Private Blog Network - Won't G o o g l notice that all blogs come from one guy??? | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

11 years ago

Yes you are missing two things.

A) your hoster does not reveal your identity
B) Many people use whois privacy with their REGISTRAR and using it says nothing suspicious. In fact if you don't use it you will stand a very good chance of getting spam, junk mail and unsolicited calls from people trying to sell you services

There is therefore ZERO footprint because you use whois privacy. This is a total myth.

Originally Posted by seoed

another point: there are countries which dont allow to hide personal info.
so, in these countries you dont have a chance to conceal your name.

I am aware of no such rule regardless of TLD. Yes some tlds like .CA require certain residency and I believe .US you cannot use whois is privacy but I am not aware that if you use Godaddy or namecheap for a .com and you live in a particular country that you cannot buy whois privacy.

IF that is your contention you will need to provided proof of that. I haven't seen that stated anywhere.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814467].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I am aware of no such rule regardless of TLD. Yes some tlds like .CA require certain residency and I believe .US you cannot use whois is privacy but I am not aware that if you use Godaddy or namecheap for a .com and you live in a particular country that you cannot buy whois privacy.

I was talking to an Australian client and he was telling me that he couldn't get the same level of privacy for a .com.au that he could get for a .com. I can't remember what it revealed but it was enough information that two sites could be linked.

I'm not vouching for this information as I haven't verified it personally but my client preferred a .com vs a .com.au for this reason.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815190].message }}

PaulBaker

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

I was talking to an Australian client and he was telling me that he couldn't get the same level of privacy for a .com.au that he could get for a .com. I can't remember what it revealed but it was enough information that two sites could be linked.

I'm not vouching for this information as I haven't verified it personally but my client preferred a .com vs a .com.au for this reason.

That's right. You can't register .com.au as an individual, you need an ABN (Australian Business Number) which is basically a Tax Id for businesses.

Thanks

Signature

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: CLICK HERE

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815304].message }}

Mike Anthony 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

I'm not vouching for this information as I haven't verified it personally but my client preferred a .com vs a .com.au for this reason.

Its accurate as far as I know but again thats tld based. For the OP I can't see why he can't build a network without those or with a mix (especially since if he buys any from the most popular places to buy PR domains he isn't likely to get domains with whois privacy issues) Only thing with australia as a side not is that they are a pain in the neck finding enough good separate affordable hosting
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7816725].message }}

online only

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Yes you are missing two things.

A) your hoster does not reveal your identity
B) Many people use whois privacy with their REGISTRAR and using it says nothing suspicious. In fact if you don't use it you will stand a very good chance of getting spam, junk mail and unsolicited calls from people trying to sell you services

There is therefore ZERO footprint because you use whois privacy. This is a total myth.

I am aware of no such rule regardless of TLD. Yes some tlds like .CA require certain residency and I believe .US you cannot use whois is privacy but I am not aware that if you use Godaddy or namecheap for a .com and you live in a particular country that you cannot buy whois privacy.

IF that is your contention you will need to provided proof of that. I haven't seen that stated anywhere.

I have small private network of 20 + websites. 2 sites @ 1 host max... However, I don't use the private WHOIS. I just add fake names, addresses, numbers etc on GoDaddy... Is that a option as well? What do you think?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7816819].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by online only

I have small private network of 20 + websites. 2 sites @ 1 host max... However, I don't use the private WHOIS. I just add fake names, addresses, numbers etc on GoDaddy... Is that a option as well? What do you think?

for new domains too many registrars offer free whois for me to bother with that. Frankly I don't know why so many people use Godaddy. They gouge you on the whois privacy and renewals. Namecheap you get whois included most of the time. In terms of sleazy upsell tricks they are one of the worse companies to do business with. They literally design many of their pages t trick newbies into signing up for stuff unknowingly. Only sites I register there are from auctions.

Now to pay hundreds of dollars and put fake information on it and risk potentially losing it. Again I pass. ICANN (makes up rules for all registrars) forbids you from doing that under penalty of losing the domain. However I can't think of anyone who I have heard about having it enforced. So your call. I put whois on all my domains regardless of network or not. The one time I didn't I got calls and letters from all kinds of people offering to build me websites, do SEO. join their hosting etc. Spamville.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7816914].message }}

ronrule

11 years ago

Has anyone ever considered that Google uses toolbar or AdSense data to link site owners together?

If you're running Chrome and signed into Google, they know where you're going ... how hard would it be for them to link up how often you go to a site's /wp-admin/, for example, to establish your involvement with the management of sites that "seem" unrelated based on IP address, whois, etc.

Or, even simpler, your AdSense account. I see all of these people going through great lengths to make ad networks using different hosts, different whois, even different registrars, then put up AdSense code from the same account. Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818141].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

Has anyone ever considered that Google uses toolbar or AdSense data to link site owners together?

If you're running Chrome and signed into Google, they know where you're going ... how hard would it be for them to link up how often you go to a site's /wp-admin/, for example, to establish your involvement with the management of sites that "seem" unrelated based on IP address, whois, etc.

Or, even simpler, your AdSense account. I see all of these people going through great lengths to make ad networks using different hosts, different whois, even different registrars, then put up AdSense code from the same account. Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Two things. First, they are talking about a network of sites to build links off of, not to generate traffic for each individual site. So AdSense would not be on any of them.

Two, don't use Chrome. Or Gmail. Or any other Google property.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

SaaS SEO Consultant

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818197].message }}

Mike Anthony 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Two, don't use Chrome. Or Gmail. Or any other Google property.

I haven't been following that advice but will. I don't know if its my system but my worse performing browser now is Chrome anyway. Freezes up more and for longer than any other. I still do use gmail a bit.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818216].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Some countries require a different way to hide your whois info, like sites in the UK, unfortunately I forget the name of the company that takes care of it.

If you're scared of the same footprint cause of hidden whois info, and thus the same message, you can also chose to give up fake info using one of those generators, pretty common method at GoDaddy.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814513].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

Some countries require a different way to hide your whois info, like sites in the UK, unfortunately I forget the name of the company that takes care of it.

I have several sites in the UK and have never had to change anything with Godaddy or namecheap but they are all .coms or .nets. Mind you the difference is that I don't have a UK address. Are you saying that if you go to goaddy and put in a UK address that it triggers a different set of rules?

hm, interesting point, never thought about that. wouldnt you incur a penalty because of this?

Technically you can end up losing the domain by giving false information. as to whether that actually practically has happened is another thing

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814560].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I have several sites in the UK and have never had to change anything with Godaddy or namecheap but they are all .coms or .nets. Mind you the difference is that I don't have a UK address. Are you saying that if you go to goaddy and put in a UK address that it triggers a different set of rules?

