    WilliamC, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  8. compar

    compar Peon

    Messages:
    2,705
    Likes Received:
    169
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #28
    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.
     
    compar, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  9. Web Designer Leeds

    Web Designer Leeds Guest

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #29
    Can google tell that an IP block is hosted on the same server?
     
    Web Designer Leeds, Jun 30, 2004 IP
  10. nadlay

    nadlay Guest

    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    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, Jul 1, 2004 IP
  11. nadlay

    nadlay Guest

    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    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.
     
    nadlay, Jul 1, 2004 IP
  12. RickArcher

    RickArcher Peon

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    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.
     
    RickArcher, Aug 25, 2005 IP
  13. WilliamC

    WilliamC Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    252
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #33
    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.
     
    WilliamC, Aug 25, 2005 IP
  14. compar

    compar Peon

    Messages:
    2,705
    Likes Received:
    169
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    I offer sitewide links from a small collection of articles We call the InfoPool. 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.
     
    compar, Aug 25, 2005 IP
    William Martin likes this.