Is there any preference for the google about the normal websites and the free hosting websites? I mean in the case of listing in the top,giving the page rank...
Candj: Please allow me to add 'SUB-DOMAIN' as well. Looking forward to hear some expert advise. Thanks, Manish
Broadly speaking there's no difference - especially if the free site has its own domain or subdomain. If its a subdirectory within a parent domain, there could be some impact if the parent is known to host a lot of problem sites - but such a penalty is very rare. I've never seen it happen, and I only mention it because I've seen Google reps imply that it is possible. As a rule, the search engines seem very reluctant to apply such a reputation-based penalty across boundaries that would impact multiple webmasters.
What free hosting are you talking about? (geocities and similar ones?). If it's a free hosting from a thirdparty (where you can't exactly just register, you need to contact them). Then those are obviously just like paid host/domains but you might get an advantage with PR juice from the main domain
We are talking about free hosted blogs @ G uncle's blogspot.com. Did you see, yahoo simply hate the blogspot hosted blogs. (My personal exp only)
I have seen many sites that host on geocities which are ranked really well for a few good keywords. I think the general difference with a free hosted site and a paid hosted/domain site is that, if you have a good website, most people will opt to buy a domain/host for your website because they have good content and want a domain name that is easily remembered where visitors can return. Thus, most sites that are ranked well/ have good content and good amount of backlinks and PR are usually on paid hosting.
It depends a lot on the particular free host. For free hosts giving subdomains, for example, search on Google for the main part of the domain name (with and without .com, or the extension) and see what shows up. In some cases (where maybe the free host has spammy links on its own home page), many free hosted sites will even outrank the free host home page for its own name. In other cases (such as where hosted free sites have had bots leave blog spam for their site), the entire domain name is banned (both the free host and all hosted pages -- you don't want to use those hosts). If the free host deletes the sites leaving blogspam, Google does not seem to ban the domain name. The best is if the free host ranks first for its name, followed by its hosted free sites on subdomains (preferably not spammy sites, though that is rare). Many free hosts will also host TLDs (top-level domains, like .com), and may even use the same name servers for those as their paid hosting plans. For example, Byethost does, and it recently caused downtime for both free and paid hosted sites by them. As long as the free host is not banned or penalized, and does not add banners and such, I don't think this would be a SEO problem to use a free host to host your domain name.
No, they do not. There is no preference. Google ranks sites based on their quality - if a free hosting company's domain is seen as high-quality by Google, then any users with a subdomain at that domain will reap some benefits.
That is a myth. Do a reverse IP look-up on high-ranking sites, and you will see many are on shared hosting with hundreds of other sites (on the same IP). Most sites are on shared hosting.
Really??? I bought a new hosting with dedicated IP because i tought it would help my ranking!! I'm sorry to say, but I realy hope you're wrong, I would have spent so much money for nothing!!