Hosting, IP's and C Classes - Help Me! | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

16 years ago

Originally Posted by dankat

Hey Warriors,
Here I have a question I'd like your advice with:

I have around 50 websites of local businesses I manage in different cities across the US, and it's time for me to get a better hosting becuase the one I have now is very bad (it's a small company someone recommended me... too bad!).

My questions are:

1. Which hosting company would you recommend? I've checked of course GoDaddy, HostGator and also InMotionHosting. Do you guys have experience with InMotion? any feedback?

2. Considering that I have 50 independednt websites and I want to take advantage of them for SEO and Local SEO purposes... should I need a unique IP for each one of these sites? if yes... do I need different C Class for each one as well or same C Class is ok if there are all unique IPs?

Thank you very much!
Dan

1) The one's you mentioned are all good ones. I use DreamHost myself and found that it works well for me.

2) I've heard a lot of recommendations here on using seperate class C addresses. The most prevalent suggestion I've seen is to get websites in a similar niche on static IP's in different addresses If cash is a major concern my suggestion would be to put your highest earners on a static IP on a separate class C if possible, and then place the others just into a general shared group.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2989746].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

The need for Different C Class IP's is a myth created by people who wanted to sell SEO Hosting upgrades...

It is a myth, but dozens of people will be coming out of the woodwork shortly to tell you I am full of ****.... LOL

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2989785].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

So you're planning on linking or cross-linking these sites? Personally, I think the expense in doing so would offset the value you might gain in getting it done. Especially if you're just going to have your contact information on the domains.

Different IPs is not a myth. It's a simple way to weed out people that have 1000 cross-linked sites on the same IP. The question is whether it's worth your time/effort/money to do it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2989821].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Different IPs is not a myth. It's a simple way to weed out people that have 1000 cross-linked sites on the same IP.

If it is not a myth, why would any right-thinking domain owner host with Yahoo Business that stuffs 41,576 domains on one IP address?

Many hosting companies do this...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2989856].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

If it is not a myth, why would any right-thinking domain owner host with Yahoo Business that stuffs 41,576 domains on one IP address?

Many hosting companies do this...

That's irrelevant to this discussion. You CAN put the same domains on one IP without a penalty....that's not, and never has been, an issue. That's not why hosting companies sell packages for separate IPs.

What he's talking about is putting sites that you own on seperate Class C IP addresses in order to cross-link them for SEO purposes.

50 Sites cross linking on the same IP=easily detectable
50 sites linking to each other from separate IPS and different owners=not easily detectable

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2989936].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

That's irrelevant to this discussion. You CAN put the same domains on one IP without a penalty....that's not, and never has been, an issue. That's not why hosting companies sell packages for separate IPs.

What he's talking about is putting sites that you own on seperate Class C IP addresses in order to cross-link them for SEO purposes.

50 Sites cross linking on the same IP=easily detectable
50 sites linking to each other from separate IPS and different owners=not easily detectable

How is it irrelevant?

If I get Yahoo Business Hosting, I could have all of my sites on the same C Class IP Block, and if I cross-link my domains, it is still "easily detectable".

And if any of Yahoo's other customers link to me, it is still "easily detectable".

And if 50 Blogger blogs link to me, all of those blogs are also from the same IP and "easily detectable".

"Easily detectable" does not trigger a penalty for cross-linking either.

"Not easily detectable" is still an excuse to buy a more expensive domain hosting package, where "easily detectable" will not derive any penalties for cross-linking either.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2989994].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

How is it irrelevant?

If I get Yahoo Business Hosting, I could have all of my sites on the same C Class IP Block, and if I cross-link my domains, it is still "easily detectable".

And if any of Yahoo's other customers link to me, it is still "easily detectable".

And if 50 Blogger blogs link to me, all of those blogs are also from the same IP and "easily detectable".

"Easily detectable" does not trigger a penalty for cross-linking either.

"Not easily detectable" is still an excuse to buy a more expensive domain hosting package, where "easily detectable" will not derive any penalties for cross-linking either.

If you're Google, do you really think you're doing your algorithm any harm by filtering links from the same IP?

Worst Case scenario is you filter some "honest to goodness" real links of pure love.

Best Case Scenario is you make it 1000x more difficult for anyone who wants to cross-link pages they control.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990144].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

If you're Google, do you really think you're doing your algorithm any harm by filtering links from the same IP?