Yeah for .co.uk LTD's a different approach is required. There is some English, probably non-profit company, where you have to register and request to add the whois privacy. Godaddy or any other registrar gives you the same kind of message as you get with the .US domains.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Technically you can end up losing the domain by giving false information. as to whether that actually practically has happened is another thing

Yeah most probably, I had an issue with adding a domain to Dotster.com hosting, as the names on record didn't match, I suppose. A quick chat with support solved it though. I heard many people false whois info to GoDaddy so I assume it's safe to do there. One of the reasons is that the privacy whois is pretty darn expensive at GoDaddy, unless you got a good coupon. Personally when I see privacy or renewals are too expensive I just transfer the domain to Namecheap.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814780].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

Yeah for .co.uk LTD's a different approach is required. There is some English, probably non-profit company, where you have to register and request to add the whois privacy. Godaddy or any other registrar gives you the same kind of message as you get with the .US domains..

Yeah I know there are tld differences but what the OP is talking about isn't something I have ever heard of. Its not where you live specific its the requirement for the tld. Buy a .com .net or .org from godaddy no matter where you live I think will result in being able to use whois privacy.

Since most domains for sale ar e one of those I see no real issue.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815037].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Yeah I know there are tld differences but what the OP is talking about isn't something I have ever heard of. Its not where you live specific its the requirement for the tld. Buy a .com .net or .org from godaddy no matter where you live I think will result in being able to use whois privacy.

Since most domains for sale ar e one of those I see no real issue.

.com .net .org works indeed, however it would also be nice to have some country based TLD's where you're links come from, as most of the links pointing to that TLD would probably also come from the same country. Although you can obvious use public sites for that like web2.0's / web directories / forums / etc.

Hard to find expired domains that used to host a German site for example and I do believe that such links would be more effective/relevant to the country.

I think I mentioned it earlier that I have some friends who run a dutch SEO company where I do all the link building for, and we just surround the dutch anchors by English content and all of the clients they bring in rank awesome after a few months of my service. Heck it seems to be even much more effective then ranking sites from the US or UK, and I ain't even talking about some local keywords but nation wide ones instead (sure not the most competitve ones but still). I was pretty impressed by the results. Quoting some guy 4-6 months and within 2 weeks he got all the rankings he wished for lol.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815072].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

.com .net .org works indeed, however it would also be nice to have some country based TLD's where you're links come from, as most of the links pointing to that TLD would probably also come from the same country. Although you can obvious use public sites for that like web2.0's / web directories / forums / etc.

You don't really need country based tlds though. IF you host a .com .net .org etc in the country then the Geo IP tells google the same thing . Personally I have found that to be more important than the tld.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7816705].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You don't really need country based tlds though. IF you host a .com .net .org etc in the country then the Geo IP tells google the same thing . Personally I have found that to be more important than the tld.

That's interesting. I've wondered about that for a while.

Thanks

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7817886].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You don't really need country based tlds though. IF you host a .com .net .org etc in the country then the Geo IP tells google the same thing . Personally I have found that to be more important than the tld.

Never heard of that either before and never tested it. Good idea though.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819635].message }}

seoed

11 years ago

Well, I cannot actually prove that but my hoster told me that using whois privacy is not
possible, however, I could be that only that hoster caused this problem.

but the whole point is this:

so, NOT using whois privacy is actually dangerous in terms of seo, right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

120% in 3 days

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814522].message }}

KingRoyal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seoed

Well, I cannot actually prove that but my hoster told me that using whois privacy is not
possible, however, I could be that only that hoster caused this problem.

but the whole point is this:

so, NOT using whois privacy is actually dangerous in terms of seo, right?

Move your domain to name cheap, they offer free Whois guard : )

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827348].message }}

seoed

11 years ago

you can also chose to give up fake info using one of those generators, pretty common method at GoDaddy.

hm, interesting point, never thought about that. wouldnt you incur a penalty because of this?

Thanks

Signature

120% in 3 days

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814527].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

BTW OP

You are thinking about it entirely wrong. Your hoster should have nothing to do with getting your domains. Buy your domains for a network from domain name registrars not through your host. They should have some links and juice or theres not that much benefit to them.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814580].message }}

ProSence

11 years ago

Anything can be kept private..

Well, your information is shared with hosting and domain, in hosting, your information is not displayed, while in domain name, who is tells your information, so you can buy privacy lock option, it doesn't cost much.

Thanks

Signature

three great FREE tools - www.sitebeak.com, www.GAtective.com and www.impersonal.me

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7814992].message }}

seoed

11 years ago

So you write english content and include Dutch keywords and it works.
I believe you because I experienced the same. The question is for how long will this last.
Don't you think all the updates have already put this matter into the equation?

Thanks

Signature

120% in 3 days

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815115].message }}

gearmonkey

11 years ago

You can also put domains in family names, my mom, sis and uncle all have their own domain each =)

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Guitar Website | My SEO Blog - Advertising spots available.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815243].message }}

dennis09 11 years ago

Originally Posted by gearmonkey

You can also put domains in family names, my mom, sis and uncle all have their own domain each =)

Even my dog has a few websites. If only I can get him to write the d@m content though...
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

There is no elevator to success, you have to take the stairs
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815305].message }}
nik0 Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by gearmonkey

You can also put domains in family names, my mom, sis and uncle all have their own domain each =)

For you it doesn't matter anyway, PR n/a sites remain PR n/a, no matter what privacy you put on it.

A former client of yours showed me the sites that she bought a link on. All sites with zero back links. Well done sir!

I bet your family is real proud of you, helping you scamming people at forums and Fiverr.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815436].message }}

mycongme

11 years ago

Yes and even i think that if you have many sites from same niche then its better to have a separate hosting or probably c class IP's for your domains.. That would be much helpful

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7815309].message }}

phobium

11 years ago

This sounds pretty Black Hat to me.... why would Google care about the blogs being run by the same entity as long as they all have OC?

Are you guys just talking about creating tons of spam blogs or something?

Never heard of Google factoring this into the SERPS, even if the sites are hosted on the same IP, much less the same registrar information.

Never heard that every blog should be hosted on its own clandestine host....sounds fishy to me.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818097].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by phobium

This sounds pretty Black Hat to me.... why would Google care about the blogs being run by the same entity as long as they all have OC?

Are you guys just talking about creating tons of spam blogs or something?

Never heard of Google factoring this into the SERPS, even if the sites are hosted on the same IP, much less the same registrar information.

Never heard that every blog should be hosted on its own clandestine host....sounds fishy to me.

Google doesn't. It's a practice that worked over a decade ago. The only people who do this "C Class" crap and spread sites out all over different IP addresses are those trying to fool the search engines into thinking they're legitimate sites. There's so much horrible advice among good advice in this forum it's not even funny.

I'll be waiting here to get flamed by the seo gurus, but the truth is the truth.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818124].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kingfish85

Google doesn't. It's a practice that worked over a decade ago. The only people who do this "C Class" crap and spread sites out all over different IP addresses .

