Over the years I have done a lot of different SEO work, and have maintained a certain theory that I still wonder about, and question.
Does Google impose a certain penalization for a domain which is hosted by a server that shares hundreds of domains over a single, or a few IP's?
I tend to think this is true.
Is it important?
It can be yes. I've always maintained that any important site, with a budget, and goals, should have it's own static IP. I would never undergo a serious project, without a static IP.
As an experiment, I had a domain that was a "leftover". I decided to get it up and running, to do some SEO experimentation I wouldn't dare to risk with a serious project for a client... Here's how the experiment went:
The domain, is, http://www.kelowna-real-estate.com. Initially it was released in 2004, as a full blown Realtor website. By 2005, it was Top Ten across the board (Yahoo, MSN, Google). Slowly but surely backlinks were created, and it now has over 200 backlinks, maybe much more.
The site was actually down for quite some time, coming up 504 for most of the latter half of 2005. Somehow, miraculously it maintained its Google Pagerank of 4. I reposted pages under the domain in early 2006, and built a few new backlinks. At that time, I had it hosted by another free service, and it was coming up around #34 for the search "kelowna real estate", at Google. Results were higher at msn.com, and yahoo.com.
When I switched to being hosted at frihost.com, an interesting thing happened. Google went through its' 2006 pagerank update, and the site was actually granted PR5. However, it now, does not score even Top 100, in the search "kelowna real estate". At msn.com, the story is much different, it is #1. And has stayed number one for over 2 months now. At Yahoo.com, I believe it is #2, or so. Interestingly, it scores Top 5 at Google for "kelowna realtors directory". Not a term that people use, per say, but a term that is, in fact, more close to what the content of the site contains - it has no homes for sale - only links to other Realtors.
Being that I actually work indirectly for Google.com through a temp service, I have some knowledge of what Google ultimately would like to see their algorithm scoring. This does not mean I am privy to actual information on the algorithm, rather I help supply them with relevancy ratings and understand their criteria.
I am actually unsure why the site scores so lousy at Google, in comparison to the other SE's. I feel that it is probably one of a few possibilities:
1. Google actually has determined it is a directory, and not a resource.
2. Google does not like to rank frihost'ed sites Top 100.
3. Google has penalized the site in some way.
4. Google does not like its' lack of content (2 pages).
At this time, I tend to believe in #4. #3 may also be the case, as it has switched IP homes 4 times in its' life, and the site age may have been reset to 0, in addition to its' backlink count?
I don't see why having a static IP would change anything, nor have I read anything about it in the past.
Probably hogwash if you ask me.
Good work......... Nice experiment.........
Well I think that other websites hosted on the same server/ip have an effect on Google rankings. You don't want to be hosted on the same IP with spam sites.
There has been some changes in pagerank algorithm and role of pagerank algorithm after the bid daddy update. I think pagerank has somewhat growed from backlinks to orignal and good content and the value of pagrank has been lowered in search results. your comments ?
I have seen very surprising results after the 1st pagerank update of 2006. Many sites got a got a pagerank of 5-6 from 0. The main profit holders in the update were the website that had a pagerank of 0. They seems to have granting pagerank not only on the basis of backlinks however backlinks still holds a important part in pagerank value.
May be for having so many external links with less content on the site. May have interpreted as an adfarm.
Linking to other sites with nofollow attribute and increased content would be worth experimenting.
Well I personally do not think that the no. of pages on a site have any effect on the seo of the site. But, the no. of less pages reduce the anchor texts that point to the homepage or to the other pages of the site. However, I can be wrong as usual.
Keep the Good work UP.
Could you show me an example somewhere of this "nofollow" attribute you speak of?
Found an interesting article (albeit a bit outdated)
Then it goes on to say:
Read the full article here:
This is an interesting thread. Google is a rare beast and working out how it works is facinating.
I think if you are sharing an IP with a number of spam sites, then Google will probably not like this. Hopefully Frihost kills off such sites before it becomes a problem. Potentially this could be an issue.
Since the Big Daddy update, Google seems much better at identifying real content, I think this is probably what is causing you problems. As useful as directories are, Google prefers quality content.
kcarring, a shared ip shouldn't matter at all, just for being a shared ip. However if there are 'bad' websites on the same ip-address, you may get serious problems indeed. This shouldn't be the case here, I hope.
However, cross-linking to websites on the same ip-address or ip-range (C-class ip) is something google certainly doesn't like.
That update was a joke and I doubt it had anything to do with reality, it is crawling and rankings. It most likely just needed a few more iterations.
A long downtime of a website (months) can harm it a lot in the rankings. It can also be a penalty or sandbox effect. Or just a few important links being devalued because off-topic.
Also, your sector (real estate) is very competitive and encouters a lot of spamming and blackhat websites. So that might be the cause too.
Interesting comments! Thanks. I'm going to look more deeply into this cross-linking on the same Class C. My bet is that this could inadvertantly happen, and users of a "free host" may create this effect, not on purpose, but by crosslinking, just for the sake of linking up.
All the signature links on this forum are linked with nofollow attribute.
And I am assuming, you did that, coded that way, to stop your site from unnecessarily passing off PR?
Its just not let google think it as a linkfarm....... Also, If you want to link to banned etc. sites and don't wan't google to find that, link to many sites that are hosted hosted on one server/ip. It also increases keyword/hyperlink density. You can also use javascipt links instead of nofollow attribute.
They are? Dang. I didn't know that. Bummer. So essentially our signature links here are useless as far as SEO is concerned... (?)
BTW, that was an excellent article, kcarring. Thanks for sharing.
(*running to my html editor to make some changes*)
Yes, it would appear all links are like that on this forum. Pesonally, I think that's a shame, there are many new websites here that could all do with a little extra help to improve PR.
Interestingly the directory on this site also uses the nofollow attribute. A little uncharitable I think. I'm sure Bondings has his reasons though.
Well you are right.... But I think the forum owner does not want to link with many sites hosted on the same server.
Well hosting with shared IP is not a concern for Google.... Matt Cutts Points out in his recent Google/Seo movies..... http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-answers-on-google-video/