If you are Google, do you really think you're doing your algorithm any value by filtering links from the same IP, when you know there are often thousands of unrelated domains on the same IP addresses?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990165].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

If you are Google, do you really think you're doing your algorithm any value by filtering links from the same IP, when you know there are thousands of unrelated domains on the same IP addresses?

I'm not saying they completely filter links from the same IP, but it's a strong signal to them so I'm quite sure they reduce the value.

But even if you took it from an extreme standpoint. I have a Yahoo Store and it's hosted with 4500 domains on the same IP. Realistically, out of 4500 sites, how many do you think would just randomly link to my site because they like it? Probably none if you play the odds...but maybe 2 or 3?

If they chose to filter those links, what would the difference on my ranking be versus if they counted? It's not going to move the needle either way, most likely.

So maybe they just choose to not place as much weight on them.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990313].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I'm not saying they completely filter links from the same IP, but it's a strong signal to them so I'm quite sure they reduce the value.

And I am quite sure they do not... Not that I am going to convince you to the contrary...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990338].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

I think Matt Cutts is COY about the things he doesn't want people to know. But he outright says something, I tend to believe it. Here is a post where he talks about the BAD things of a link campaign, and he specifically highlights putting all the domains on the same Class C IP.

Nice piece of viral marketing: NIN

So what wasn't as good?
- Several of the sites (churchofplano.com, 105thairbornecrusaders.com, consolidatedmailsystems.com, etc.) are all on the same class C subnet. If you wanted to avoid legions of NIN fans finding new sites, you would want to avoid that.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990446].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I think Matt Cutts is COY about the things he doesn't want people to know. But he outright says something, I tend to believe it. Here is a post where he talks about the BAD things of a link campaign, and he specifically highlights putting all the domains on the same Class C IP.

Nice piece of viral marketing: NIN

So what wasn't as good?
- Several of the sites (churchofplano.com, 105thairbornecrusaders.com, consolidatedmailsystems.com, etc.) are all on the same class C subnet. If you wanted to avoid legions of NIN fans finding new sites, you would want to avoid that.

Matt's post wasn't exactly as clear-cut as you describe it...

In the comments below, he was asked for clarification:

graywolf March 10, 2007 at 3:03 pm

>are all on the same class C subnet.

So are you saying that's bad because pesky people will search via IP or are you giving a cryptic hint at something else?

C'mon first comment cant go unanswered right?

Cutts responded to the inquiry here:

Matt Cutts March 10, 2007 at 11:04 pm

graywolf, I'm not saying anything at all about class C's (good or bad), other than adoring fans would be willing to check the other domains on the same class C, so that might not be ideal for NIN's viral marketing campaign.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990515].message }}

Dave Rodman Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Matt's post wasn't exactly as clear-cut as you describe it...

In the comments below, he was asked for clarification:

Cutts responded to the inquiry here:

You can believe what you want. But I believe he said it, but didn't want to verify it for everyone. After all, if you take the SEO impact out of it completely, why would it be bad to have a few other sites on the same IP?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990583].message }}

Andyhenry

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I'm quite sure they reduce the value.

THAT is why people get confused - making assumptions and then behaving like they're fact and telling others the same.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990410].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

THAT is why people get confused - making assumptions and then behaving like they're fact and telling others the same.

Like I said in the earlier post, I said it might not be worth the time/effort to get started.

Besides, everything on this forum is based on assumptions. Nothing done in the past is guaranteed to work in the future.

If everyone avoided their opinions and experience, there would be ZERO threads.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990466].message }}

Andyhenry

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Besides, everything on this forum is based on assumptions. .

Not true - but I'm not going to get into that as it's nothing to do with this thread. Believe what you want - only results really matter.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990501].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Besides, everything on this forum is based on assumptions.

Not true - but I'm not going to get into that as it's nothing to do with this thread. Believe what you want - only results really matter.

I know it is hard-to-believe, but there are people around the forum here, who preface their comments with testing and experience.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990534].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

Not true - but I'm not going to get into that as it's nothing to do with this thread. Believe what you want - only results really matter.

Scientific testing tells us that you get water to boil at 212 degrees. You can't tell me, with the same certainty, that anything you suggest will have the same outcome. Even if you conducted the test yourself...there are too many variables out of your control.

"Results Matter" implies that anything that got you to that point contributed to your result. And there's no way to say that with certainty.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990565].message }}

Andyhenry

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Scientific testing tells us that you get water to boil at 212 degrees. You can't tell me, with the same certainty, that anything you suggest will have the same outcome. Even if you conducted the test yourself...there are too many variables out of your control.