You are like a one trick pony with that. Always going on with the same thing even when it has no bearing on anything. You are only the second person to mention Class C anything. besides you two, people are not talking about Class C IPs. Since you cannot read we are talking about whois privacy and occasionally about having sites on entirely different hosts within a geographic area not Class C Ips. If you wish you can wow us with the new SEO data that indicates being linked to from various servers and location doesn't help

You can consider that a flame if you are too thinned skin to deal with the truth but please don't even attempt to pretend the "guru" thing was not directed to me in part or in full.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818162].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You are like a one trick pony with that. Always going on with the same thing even when it has no bearing on anything. You are only the second person to mention Class C anything. besides you two people are not talking about Class C IPs Since you cannot read we are talking about whois privacy and occasionally about having sites on entirely different hosts within a geographic area not Class C Ips.

You can consider that a flame if you are too thinned skin to deal with the obvious correction.

Sorry, I meant "unique & diverse" IP addresses to mask the footprint. :rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818184].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kingfish85

Sorry, I meant "unique & diverse" IP addresses to mask the footprint. :rolleyes:

King come on lets not just fire crosses at each other again. No barbs or anything just facts not your preferences. Please show us the data that indicates if you put a hundred sites on one server and link to a site that you are going to get the same ranking as when a hundred different sites link to you (nothing to do with class C IPs. different servers on different hosts.)

The only way what you are saying is accurate is if Diversity of "votes" does not count for anything. It does so you can only go on about spam as if the only way a network can be run is if you put junk on it. There you are wrong again while swearing you know what you don't

P.S. Since you still cannot read - I put whois privacy on ALL my domains. Most people I know do the same unless they work for a legal entity as a separate owner and it is registered to that legal entity.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818235].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

King come on lets not just fire crosses at each other again. No barbs or anything just facts not your preferences. Please show us the data that indicates if you put a hundred sites on one server and link to a site that you are going to get the same ranking as when a hundred different sites link to you (nothing to do with class C IPs. different servers on different hosts.)

The only way what you are saying is accurate is if Diversity of "votes" does not count for anything. It does so you can only go on about spam as if the only way a network can be run is if you put junk on it. There you are wrong again while swearing you know what you don't

P.S. Since you still cannot read - I put whois privacy on ALL my domains. Most people I know do the same unless they work for a legal entity as a separate owner and it is registered to that legal entity.

How about you show some hard evidence & facts rather than pure speculation on something that worked over a decade ago & he said she said. Please, enlighten me on the point of a "blog network"... You know as well as I know that's it's bogus most of the time. Real marketing & professional "seo's" don't spend a quarter of the time some of the so called "seo gurus" here do pulling your hair out over what panda update or bear update or penguin whatever. Content is King, seo is pawn. End of story.

It's not 2001 anymore bro.

Also, instead of just calling me out on the class c deal, maybe you should have taken the whole context of my comment.

So here, I'll quote it again.

Google doesn't. It's a practice that worked over a decade ago. The only people who do this "C Class" crap and spread sites out all over different IP addresses are those trying to fool the search engines into thinking they're legitimate sites. There's so much horrible advice among good advice in this forum it's not even funny.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818976].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kingfish85

How about you show some hard evidence & facts rather than pure speculation on something that worked over a decade ago & he said she said. .

Well you were right about one thing (finally). Lots of nonsense on this forum and the post directly above this one is a prime example.

SO yes of course. Whenever you see a site ranking it has nothing to do with the number of high authority and Pr links coming into it from various locations. Its just a coincidence that they have them since um that hasn't worked in over a decade. Shucks BMR I guess was ten years ago. Who knew? Time flies.

IF you engaged the brain rather than your emotion you would realize you have no chance of convincing anyone here that Links from high Pr sites only worked ten years ago. A network is nothing more than an application of the FACT That they do work.

I guess its pure speculation on my part that the world is round - be my guess join the Flat Earth Society. It doesn't mean that until I convince you it is round that it really is flat. It just means you reject reality and are being silly and its so well established no one even has to bother going over the evident fact that it is round.

Its actually quite funny you think that SEO Professionals don't use them when they are widely used even by top companies. You just sthink they all have to be built like garbage and filled with garbage but thats just you not knowing any better and thinking the world is limited to what you think you know. I don't know anyone with a network being used just for their company that was hit by Panda or has been pulling their hair. Your arguments are all heat and smoke and no fire.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819105].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Well you were right about one thing (finally). Lots of nonsense on this forum and the post directly above this one is a prime example.

SO yes of course. Whenever you see a site ranking it has nothing to do with the number of high authority and Pr links coming into it from various locations. Its just a coincidence that they have them since um that hasn't worked in over a decade. Shucks BMR I guess was ten years ago. Who knew? Time flies.

IF you engaged the brain rather than your emotion you would realize you have no chance of convincing anyone here that Links from high Pr sites only worked ten years ago. A network is nothing more than an application of the FACT That they do.

I guess its pure speculation on your part that the world is round - be my guess join the Flat Earth Society. It doesn't mean that until I convince you it is round that it really is flat. It just means you reject reality and are being silly.

LOL, please....

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819117].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

BTW I am happy for you that SEO is pawn and content is all there is "end of story". Thats why you rank for all the keywords you are targeting on your hosting site.

Oh wait.....

I know......Its those darn SEO "gurus" on WF holding it back right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819156].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

BTW I am happy for you that SEO is pawn and content is all there is "end of story". Thats why you rank for all the keywords you are targeting on your hosting site.

Oh wait.....

I know......Its those darn SEO "gurus" on WF holding it back right?

Oh please. 5 million web hosts out there, why would I waste time on SEO? With the exception of the 1,000 or so customers from advertising here & other places, every bit of our 5K+ customers base has been word of mouth & company acquisitions. Our site is content, not keyword targeting.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819167].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kingfish85

Oh please. 5 million web hosts out there, why would I waste time on SEO? With the exception of the 1,000 or so customers from advertising here & other places, every bit of our 5K+ customers base has been word of mouth & company acquisitions. Our site is content, not keyword targeting.

Of course...what hosting company would ever want to rank for the keywords in their page title. They just put them there for fun....Thats one more thing you can't fool anyone about. You have a good night King you are not providing any evidence that multiple distinct High PR links do not work and I'm officially bored.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819214].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Of course...what hosting company would ever want to rank for the keywords in their page title. They just put them there for fun....Thats one more thing you can't fool anyone about. You have a good night King you are not providing any evidence that multiple distinct High PR links do not work and I'm officially bored.

Ditto that, you're not providing any evidence that they do work. Take care!

Thanks

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819221].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

King come on lets not just fire crosses at each other again. No barbs or anything just facts not your preferences. Please show us the data that indicates if you put a hundred sites on one server and link to a site that you are going to get the same ranking as when a hundred different sites link to you (nothing to do with class C IPs. different servers on different hosts.)

I just pointed 26 domains that are all hosted at Namecheap at the exact same IP to my money site. 10 days has past and the only kw that ranked isn't ranking anymore. I guess that says enough how important it is to have IP diversity.

Sure it's a pretty poor performed test where each site hosts an Ezinearticle and at the bottom an anchor txt link to my site (6 different anchors out of a total of 26 anchors, so 3-4 links per keyword) but still that shouldn't matter too much.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819668].message }}

Kingfish85

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seoed

So you claim that backlinks in general have nothing to do with better rankings?
And you say that top seo agencies never use backlinks but only content to rank client's sites?

