FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Google and Static Ip's - Does Google Penalize Shared Ip's?






Does Google penalize sites for being hosted on shared IP's?
Yes. Definately - I have proof.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Possibly.
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
Likely - That is what I have read.
40%
 40%  [ 2 ]
Doubtful
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
No
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
No - I have proof (A shared site in Top 5 for a general term)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 5

kcarring
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?

Comments welcome.
Marston
Neutral 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.
manumiglani
Hello kcarring,

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.

Quote:
Google went through its' 2006 pagerank update, and the site was actually granted PR5

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.

Quote:
1. Google actually has determined it is a directory, and not a resource.
Google is really good at it. Google has this ability of differentiating between those. How often you see a directory or user's signature/homepage link in forum count as a google backlink ? But msn, is not able to diffrentiate correctly and lists the user's homepage/signature link as backlink.

Quote:
3. Google has penalized the site in some way.

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.

Quote:
4. Google does not like its' lack of content (2 pages).

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.
kcarring
Could you show me an example somewhere of this "nofollow" attribute you speak of?
kcarring
Found an interesting article (albeit a bit outdated)

Quote:
Google recently filed a US patent which reveals a great deal of how they rank your web site. Some of it you could never have guessed at...

How many years did you register your domain name for?
If it was only one then Google could hold that against you.

Why?

Because the majority of Spam websites only register a domain name for one year. A domain name registered for a longer period implies that the owner is more likely to be legitimate and serious about their web site.

This is just one of the unusual factors possibly considered by Google when indexing and ranking a website. Factors you could never even have guessed at in some cases.

How do I know this?

Google recently made public, March 31 2005, the contents of their filing of United States Patent Application 20050071741.

In which many of the search giant’s secret ranking criteria is revealed and it makes very interesting reading. You must read this if you are serious about ranking well in Google. The days of Spamming Google are drawing to a close. With this patent they reveal just how hard they're coming down on Spam sites. You Do Not want to get caught out.

Listed below you will find the hard facts, I recommend that you bookmark this page now. You will need to reference it each time you optimize a new site.

• Links.

It's common knowledge that Google relies heavily on inbound relevant links to rank a site. Now they explain exactly how it works.

As well as the number, quality and anchor text factors of a link. Google seems to also consider historical factors. Apparently the Google 'sandbox' or aging delay begins count down the minute links to a new site are discovered.



Then it goes on to say:

Quote:
There's still more to look out for:-

• Changes in keyword density is monitored and recorded as are changes to anchor text.

• The domain name owner’s address is considered, most likely to help in a local search result.

• The technical and admin contact details are checked for consistency. These are often falsified for Spam domains.

• Your hosts IP address. If you are on a shared server it's possible somebody else on that server is using dirty tactics or Spamming. If so, your site will suffer since you share the same IP.

The impression I get here is that Google has learned from the Spam 'attack' they suffered in early 2004 and they are determined to eradicate it from their listing results.


Read the full article here:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-10-2005-71368.asp
SoftStag
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.
Bondings
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.

Quote:
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.

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.
kcarring
Bondings...

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.
manumiglani
kcarring wrote:
Could you show me an example somewhere of this "nofollow" attribute you speak of?


Yeah sure,

All the signature links on this forum are linked with nofollow attribute.
kcarring
Quote:
Yeah sure,

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?
Or?[/quote]
manumiglani
kcarring wrote:
Quote:
Yeah sure,

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?
Or?


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.

There are many high ranked sites which use this technique for their internal links such as privacy policy, contact us etc. which does not require any pagerank basically. www.webworkshop.net is one of them.
littlegiant
manumiglani wrote:
All the signature links on this forum are linked with 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... (?)

(edit)

BTW, that was an excellent article, kcarring. Thanks for sharing.

(*running to my html editor to make some changes*)
SoftStag
littlegiant wrote:
manumiglani wrote:
All the signature links on this forum are linked with 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... (?)

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. Smile
manumiglani
SoftStag wrote:
littlegiant wrote:
manumiglani wrote:
All the signature links on this forum are linked with 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... (?)

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. Smile


Well you are right.... But I think the forum owner does not want to link with many sites hosted on the same server.
manumiglani
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/
Related topics
ip address
ip
Booting time
Computer won't route
How to host a site on my own computer
Google Removal
Where can I obtain static IP Address ?
Google detects invalid links in these ways!!
static ic ip
Tutorial on Anonymous Surfing
how to rank my website in SEO?
Does frihost support free static ip hosting??
I'm still a noobie at home networks, please help...
Shared IP
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Webmaster and Internet -> SEO and Search Engines

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.