"Results Matter" implies that anything that got you to that point contributed to your result. And there's no way to say that with certainty.

You're backing up your fuzzy facts by attacking the technical validity of my comment? Are really this pedantic or is it just an emotional reaction to someone saying something different to what you think?

There's a difference between offering experience up that is based on a decade of testing and tracking and assumptions.
Maybe in your world everything is uncertain and all your actions are based on assumptions - but for some people a working model of the world that lets them learn and improve their systems is an acceptable way to proceed.

If we took your position to the extreme we'd end up talking about whether we actually exist - since we're assuming we do based on our experience but science tells us that we're actually just a bunch of atoms reflecting light and our entire world is made up in our head and may not actually exist in the way we think anyway - almost certainly that's the case - but it's not a useful position to start from when you're looking at what marketing actions to take.

Sometimes picking holes in assumptions is great - but sometimes it's a waste of time.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990590].message }}

bgmacaw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

If we took your position to the extreme we'd end up talking about whether we actually exist - since we're assuming we do based on our experience but science tells us that we're actually just a bunch of atoms reflecting light and our entire world is made up in our head and may not actually exist in the way we think anyway

People aren't wearing enough hats...

YouTube - "Meaning of Life" - "People are not...

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990938].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Scientific testing tells us that you get water to boil at 212 degrees. You can't tell me, with the same certainty, that anything you suggest will have the same outcome. Even if you conducted the test yourself...there are too many variables out of your control.

"Results Matter" implies that anything that got you to that point contributed to your result. And there's no way to say that with certainty.

Science also says:

At 7000 ft, the standard barometric pressure is 23.088 inches Hg, and so water boils at 199.3 degrees Fahrenheit or 199.3 °F, which is equal to 92.94 degrees Celsius, or 92.94 °C. However, the pressure at 7000 feet will not always be exactly 23.088 in Hg.

The actual formula for determining boiling point is as shown below:

boiling point = 49.161 * Ln (Pressure in inches Hg) + 44.932

(where "Ln" is the natural logarithm in base e)

Read more:
Answers.com - How does the elevation and air pressure affect the boiling point of water

LOL

Certain things within the Google algorithm can be tested "empirically" (another scientific term)...

And if some results can be repeated "empirically", there is nothing you can do to prove it wrong, other than to bury your head in the sand and sing loudly, "La la la la la la la...."

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

You can believe what you want. But I believe he said it, but didn't want to verify it for everyone. After all, if you take the SEO impact out of it completely, why would it be bad to have a few other sites on the same IP?

The comments that you wanted to use to support your point of view, Matt Cutts later clarified to mean, "I’m not saying anything at all about class C’s (good or bad)."

Is it bad to put domains on more than one C Class IP? No. But it is often more expensive, and that extra expense can seldom be justified.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990609].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Haha. You guys are kinda funny. I'm not the one nit-picking. If you wanna go ahead and build a bunch of links from the same IP so you can test for yourself, be my guest.

It's a question of what is an efficient use of your time. I just think it's funny when people take things that seem fairly obvious, given the data out there and reasons why it wouldn't work, and say things like "Better test that".

Also kinda funny that the whole discussion was started by TPW making a statement of fact about something he didn't prove.

Just sayin'

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990648].message }}

Andyhenry

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Haha. You guys are kinda funny. I'm not the one nit-picking. If you wanna go ahead and build a bunch of links from the same IP so you can test for yourself, be my guest.

It's a question of what is an efficient use of your time. I just think it's funny when people take things that seem fairly obvious, given the data out there and reasons why it wouldn't work, and say things like "Better test that".

The thing is - I HAVE tested this....... On thousands of sites over the last 10 years.
What are you basing your comments on?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990670].message }}

KEY

16 years ago

sorry but I have to lay down some science on this

if you have a multi IP setup? you would still have only one nameserver
which has it's own IP address(es). when I had my own server? I had 5 IP
addresses, and regardless of what IP a site was 'on'...the top 2 IPs were
what the domain was mapped to for hosting.

hosting will always follow:
domain host-> nameserver IP ->shared IP (often yet another IP) or
domain host-> nameserver IP ->personal IPs (again different)

some hosting companies even use a master nameserver that routes
ALL traffic into their system.

your premise fails as you wish us to believe that the search engines will
ignore the fact that 5-10-50 IPs that have sites pointing to site 'X' share
a common nameserver IP? :confused::confused::confused:

seriously- do a who-is search...what is shown, the nameserver IP!

the only way around this would be to have EACH site have a unique
nameserver, which means it's own login, it's own bandwidth, space, etc...

seems to be Waaaaaaay to much work for quite a low value return.

get off this IP stuff, and work to get links from sites that have related
and relevant content, as well as making your own content 'must read'.

