IP adress question

Do any of you have any experience with sites linking to each other, which share the same ip address? I would like to interlink all my sites but I am worried that Google will not like this since they all share the same server. In theory two sites could share the same server but not have the same owners, therefore their links would be valid. Any thoughts on this? Thanks...

 

I've got some domains on the same server and IP interlinked but not massively and similar / same thematic for the last 4 years never been a problem all have PR5 or so.
M

 

Thanks Shawn & expat, I'm glad to hear this!

 

i've also done my fair share of inter-linking from the same server, and have never had a problem with it ...

However, keep in mind that google can't catch all the spammy pages out there, but humans can and will....think twice about spammy techniques of SEO such as doorways, cloaking etc, because someone can and will report you....if that happens it's game over.

 

Be very careful!!! If you have two domains seo'ed for same phrase, Google can pick one and put the other to 50+. Currently have two domains alternating one is 1st the other 80th and vice versa. Google Dance. Have several sites that Google has knocked to 100+ that used to be 1st for every page. If you want to give other sites PR and receive some back, better to use different ip's.

 

If Google is using something like Local Rank or Hilltop, the two technologies that will look at IP blocks, then I think links from the same IP block may be devalued. But I don't think they will hurt your site. They just won't do it as much good as a link from a different IP block.

Also remember that Google evaluates and recognizes all interior links. These not only come from the same IP address but also from the same domain.

In my opinion there is no eveidence that Google is in fact using Local Rank or Hilltop at the moment. So I say link away. Any links are better than none.

 

I am with compar on this, you can do it, It is not something to build your long term success on however, as Hiltop & LR have been tested, and will eventually come into play in some form of other.

As for spamming, and cloacking, the spiders certainly can detect a lot of cloaking, and when Google release their spider that can read java, a lot of low level cloakers and spammers are going to be found out. The top notch guys will be ok though, as if they are any good at cloaking, it is almost impossible to detect.

 

Hi Old Welsh Guy. Nice bumping into you again. You had better be careful Jill Whalen doesn't find out you're agreeing with me though. You don't want to get kicked out of her forum to

 

I've got some sites, 20 odd, that have been in the past all on the same server and not had a problem, however I am being a little cautious now and my sites are with the same company but on different servers [ I might even split them more in the future]

However the sameness between sites is definitely a problem and needs to bea addressed so that there is no "mirror" anywhere, and, I have rported this elsewhere on another thread the javascript redirects ARE already being read.

I have had one site blasted where I got lazy and just redirected across to the ski site using a js redirect. So that is a nono - and quite rightly so!

A small redirect within the site still remains OK eg where a constituent page of a frame is found by the search engine and you use js to force the frame to open with the page inside, as I have others like this

 

FoxyWeb, I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons for using JavaScript redirects (although there are always alternatives) and I don't believe search engines should be penalising this. Nonetheless, as they do, try putting the Javascript redirect in a separate file/directory and lock search engines out of it using the robots exclusion protocol.

 

Thanks not a bad idea and a good idea for publishing - but I really don't think I will need it as I am waiting for the update at the moment and then I am about to change the site in question radically and won't need to use redirects - I hope!

 

There are reports on this forum to the effect that that approach does not necessarily work. If I have this aright, the theory is that by the time the robot sees the page, the JavaScript has already been included, and so the robots.txt exclusion is ineffectual.

A way that, it seems, must surely work is to send a call, with the "true" link as a parameter, to a php script that is (as an "external" call) blocked off by robots.txt, and which script simply calls the passed URL.

A very simple toy that accomplishes that result is the free "Via" script at the SEO Toys, Tools, and Packages site.

 

LMAO I am allowed out now and Again Bob. You know me call a spade a spade, there is a lot of mis info out there, and sometimes I think it is good to have a 'me too' post to help any newbies make decisions on.

This is a great Forum, I should spend more time here, rather busy at the moment though, and sorry for the delay in replying, completely missed your post.

OWG

 

Hi Owlcroft.
I think you'll find an include remains a discreet request for a bot, and if the request is to a blocked URL (by way of a bot file) then that request never takes place. In simple terms, the page rendering logic is strictly human factor, while a bot file is a standards based reference to which GB strictly complies.

Inline JS is of course another matter.

Cheers

 

Do you think that value of having sites on different ips makes having multiple server locations worth it.

I have someone wiht arounf 40 sites on the same server, and originally I said that I thought "it would be best" to spread them out over differnet locations , to possible take advantage more of interlinking some of them

But since I purposed it I have meet with much resistance from his in house programmer

So I have been debating about the idea

 

If we ever get any real tangible evidence that Google is applying Local Rank or Hilltop, the two technologies that would identify and devalue links from the same IP block then we will certainly have to consider this.

I have suggested elsewhere that if Google does this we are going to have to develop some schemes for reciprocal hosting as well as reciprocal linking. I'll host your site and you host mine. Then we can each crosslink back to our main sites without fear of tripping some "same IP block" filter.

 

I think that's about it. IP addresses in their own right (ie clustering off the one IP address - much as any hosting co does nowadays) won't create a problem. BUT, if any additional factors come into play (such as high KW densities etc - or as is typical to farming, high link to content ratios) then G would certainly factor this.

I can name an experiment a friend and I conducted some time ago (before Hilltop and local were common knowledge) involving 30 satellite sites off the one IP. They were all backlinking (in the 1000's) to a core site, with a 30% crosslinking structure (ie 30% of the linkage was between the satellite sites).

The core site flew up the ranks in no time, but shortly after, the entire .tj TLD went offline (.tj nic was stomped by.. ?) - anyhow, it makes my point.

IP addresses in their own right are fine. If you want a hundred doms (or subdoms actually, as G treats them as seperate sites anyway) go ahead. Just don't expect too much room to move.

I personally prefer scope for change, so I prefer to use seperate IP's as practical. In fact, I sell hosting, which makes life somewhat easier

Oh, coincidentally, there are a number of marketing firms out there right now who have set up site farms (as in dedicated boxes) in order to deal with exactly this issue.

 

I try to keep at least a few of my domains with different hosting services. My purpose though has more to do with not "keeping all of my eggs in one basket".