No, that's NOT what I said. Re-read my posts. I said nothing about backlinks. In fact, I didn't say anything about high pr domains either. My point was that trying to fool the search engines by doing all this work, spreading sites out, changing all of the info etc etc is a thing of the past. Focus on content and not try to hide in the dark with changing the whois information etc. You think Google gives a f*ck if you own multiple sites? No, Google wants quality content.

In fact, they should enforce it more since half of the time half of the first page of Google is nothing but junk spam, affiliate driven sites anyway. I mean shit, half of them have more ads/affiliate links than relevant content.

Originally Posted by nik0

I just pointed 26 domains that are all hosted at Namecheap at the exact same IP to my money site. 10 days has past and the only kw that ranked isn't ranking anymore. I guess that says enough how important it is to have IP diversity.

Sure it's a pretty poor performed test where each site hosts an Ezinearticle and at the bottom an anchor txt link to my site (6 different anchors out of a total of 26 anchors, so 3-4 links per keyword) but still that shouldn't matter too much.

Well, how about you post these 26 sites here and lets see the quality of them. My bet is that it would have stopped ranking anyhow.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7820335].message }}

nik0 Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kingfish85

Well, how about you post these 26 sites here and lets see the quality of them. My bet is that it would have stopped ranking anyhow.

Waste of time to communicate with someone who isn't even able to read and understand at the same time.

Making a comment about the quality of the sites while I just said that they only have an ezinearticle hosted. What a dude.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7820473].message }}
- Mike Anthony 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by nik0
  
  Waste of time to communicate with someone who isn't even able to read and understand at the same time.
  .
  
  Total waste which is why I stopped responding to him directly. Its just Mumbo jumbo thinking. Now allegedly he is not denying that links and High Pr domains work but claiming that networks that have those links and high PR don't
  
  King isn't bone headed stupid I don't think mind you. Its just that he swore this was the old Class C IP debate and when he found out it wasn't to save face he just is making silly claims after silly claim.
  
  The other piece of foolishness is that he assumes all networks are like the ones he has seen. He has absolutely no idea of how sophisticated many are. DO searches in the UK job site niche and pull out SEO spyglass and go to work and you will see Jobsites of all kinds linking to other job sites by the same company and yeah on different servers in different locales.
  
  Another wickedly sophisticated network setup is used by some lawyers. Killer legal content that makes the site function as a real legal site but that link to lawyers who pay them. Even at the top level Companies get powerful links for sister sites that are followed from other well established sites they own which is again a network. Disney is a great example of this.
  
  Bottom line for those reading the drivel about it not working for the last ten years. Networks will ALWAYS work. The net in interNET refers to the the web being a network. When Google no longer ranks sites based on links we can talk but as long as they do basic level common sense indicates you would not want a hundred different sites linking to you from the same server and then showing the same name on the registrar for all of them.
  
  IF you need proof of why that is to be pointed out just for you then the problem is not with the premise its with your own thinking. King isn't lacking common sense. He has just argued himself into a corner with no way out because he wanted to resurrect the old Class C IP argument which this was never about. Most people with networks now have them on entirely different servers at various datacenters and even stretched out all over the world.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821246].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kingfish85

Google doesn't. It's a practice that worked over a decade ago. The only people who do this "C Class" crap and spread sites out all over different IP addresses are those trying to fool the search engines into thinking they're legitimate sites. There's so much horrible advice among good advice in this forum it's not even funny

Yes that's why I'm avoiding C-class SEO hosting smart ass.

Obvious it will leave a huge footprint when you get 20 links from 20 domains that are all at the same IP. When they are spread out on dozens of natural hostings it's much much harder for Google to detect that it belongs to one network.

That's why people always do it in combination with different themes, different type of sites and what not. One of the reasons why some of my sites are actually web directories, others are bookmark sites, again others are review sites, and even more are niche relevant guest post sites. All in a total different style so it would be impossible for Google to detect that it all comes from one network. BMR already showed us how NOT to do it, can only learn from that.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819655].message }}

Mike Anthony 11 years ago

Originally Posted by phobium

Are you guys just talking about creating tons of spam blogs or something?

Some do some don't. Need be nothing to do with spam blogs.

Never heard of Google factoring this into the SERPS, even if the sites are hosted on the same IP

If you have never heard of IP diversity in SEO then you have not heard much
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7818142].message }}

paulgl

11 years ago

Originally Posted by phobium

... why would Google care about the blogs being run by the same entity as long as they all have OC?

Are you guys just talking about creating tons of spam blogs or something?

Never heard of Google factoring this into the SERPS, even if the sites are hosted on the same IP, much less the same registrar information.

I always say, what do the big boys do? Well, they interlink and use the same IP.
And google could give a rip.

I assume OP is talking about some link scheme which is a totally different
matter. I presume people want to keep their link rings a secret, so it
looks "natural." I actually have never believed such nonsense, as keeping
things private. All that seems to point to, is that one is doing things a little
off and one wants to fly under the radar. Me, I choose to not do
things that are a little off. I have plenty of blogspot blogs, all under one
blogpsot account. No problems. All interlinked.

Ditto my domains.

My private network is only for me. Maybe that makes a difference in
people's minds.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821273].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

I always say, what do the big boys do? Well, they interlink and use the same IP.

Paul that is a lot of Hueey and obvious hueeey at that. the big boys run multiple high traffic sites and DO NOT all run them on the same server and IP. Thats not even technically feasible

I actually have never believed such nonsense, as keeping
things private. All that seems to point to, is that one is doing things a little
off and one wants to fly under the radar. l

I read this crap a lot on this board but crap it is. It assumes that everyone does business by "branding themselves" rather than their company. Not wanting to put your name , phone number and Address out there so that anyone can scrape your data from a whois site is not nonsense. I put whois privacy on all my domains network and money . When I haven't then I get a deluge of junk mail and even phone calls. So as a blanket statement its a total fail. A great many parents with not so common surnames also like to have privacy so if their childrens names ever appear on the net their locations are not easy to track. Think thats nonsense too Paul?

Now as regards to networks sure there is some of not wanting to be identified but as I recall don't you in fact sell links? DO you want that identified? I see big companies on different servers with different contacts and even addresses for related sites. SO WHois privacy levels the playing field. At any rate if you sell links you can't really say you are flying over the radar unless you have a very magical standard for yourself that differs for others.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821373].message }}

dennis09

11 years ago

Kingfish how's the air on your planet?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

There is no elevator to success, you have to take the stairs

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819224].message }}

Kingfish85 11 years ago

Originally Posted by dennis09

Kingfish how's the air on your planet?

Pretty good. Be sure to read each of my comments to see where this went.
- Thanks
Signature

|~| VeeroTech Hosting - sales @ veerotech.net
|~| High Performance CloudLinux & LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting
|~| cPanel & WHM - Softaculous - Website Builder - R1Soft - SpamExperts
|~| Visit us @veerotech Facebook - Twitter - LinkedIn
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819230].message }}

seoed

11 years ago

Ditto that, you're not providing any evidence that they do work

So you claim that backlinks in general have nothing to do with better rankings?
And you say that top seo agencies never use backlinks but only content to rank client's sites?