KEY (eric)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990818].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by KEY

sorry but I have to lay down some science on this

if you have a multi IP setup? you would still have only one nameserver
which has it's own IP address(es). when I had my own server? I had 5 IP
addresses, and regardless of what IP a site was 'on'...the top 2 IPs were
what the domain was mapped to for hosting.

hosting will always follow:
domain host-> nameserver IP ->shared IP (often yet another IP) or
domain host-> nameserver IP ->personal IPs (again different)

some hosting companies even use a master nameserver that routes
ALL traffic into their system.

your premise fails as you wish us to believe that the search engines will
ignore the fact that 5-10-50 IPs that have sites pointing to site 'X' share
a common nameserver IP? :confused::confused::confused:

seriously- do a who-is search...what is shown, the nameserver IP!

the only way around this would be to have EACH site have a unique
nameserver, which means it's own login, it's own bandwidth, space, etc...

seems to be Waaaaaaay to much work for quite a low value return.

get off this IP stuff, and work to get links from sites that have related
and relevant content, as well as making your own content 'must read'.

KEY (eric)

You can use public nameservers that the host provides. I just checked one of mine that uses public NS and there are 900K domains using the same one.

So yeah, if you're going to try and scheme the system, don't use the same private NS.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991107].message }}

paulgl

16 years ago

Bgmacaw just did the video thing this time....
But we both love sites like icanhascheezburger, gasbuddy, wikipedia, etc.....
Literally HUNDREDS of sites on the same IP, all interlinked.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

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

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991149].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

Bgmacaw just did the video thing this time....
But we both love sites like icanhascheezburger, gasbuddy, wikipedia, etc.....
Literally HUNDREDS of sites on the same IP, all interlinked.

Paul

If that's the evidence, then I would question how people run their "tests". Because even if icanhascheezburger.com interlinks it's domains on the same IP...it also has over 1.1M other links out there. Just sayin'

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991184].message }}

bgmacaw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

If that's the evidence, then I would question how people run their "tests". Because even if icanhascheezburger.com interlinks it's domains on the same IP...it also has over 1.1M other links out there. Just sayin'

Basically, some people around here get way too Googlenoid about things like Class C IP's and such (aka, people aren't wearing enough hats).

As for cheezburger and other site networks, they routinely kick off new domains with only interlinking with their existing sites to begin with. Because of the authority of the original domain, the new domains also do well. Authority means a lot.

If you don't have the massive authority of a big name site network, yes, it still works although it isn't as powerful. Of course, this is true of just about anything you do if you don't have authority links.

Another thing to consider is the IPv4 address exhaustion factor. This means that it is no longer in Google's best interests (ie providing the best search results) to consider IP address ranges to the degree that they may have in the past. The result of the shortage is that there are a lot more shared IPs, reused IPs and the like.

Basically, it's not something to really worry that much about unless you're planning something that's clearly against Google TOS.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991435].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Basically, some people around here get way too Googlenoid about things like Class C IP's and such (aka, people aren't wearing enough hats).

As for cheezburger and other site networks, they routinely kick off new domains with only interlinking with their existing sites to begin with. Because of the authority of the original domain, the new domains also do well. Authority means a lot.

If you don't have the massive authority of a big name site network, yes, it still works although it isn't as powerful. Of course, this is true of just about anything you do if you don't have authority links.

Another thing to consider is the IPv4 address exhaustion factor. This means that it is no longer in Google's best interests (ie providing the best search results) to consider IP address ranges to the degree that they may have in the past. The result of the shortage is that there are a lot more shared IPs, reused IPs and the like.

Basically, it's not something to really worry that much about unless you're planning something that's clearly against Google TOS.

I mentioned in my opening post that I didn't think it was worth the effort to setup separate IPs because the cost to maintain them outweighs the benefits I think you'd get.

My whole point was this. If you're going to try and get sneaky and cross-link sites, at least go through the trouble of hiding your efforts. It doesn't take much work on Google's part to just look at IP addresses. I could do it in 3 minutes using SEO elite.

In regards to those sites you mention, I think there is a lot of noise in there personally. Because sites that have big reach, have big audiences, and results in a lot of links off the bat. But still, I never said that links within the same IP didn't have benefit. I simply said that it'd be pretty easy for Google to slap an "implicit nofollow" on links within the same IP if there were a lot of them. Much in the same way that they put a filter on a website that is known for selling links so they can't pass PR.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991711].message }}

bgmacaw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I simply said that it'd be pretty easy for Google to slap an "implicit nofollow" on links within the same IP if there were a lot of them. Much in the same way that they put a filter on a website that is known for selling links so they can't pass PR.

I agree with you there. However, the important point is that these are manual penalties, not algorithmic ones (aka the "evil SEO" or STFU penalty).

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2992044].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Haha. You guys are kinda funny. I'm not the one nit-picking. If you wanna go ahead and build a bunch of links from the same IP so you can test for yourself, be my guest.

Dude!!!

Two Points:

* I am usually "very funny"; and

* I don't need to, "build a bunch of links from the same IP so you can test for yourself"... I have already tested it for myself... I have tested it often... Links from the same C-Class IP do not diminish the value of my inbound links. Google still values those links, whether you choose to believe it or not...

In true MythBusters fashion, I have tested it repeatedly with clean tests, where only links from pages with link popularity on the same Class-C IP Block point to a domain with no other links. If you are setting those links on domains on the same IP, so long as the linking page has some link popularity to share, value will be passed.

But burying your head in the sand works for you, so I will leave you to it...

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990682].message }}

Andyhenry

16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Is it bad to put domains on more than one C Class IP? No. But it is often more expensive, and that extra expense can seldom be justified.

That's the whole point here.

No-one is saying don't use difference IP's.

However -as someone with hundreds of sites on lots of different hosts who has tested this - I have NEVER found any issue with NOT doing this.
Do I use difference IPs on different sites - Yes. If my host offers it - I do it. But it's nothing to do with SEO.
The point is - if you're going to change the way you run your business - it's worth checking the source of the information you're basing decisions on and making those changes based on what YOU find to be the reality - not just what random people online have said but that you have no actually proof of.

This happens a lot on this forum - people telling each other 'facts' which are often nothing more than hearsay and they've never actually checked for themselves. That's why it's sometimes useful to remind people to think about where they're getting their marketing reality from.

We probably actually agree on what makes sense but tpw is doing what many people don't and adding in a reality check to what could have ended up as generic random advice based on no testing or proof at all.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990666].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

That's the whole point here.

No-one is saying don't use difference IP's.

However -as someone with hundreds of sites on lots of different hosts who has tested this - I have NEVER found any issue with NOT doing this.
Do I use difference IPs on different sites - Yes. If my host offers it - I do it. But it's nothing to do with SEO.
The point is - if you're going to change the way you run your business - it's worth checking the source of the information you're basing decisions on and making those changes based on what YOU find to be the reality - not just what random people online have said but that you have no actually proof of.

This happens a lot on this forum - people telling each other 'facts' which are often nothing more than hearsay and they've never actually checked for themselves. That's why it's sometimes useful to remind people to think about where they're getting their marketing reality from.

We probably actually agree on what makes sense but tpw is doing what many people don't and adding in a reality check to what could have ended up as generic random advice based on no testing or proof at all.

Look at my initial post vs. TPW. I said it's ideal to do it, but might not be cost effective. He didn't even understand why the poster even wanted to do it in the first place. He thought he was combating the notion that there was a penalty for having multiple domains on the same IP for crying out loud.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990709].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

The thing is - I HAVE tested this....... On thousands of sites over the last 10 years.
What are you basing your comments on?

Originally Posted by tpw

Dude!!!

Two Points:

* I am usually "very funny"; and

* I don't need to, "build a bunch of links from the same IP so you can test for yourself"... I have already tested it for myself... I have tested it often... Links from the same C-Class IP do not diminish the value of my inbound links. Google still values those links, whether you choose to believe it or not...

In true MythBusters fashion, I have tested it repeatedly with clean tests, where only links from pages with link popularity on the same Class-C IP Block point to a domain with no other links. If you are setting those links on domains on the same IP, so long as the linking page has some link popularity to share, value will be passed.