Thanks

Signature

120% in 3 days

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7819457].message }}

impulse

11 years ago

All sites have outbound links. As long as there aren't any painfully obvious footprints, the backlinks can be made to look like any other site's backlinks.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821261].message }}

Paul Gram

11 years ago

If you have a small 10-20 site private blog network, Google has MUCH bigger fish to fry and you'll probably never even get on their radar, unless you open your network up, which is never a good idea anyway.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Click Here For My Exclusive WSO
Kindle Self Publishing Supersite - Kindle Templates, Book Covers & Trailers, Marketing Tips, & More

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821312].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Gram

If you have a small 10-20 site private blog network, Google has MUCH bigger fish to fry and you'll probably never even get on their radar, unless you open your network up, which is never a good idea anyway.

Common misconception. Google doesn't have to care. It just takes your competitors to care and should you outrank them yeah they will care. They then can direct Google to a point where Google will care.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821386].message }}

Paul Gram

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Common misconception. Google doesn't have to care. It just takes your competitors to care and should you outrank them yeah they will care. They then can direct Google to a point where Google will care.

While that is always possible, competitors report tens of thousands of things like this every single day. Google is going to focus on the big stuff, they don't have the manpower to effectively deal with some guy's network of 10 private blogs.

Doesn't mean that it's impossible though, so it's always a good idea for people to be smart about it for sure.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Click Here For My Exclusive WSO
Kindle Self Publishing Supersite - Kindle Templates, Book Covers & Trailers, Marketing Tips, & More

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7821807].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Gram

While that is always possible, competitors report tens of thousands of things like this every single day. Google is going to focus on the big stuff, they don't have the manpower to effectively deal with some guy's network of 10 private blogs.
.

Paul all I can say is if you want to run your business hoping that a link spam report does not get acted upon be my guest. I and the people I train on this would much rather just put on whois privacy and set the sites up properly so they have less to report to begin with. Building a network of a bunch of PR n/a and PR 0 sites is not what networks are about anyway and if you are going to invest in building up or buying PR3s and up and skimp on setting them up wisely it makes little financial sense.

There have been hundreds of thousands of unnatural link reports sent out . Google does not have to deal with each report they only have to deal with the ones the automated system doesn't and neither you nor I know how many they do. A professional SEO is not going to forget about it if you outrank them and Google doesn't act on a report they file. They will keep filing it.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7822020].message }}

Paul Gram

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Paul all I can say is if you want to run your business hoping that a link spam report does not get acted upon be my guest. I and the people I train on this would much rather just put on whois privacy and set the sites up properly so they have less to report to begin with. Building a network of a bunch of PR n/a and PR 0 sites is not what networks are about anyway and if you are going to invest in building up or buying PR3s and up and skimp on setting them up wisely it makes little financial sense.

There have been hundreds of thousands of unnatural link reports sent out . Google does not have to deal with each report they only have to deal with the ones the automated system doesn't and neither you nor I know how many they do. A professional SEO is not going to forget about it if you outrank them and Google doesn't act on a report they file. They will keep filing it.

I always recommend having privacy and setting the site up correctly. You'd be crazy not too...but Google still has much bigger fish to fry than someone's little 10 site private blog network. Doesn't mean you still shouldn't be smart with how you set them up.

Thanks

Signature

Click Here For My Exclusive WSO
Kindle Self Publishing Supersite - Kindle Templates, Book Covers & Trailers, Marketing Tips, & More

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7823016].message }}

Marc_L 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Paul all I can say is if you want to run your business hoping that a link spam report does not get acted upon be my guest.

Goodness Michael. He didn't say anything of the sort. What in your personality causes you to need to misrepresent what people say?
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7823252].message }}
- Mike Anthony 11 years ago
  
  Marc Grow up... You keep trying in multiple threads to run down things I say and create an argument. What in your personality causes you to do that? I get that most everything I and others told you about your service of .infos came to pass but its pointless to try and run down what I say in multiple threads because we were proven right. Google is the one that tanked your service. YOU claim to have rebuilt it and moved on so do so.
  
  meanwhile
  
  Did I flat out say he wanted to or do you not know the meaning of the word "IF". I don't know what anyone wants but if they object to whats in this thread by saying that Google won't care then yeah I can Say well "IF" you want to do that then its your call. How is an "IF" a misrepresentation. DId you pass English?
  
  For once make an intelligent point or at least take a reading class so you can ask the teacher the meaning of the word "if" - to borrow your word "goodness" - get over it. Yes in the past many times we debated on how your way of building a network sucked. Theres now no doubt it did now but thats an old argument - move on - Just about a day ago you tried the same thing trying to stir up false accusations against Nest without even looking at his link.
  
  P.S. It is funny having you claim others misrepresent though. I give you big comedy props on that.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7823306].message }}

webby0031

11 years ago

Summary of whats be said

"A small private blog of between 10 -20 on a few hosts will never be picked up by google "they have bigger fish to fry" "

There is no evidence that hosting 20 PBN sites on one host has been penalized by google YET ?

Its probably a good idea to spread your PBN over multiple hosts to avoid the potential risk but its up to you!

Always use whois because its free.

Creating high PR backlinks from your PBN to your money site does increase keyword ranking.

My idea's

A PBN that is powering a website that is ranking 1st position for a competitive keyword will ultimately have a manual review. If the review picks up links coming the same host its going to be obvious.

I agree that they are "after bigger fish" but a big fish can also be a site that ranking no1 for a very competitive keyword using PBN PR links.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7826796].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by webby0031

A PBN that is powering a website that is ranking 1st position for a competitive keyword will ultimately have a manual review. If the review picks up links coming the same host its going to be obvious.

I do separate ips (ie. hosts) for each site in the network but even then you don't want all of your links coming from only your network sites. You may as well set up a neon sign announcing where your network is.

Thanks

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827014].message }}

FakeItTilYouMakeIt

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Gram

If you have a small 10-20 site private blog network, Google has MUCH bigger fish to fry and you'll probably never even get on their radar, unless you open your network up, which is never a good idea anyway.

I think it's about tone.

That right there to a newbie sounds like there is virtually no chance of detection. There was a tone of authority or insider knowledge. And considering the very high stakes of multiple site penalties I think it's important to stress caution here. JMO

At any rate, looks like everyone is on the same page now at least

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827574].message }}

seoed

11 years ago

Ok, a lot of things have been discussed here. So as a conclusion we can say that using whois privacy is recommended.
But what about putting up contact details on the blogs?
If we hide information about who those blogs belong to and if we do this on all of our blogs wouldn't that rise any flags?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

120% in 3 days

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7822917].message }}

dennis09 11 years ago

Originally Posted by seoed

If we hide information about who those blogs belong to and if we do this on all of our blogs wouldn't that rise any flags?