But burying your head in the sand works for you, so I will leave you to it...

*sigh* or *Haha*, I don't know which one. Can I ask what you compared it against? What were you trying to rank for? This little test you setup, doesn't actually prove anything other than you got an unindexed page indexed by pointing a link from the same IP.

You know you can get a page indexed by having no links...simply by submitting to Google.

But besides, I question this whole "test" in the first place. Because you didn't even understand why the OP was even asking the question. You thought he was suggesting that it's impossible to get pages ranked if they share an IP address.

All the sudden, you not only understand the issue, but have conducted tests on it?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990733].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Look at my initial post vs. TPW. I said it's ideal to do it, but might not be cost effective. He didn't even understand why the poster even wanted to do it in the first place. He thought he was combating the notion that there was a penalty for having multiple domains on the same IP for crying out loud.

What did I not understand about the OP's question?

Originally Posted by dankat

2. Considering that I have 50 independednt websites and I want to take advantage of them for SEO and Local SEO purposes... should I need a unique IP for each one of these sites? if yes... do I need different C Class for each one as well or same C Class is ok if there are all unique IPs?

Originally Posted by tpw

The need for Different C Class IP's is a myth created by people who wanted to sell SEO Hosting upgrades...

It is a myth, but dozens of people will be coming out of the woodwork shortly to tell you I am full of ****.... LOL

And your response?

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Different IPs is not a myth. It's a simple way to weed out people that have 1000 cross-linked sites on the same IP. The question is whether it's worth your time/effort/money to do it.

LOL

For "crying out loud" everyone!!!! I am wrong!!!! Don't you get it???

Andy!! Pull your head out... If I am wrong, then you are wrong for backing me up!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

You know you can get a page indexed by having no links...simply by submitting to Google.

People still do that?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990744].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

If it is not a myth, why would any right-thinking domain owner host with Yahoo Business that stuffs 41,576 domains on one IP address?

Many hosting companies do this...

Your 1st response to me pretty much sums it all up. You thought the issue he was trying to avoid was having a website share an IP with other website. And you pointed to Yahoo and "many hosting companies" as reasons why it's ok.

So basically, you had no idea why he wanted to do what he did.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990795].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Your 1st response to me pretty much sums it all up. You thought the issue he was trying to avoid was having a website share an IP with other website. And you pointed to Yahoo and "many hosting companies" as reasons why it's ok.

So basically, you had no idea why he wanted to do what he did.

You must be right. You have said so repeatedly.

I am clueless and full of ****.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990826].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

You must be right. You have said so repeatedly.

I am clueless and full of ****.

It's hilarious that what started this whole discussion is your ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE that you must be correct by saying it's "a myth"

What is the general advice for buying links? Don't buy them through a broker. Because once Google got into the TLA network, they mapped the whole thing out. So if you were looking to disguise the fact that you were cross-linking sites, don't you think it'd be smart to at least put them on separate IPs.

Seriously, to me this is COMMON sense.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991158].message }}

tpw

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

It's hilarious that what started this whole discussion is your ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE that you must be correct by saying it's "a myth"

What is the general advice for buying links? Don't buy them through a broker. Because once Google got into the TLA network, they mapped the whole thing out. So if you were looking to disguise the fact that you were cross-linking sites, don't you think it'd be smart to at least put them on separate IPs.

Seriously, to me this is COMMON sense.

I am still absolutely confident that the notion of "Google penalizing sites with a SEO penalty, according to the same C-Class IP" is a myth.

To me, this is obviously UNCOMMON sense, as you have are determined that you are the only one here with COMMON sense.

As with all SEO myths that are commonly argued on this forum, there are people who know them to be a myth and other people who are willing to argue the contrary point to the ends of the earth.

Then there is the innocent bystander in the middle trying to figure out who is right -- the one who appears most confident or the one who speaks louder.

There is a benefit for those with UNCOMMON sense.

While those with UNCOMMON sense can recognize the myth and ignore it, those with COMMON sense will continue to try to conquer the thing that they want to believe to be true.

It is actually to my benefit when my competitors waste their limited time, money and resources trying to overcome the myth. When they start chasing phantoms, I rest in the knowledge that they will have fewer resources to compete with me on an equal footing.

In the end, I am willing to make a case against the myth, and I will step out and let our audience make their own decisions about who is right and who is wrong and who they want to believe.

My confidence that "the need to use different C-Class IP's to win the SEO game" is a myth has not been weakened.