Why would it? WhoIs privacy is pretty common. Would you look suspicious if you drove a 2 door car?

And Mike I couldn't have said it better. Hell a lot of places even offer it free of charge. I can't understand why any serious blog network owner would neglect it, especially if you're offering services to clients (or even personal use for that matter). Seems like something like this would be common sense, but I guess not.
- Thanks
Signature

There is no elevator to success, you have to take the stairs
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7822945].message }}

Campbell24

11 years ago

Google has a lot of bigger problems than tiny personal blog networks and honestly it's hard to get caught still even if you're an idiot with it.

Stop worrying about this and being paranoid and just make it, use it, rank on first page and forget about it.

Thanks

Signature

FREE SEO CONSULTATION/ADVICE (from a 7-figure earner)

I will answer your SEO questions 100% for free.

Just ask me whatever you want!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7823204].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

I'm not following you around looking for holes in everything you write. It just so happens that I've recently agreed with some of the stuff that you wrote.

The fact of the matter is Paul didn't suggest that he would just leave it up to chance that his network wouldn't get discovered and do no due diligence to protect it. What he said was perfectly sensible and intuitive. Google isn't going to waste its time going after small networks that are truly private. He wasn't suggesting anything other than that.

For once make an intelligent point or at least take a reading class so you can ask the teacher the meaning of the word "if" - to borrow your word "goodness" - get over it. Yes in the past many times we debated on how your way of building a network sucked.

Yeah and you used to sell f***ing profile links. We all learn and we move on to what works and my business is doing just fine btw.

Just about a day ago you tried the same thing trying to stir up false accusations against Nest without even looking at his link.

By the time you opened your big fat mouth I had noticed that his link lead to a default wp install and said I was wrong. And by "stirring up" things I wrote that his post "looked a little self promotional?" (or something to that effect).

All that as it is, you still overstated the worst possible interpretation of what Paul was saying and went on a rant about what you teach your "students".

I'd like people to note that it's you who keep bringing up the past. My comments, initially, were directed to what you wrote in this thread and in this thread alone. I won't bring up the fact that you used to sell profile links if you stop bringing up whatever you think I used to sell. Deal?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7824076].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Much of the time I write for newbies. Its your opinion that what Paul wrote was sensible and intuitive. In my opinion its not. I look at it from a newbie's perspective. Theres a likely takeaway when somebody says "hey Google isn't going to bother with you" and that is they will say - "Hey then I might try it". So I don't think that at all serves people learning in this thread well at all. Buy the freaking a lot of the time free whois privacy and forget about the idea that Google will probably leave you alone. Paul says he does so great but the observation that Google won't bother you doesn't encourage the newbies to. Frankly its mind boggling that I have to point out something so common sense to either you or Paul.

So I said to Paul "IF" that is the case then....and what others would do. You have no point as you seldom do. This is a forum and I can state my opinion but I won't allow to start up your lying again. At no time did I misrepresent anything. Do I think that Paul stating that "hey Google is not going to bother you (like you or He knows)" is a good comment for a newbie to take to heart? No I don't. So you don't like that. Maybe Paul doesn't like it but only in a twisted mind is that misrepresentation. Question is though-

Do you have anything of substance to offer in this thread?

There is no past being brought up. Its very much PRESENT as the reason you are sniping at more that one member that did not agree with your kind of SEO You can pretend as you like but its obvious from you following me and others around in multiple threads that you have issues with several regulars for calling you out on it. As for what I sold many years ago. I sold it when it both worked and it didn't hurt anyone's sites. You were told it would and didn't give a lick. I have no issue with you bringing up what I stopped selling 3+ years ago. The whole reason you know is because I TOLD this board in multiple other threads so its amusing to hear you claim you will stop bringing it up as if its something I am hiding.

Now if you are done at your attempt at modding can you add something of value and on the subject of the thread? You might not be familiar with the concept since you mostly dealt with WSOs but you can't censor what others write in this part of the board. Its a brave new world.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7825182].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Its a brave new world.

How about that other sig that you had a couple of weeks ago, about a new way of white hat link building.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7825364].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

How about that other sig that you had a couple of weeks ago, about a new way of white hat link building.

Oh its coming nik...its coming....Why? You afraid bro?

Not that You shouldn't be concerned. Just imagine what would happen if people REALLY had a system where great content almost guaranteed them links?

Who would need link sellers?
Who would need blog networks?

Only people who can't write, produce or buy great content. Its like good content would have its own voice.

P.S. Am I just so freaking awesome even in threads that have nothing to do with me everybody wants to know what I am doing? I am beginning to think when people misunderstand what the Quan of Seo means they might be right.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7825455].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Oh its coming nik...its coming....Why? You afraid bro?

Not that You shouldn't be concerned. Just imagine what would happen if people REALLY had a system where great content almost guaranteed them links?

Who would need link sellers?
Who would need blog networks?

Only people who can't write, produce or buy great content. Its like good content would have its own voice.

P.S. Am I just so freaking awesome even in threads that have nothing to do with me everybody wants to know what I am doing? I am beginning to think when people misunderstand what the Quan of Seo means they might be right.

It's just that I love reverse engineering

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7826150].message }}

Mike Anthony 11 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

It's just that I love reverse engineering

Sorry dude. You can't reverse engineer White hat links pushing buttons and using VAs. You are out of luck. Not to worry though - it will hardly be for most people at WF that use spinning and $5 articles as "good content". Your base is probably safe.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7826206].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

There is no past being brought up.

You have to be kidding me. Of course you brought up the past.

Its very much PRESENT as the reason you are sniping at more that one member that did not agree with your kind of SEO You can pretend as you like but its obvious from you following me and others around in multiple threads that you have issues with several regulars for calling you out on it.

You are absolutely nuts. I'm not "sniping" at anybody in particular. I just called you out on your continual dickish behavior of misrepresenting people then jumping on your soap box and ranting for 3 paragraphs about it.

In any case, you're right. If you want to continue to be an ass then I can't compel you to change so carry on.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7826994].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

In any case, you're right............ I can't compel you to change

Thats a limitation that a great many of us have had to live with in regard to your posts for some time. Its only fair that you now have to live with the reality outside of the WSO thread cocoon. Welcome. As for the name calling - No I won't reply in kind. From what I hear you get alot of that and I would not want to over burden you further even if it were my style.

A PBN that is powering a website that is ranking 1st position for a competitive keyword will ultimately have a manual review. If the review picks up links coming the same host its going to be obvious.

Certainly which is my point but also do not buy into the nonsense that Google is only concerned with the "big fish". Its actually the opposite. Google is actually more concerned with the small fish. To use the fish analogy for every whale there are thousands of little fish. Google may make public examples out of BMR but Spam from all the littler fish overwhelm anything one big fish could do. Google is attempting to stifle the smaller fish that fill most of the ocean. NO one in this thread has any idea of how much other networks have been taken down because only with the public rental ones would anyone report deindexed sites back to us.

Google sent out hundred of thousand if not over a million unnatural notices by now and they were far from all big fishes. Many have gotten sites deindexed just for being on the same servers with badly run networks. As you pointed out manual reports will come flooding into Google when you do outrank another site if the competitors have any sense and you will not just get one report either. Their stands to be reports for number 2,3, 4 , and the whole first page you out ranked.

I'll say it even straighter than I did before. Paul's observation about Google not going after small fish serves no useful purpose at all but to encourage users in the thought that they may get away with what they should never risk in the first place. Just a plain obvious fact of human nature. If you say the police will hardly ever pull you over for speeding on a certain stretch of highway you ARE suggesting to them they might be able to get away with it. Thing is no one knows when Google pulls over a network unless its a public one so those saying so are basing their assessment on air.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827216].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

As for the name calling - No I won't reply in kind. From what I hear you get alot of that and I would not want to over burden you further even if it were my style.

:confused:

Google is actually more concerned with the small fish. To use the fish analogy for every whale there are thousands of little fish. Google may make public examples out of BMR but Spam from all the littler fish overwhelm anything one big fish could do. Google is attempting to stifle the smaller fish that fill most of the ocean. NO one in this thread has any idea of how much other networks have been taken down because only with the public rental ones would anyone report deindexed sites back to us.

Even if the "little fish" are more of a concern for Google and they are targeting these sorts of networks, collectively, an individual "little fish" network still isn't that much of a concern for Google. Specifically, a 10 site network was being mentioned as an example. If you have one of these small networks Google isn't very likely to take action. Can it happen? Yes! Will it? Not likely, if you take basic steps against to protect yourself.

In any case I'm not so sure that Google is worried about the "little fish" as much as you're making it out to be. Perhaps you have some data on the subject?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827395].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

If you have one of these small networks Google isn't very likely to take action.

Says who? You? Like I have said REPEATEDLY it all depends on your niche and your competition. You and Paul act like you have some inside information on what Google does (which you don't) and you can determine probabilities. What do we know for sure?

Well lets see.

1) We know that Google has a dedicated department for taking link spam reports which any competitor can file.
2) we know that competitors who we outrank will LOSE money if we do so and more than one will have an incentive to look at links of competitors and then make reports?
3) We know that most recent reports of penalties have been manual actions

Now don't try and play cute with "as long as you take basic steps to protect yourself". That was my whole point and you know it. Paul presented several times with the idea the risk was low even if you didn't take the steps we are discussing in this thread. You can't possibly know that without knowing your competition. Hence my objection and then your various off based accusations.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827457].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Says who? You?

What is your source on the assertion that Google is more concerned with "little fish" networks?

Like I have said REPEATEDLY it all depends on your niche and your competition. You and Paul act like you have some inside information on what Google does (which you don't) and you can determine probabilities. What do we know for sure?

I'll wait for your source on the "little fish" networks being more of a concern than large networks. I'm sure you have the data or you wouldn't have brought it up.

Now don't try and play cute with "as long as you take basic steps to protect yourself". That was my whole point and you know it. Paul presented several times with the idea the risk was low even if you didn't take the steps we are discussing in this thread. You can't possibly know that without knowing your competition. Hence my objection and then your various off based accusations.

That's how you misrepresented him. He NEVER said that you didn't need to take ANY precautions nor did he imply it. You misrepresented his statement and got on your soap box to rail against it.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827495].message }}

Paul Gram

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

What is your source on the assertion that Google is more concerned with "little fish" networks?

I'll wait for your source on the "little fish" networks being more of a concern than large networks. I'm sure you have the data or you wouldn't have brought it up.

That's how you misrepresented him. He NEVER said that you didn't need to take ANY precautions nor did he imply it. You misrepresented his statement and got on your soap box to rail against it.

Marc is 100% correct Mike. You did completely represent what I said and you were wrong. Your response to all of this is pretty ridiculous Mike.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Click Here For My Exclusive WSO
Kindle Self Publishing Supersite - Kindle Templates, Book Covers & Trailers, Marketing Tips, & More

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827544].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Gram

Marc is 100% correct Mike. You did completely represent what I said and you were wrong. Your response to all of this is pretty ridiculous Mike.

Paul...I misrepresented nothing. I fully expected you to agree with Marc but so what you were the guy I was disagreeing with so where is the surprise? I don't have to agree with you on any issue much less your charge of misrepresentation. Your post was off and irresponsible because as you can see from even subsequent posters they took your assessment that Google wouldn't care as having merit when you don't have a clue what the likelihood is.

Thats whats ridiculous.

It depends entirely on the niche the person is in. In many niches the likelihood of getting reported to Google and having your network deindexed can be as high as 100% because of competition. I don't now how to spell it out to you any simpler but let me put it this way and maybe you will get it. There are SEOs in MANY niches that would not stop until they got results form reporting you. Their livelihood. their mortgage payment, their children eating depends on it. SO its very unlikely across the board? Thats total nonsense and no you are dead wrong.

Your pointing out that Google doesn't care about small fish served no useful purpose but to make newbies think hey I might get away with - nothing else.

Call it whatever you wish and I rightfully said hey "IF" you want to take that road then ....... If "if" is your idea of misrepresentation then OK both you and Marc both don't know English....what can I say?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827802].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Paul...I represented nothing.

Of course you represented him, you just did so incorrectly.

Your post was off and irresponsible because as you can see from even subsequent posters they took your assessment that Google wouldn't care as having merit when you don't have a clue what the likelihood is.

What was that about not knowing English? What the hell is this sentence? LOL

It depends entirely on the niche the person is in. In many niches the likelihood of getting reported to Google and having your network deindexed can be as high as 100% because of competition.

In those niches a 10 site network wouldn't be enough anyway. In the truly competitive niches you're going to need much more than 10 sites.

I don;t now how to spell

I agree. :p

Your pointing out that Google doesn't care about small fish served no useful purpose but to make newbies think hey I might get away with - nothing else.

This is actually a fair point. But what did Paul say you'd get away with? This is the bit you added.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827867].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

What was that about not knowing English? What the hell is this sentence? LOL

Oh my goodness. You got lost in a compound sentence didn't you? and you think that reflects on me. LOL.

Dude its okay.....Sometimes on the "internets" you might encounter sentences beyond what you would find in comic books.

In those niches a 10 site network wouldn't be enough anyway. In the truly competitive niches you're going to need much more than 10 sites.

Pure drivel.

A) SEOs are working for hundreds and thousands of dollars per month ranking more than one keyword at a time. Thats what makes the keywords competitive - you know the presence of competition . SO no I am not talking about even the ultra competitive keywords

B) if you had a 10-20 site network you would tend to be using other links too so it is hardly saying you would not be going for competitive terms as well

C) IF there is ANY guy/gal out there Paying his bills off of a keyword you would still be taking money out of his pocket and you have a high possibility especially if he is a white hat pure as the driven snow person to be reported.

D) strength of network hasn't even been discussed

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827940].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

A) SEOs are working for hundreds and thousands of dollars per month ranking more than one keyword at a time. Thats what makes the keywords competitive - you know the presence of competition . SO no I am not talking about even the ultra competitive keywords

I'm not sure what your point is here.

B) if you had a 10-20 site network you would tend to be using other links too so it is hardly saying you would not be going for competitive terms as well

Of course. So it isn't like a 10 site network would just be exposed if you implemented it in your SEO plan. The network would probably be only a small fraction of your link profile which is another reason Google isn't going to find it very easily. Especially if you cross your T's and dot your I's.

Thanks

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827999].message }}

Marc_L 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Oh my goodness. You got lost in a compound sentence didn't you? and you think that reflects on me. LOL.

haha

The sentence is an absolute disaster.
- Thanks
Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7828018].message }}

Mike Anthony 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

data or you wouldn't have brought it up.

That's how you misrepresented him. He NEVER said that you didn't need to take ANY precautions nor did he imply it.

Actually I have got PMs that indicated that yes he did imply it by more than just my assessment. So what can I say? We (plural) disagree. If a discussion is going on about the things to do to stay safe and then someone comes in the middle of it and says - "you are very likely to get away without being detected because Google has bigger fish" then yes it does imply exactly what I said.

NO apologies MarC (Or Paul) . Facts are what facts are. IF In the middle of a conversation about slowing down on I-95, staying in the proper lane, keeping your distance between cars so as not to get a ticket someone comes along an says "hey you are very unlikely to be caught speeding at any rate" then facts are you imply they will get away with it anyway.

Thats just ordinary, basic, drop down easy to follow human logic. If you object it hardly is surprising or matters. Its just fact.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827855].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

What is your source on the assertion that Google is more concerned with "little fish" networks?

Actually the premise that Google doesn't care about little fish require you and Paul to prove. He first presented it. I've already given you the fact that the small guys outstrip the big guys just as the middle class outstrips the Rich. Obviously google would want to eliminate all spam - the most it can not just the spam the "big fish " put out.

Further I have indicated the raw undeniable fact that Google has sent out near a million unnatural link notices which many small fish right here have gotten which like it or not defies your claim that Google is shooting only for the big fish.

Do you have any evidence even to match that? Go ahead and do some more hand waving. cursing and personal attacks to try and distract from the fact you have nothing. I can understand because the only other answer you could give would sound like

crickets.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827933].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Actually the premise that Google doesn't care about little fish require you and Paul to prove.

I'm talking about one little fish in the whole sea of little fish. Google may very well care about ALL of the "little fish", but any single one of them is extremely low on their radar. It's called resource management.

Further I have indicated the raw undeniable fact that Google has sent out near a million unnatural link notices which many small fish right here have gotten which like it or not defies your claim that Google is shooting only for the big fish.

You can get those without using a single network link, so that doesn't support your assertions in any way. But wasn't it you who was pimping the idea that to avoid those unnatural links people should build a private network? I think it was. So WHICH IS IT?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7828012].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Marc_L

You can get those without using a single network link, so that doesn't support your assertions in any way. But wasn't it you who was pimping the idea that to avoid those unnatural links people should build a private network? I think it was. So WHICH IS IT?

Dude theres no point to this any further with you .... You can''t even follow the most basic of logical trails or read any sentence more than ten words long. The unnatural link notices point to the clear fact that Google does care about the little fish regardless of what they are doing as long as its spam. it doesn't speak to only networks it speaks to the obvious and clear indication by Google that they are concerned with ALL link spam even for the little guy and being little doesn't give you a "likelihood" of going under the radar particularly if a competitor reports such spam that they see in a network (that doesn't follow the guidelines I have laid out).

Anyway I have been told and am now being told something that is true. I'm being told not to follow up your foolishness (apparently you have many antifans). It IS a vice of mine that I tend to give credibility to foolishness by continually responding to it. So in the interest of taking good advice given by PM - I'll just put you on ignore for awhile cause like I said you would - you are just hand waving pretty much as you have in every single network thread you have ever participated in in this forum.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7828066].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Dude theres no point to this any further with you ....

Ok fair enough.

Wait a minute you just went against your first sentence by continuing to go into it with me.

You can''t even follow the most basic of logical trails or read any sentence more than ten words long.

That sentence is gibberish, period. Sorry.

The unnatural link notices point to the clear fact that Google does care about the little fish regardless of what they are doing as long as its spam.

Sure they care about spam, nobody said otherwise. This is another Mike Anthonyism in action.

it doesn't speak to only networks it speaks to the obvious and clear indication by Google that they are concerned with ALL link spam even for the little guy and being little doesn't give you a "likelihood" of going under the radar particularly if a competitor reports such spam that they see in a network (that doesn't follow the guidelines I have laid out).

Since nobody is suggesting that you just spam your network I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Follow basic guidelines and do your due diligence and any size network should be hard to detect. I don't think anybody said otherwise Mikey.

Anyway I have been told and am now being told something that is true. I'm being told not to follow up your foolishness (apparently you have many antifans). It IS a vice of mine that I tend to give credibility to foolishness by continually responding to it. So in the interest of taking good advice given by PM - I'll just put you on ignore for awhile cause like I said you would - you are just hand waving pretty much as you have in every single network thread you have ever participated in in this forum.

At least my efforts weren't completely wasted.:p

Thanks

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7828461].message }}

Marc_L

11 years ago

Oh, and where is your data that Google is more concerned with "little fish" than "big fish"? I may have missed it in all the hubbub.

Thanks

Signature

Want answers to your SEO questions? Check out our library of FAQ's. Good luck and happy ranking!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827875].message }}

Campbell24

11 years ago

Having your own small blog network is what everyone serious about SEO does. I use SEO Host for seperate IPs.

Thanks

Signature

FREE SEO CONSULTATION/ADVICE (from a 7-figure earner)

I will answer your SEO questions 100% for free.

Just ask me whatever you want!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827914].message }}

FakeItTilYouMakeIt

Banned 11 years ago

Can we not be reduced to grammar and spelling critiques?

Here are the facts: we have no idea how many smaller PBNs have been hit because when one of those goes down it's not "newsworthy" it's just a little webmaster that lost his little network (and maybe his shirt.) We do hear about the big ones because... they are big.

Google isn't going to tell us how many they've busted and there is really no way to know. But is it happening? Yes. So, can we say a small PBN will "probably never get on google's radar?" No. That's a big jump and a dangerous idea to diffuse here.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827931].message }}

Mike Anthony

11 years ago

Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt

Google isn't going to tell us how many they've busted and there is really no way to know. But is it happening? Yes. So, can we say a small PBN will "probably never get on google's radar?" No. That's a big jump and a dangerous idea to diffuse here.

Well you see thats the other point. When you say small networks are less likely to be reported it implies you have a lick of data to make the statement of probability. There is as you stated NONE - NADA. Google doesn't hand us reports on that. So its such an utterly pointless observation to make plus it has no data to back it up.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7827992].message }}

Private Blog Network - Won't G o o g l notice that all blogs come from one guy???

Trending Topics

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

Clickbank low cost recurring