Winning the argument is not at all important to me, so I am more than happy to let you win the argument.

Until we meet again...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2992446].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

I am still absolutely confident that the notion of "Google penalizing sites with a SEO penalty, according to the same C-Class IP" is a myth.

To me, this is obviously UNCOMMON sense, as you have are determined that you are the only one here with COMMON sense.

As with all SEO myths that are commonly argued on this forum, there are people who know them to be a myth and other people who are willing to argue the contrary point to the ends of the earth.

Then there is the innocent bystander in the middle trying to figure out who is right -- the one who appears most confident or the one who speaks louder.

There is a benefit for those with UNCOMMON sense.

While those with UNCOMMON sense can recognize the myth and ignore it, those with COMMON sense will continue to try to conquer the thing that they want to believe to be true.

It is actually to my benefit when my competitors waste their limited time, money and resources trying to overcome the myth. When they start chasing phantoms, I rest in the knowledge that they will have fewer resources to compete with me on an equal footing.

In the end, I am willing to make a case against the myth, and I will step out and let our audience make their own decisions about who is right and who is wrong and who they want to believe.

My confidence that "the need to use different C-Class IP's to win the SEO game" is a myth has not been weakened.

Winning the argument is not at all important to me, so I am more than happy to let you win the argument.

Until we meet again...

Let's recap:

--You completely misunderstood the intent of the OP and the question.

--You claimed there was no penalty for putting sites on the same IP.

--I didn't dispute, but instead said that if you're to try and game the search engines and cross-link, at least put them on a different IP to hide your footprint.

--You claimed the web would be damaged by not allowing links from the same IP.

--I said nobody would know the difference if Google applied a filter to block all same IP cross-linking.

--Andy Henry joins the conversation to point out the danger of making assumptions and conveying them as fact...of course, what started the conversation was an assumption made by you.

--You and Andy both recall these "tests" you have done that prove your theory (convenient). How the test was conducted remains a mystery.

--You ignore a link where Matt Cutts says cross-linking several sites on the same IP is not good from an SEO perspective.

--You ignore the lessons of basically every link network, blog network, SEO, or common sense that says if you're going to game the search engines....at least be a little sneaky about it.

--You maintain that your "test" means you were never wrong in the first place.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2992773].message }}

Dan C. Rinnert

16 years ago

Let's say that you have 100 crummy websites, all linking to one another.

Let's say that you have 100 top-notch websites, all linking to one another.

If the crummy websites are spread out across different C-class IPs, do you think they will rank better than the top-notch websites that are within the same C-class IPs?

Do you think if Adobe, eBay, MSN, Weather.com and Wikipedia were all in the same C-class and had relevant links to one another that Google would penalize them?

I don't.

The goal of the search engines is to deliver quality to the end-user. Those that don't have quality typically have to resort to all sorts of different methods of fooling the search engines. They might be fooled for a while, but eventually they will catch on to what's going on.

I think you have sites that get penalized for poor content, irrelevant linking, spammy behavior and other things that want to point the finger at something, so they blame IPs.

In my experience, I haven't seen cross-linking between sites in the same C-class, or even the same IP, to be a problem. If Google wants to penalize me because I found good webhosts and decided to stick with them, well, that's just crazy, especially if I'm delivering content their users want.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2992984].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Let's say that you have 100 crummy websites, all linking to one another.

Let's say that you have 100 top-notch websites, all linking to one another.

If the crummy websites are spread out across different C-class IPs, do you think they will rank better than the top-notch websites that are within the same C-class IPs?

Do you think if Adobe, eBay, MSN, Weather.com and Wikipedia were all in the same C-class and had relevant links to one another that Google would penalize them?

I don't.

The goal of the search engines is to deliver quality to the end-user. Those that don't have quality typically have to resort to all sorts of different methods of fooling the search engines. They might be fooled for a while, but eventually they will catch on to what's going on.

I think you have sites that get penalized for poor content, irrelevant linking, spammy behavior and other things that want to point the finger at something, so they blame IPs.

In my experience, I haven't seen cross-linking between sites in the same C-class, or even the same IP, to be a problem. If Google wants to penalize me because I found good webhosts and decided to stick with them, well, that's just crazy, especially if I'm delivering content their users want.

Again, you're a) Not understanding the issue b) Not understanding my point.

I never said it was bad to put domains on the same IP. I said if your purpose is to benefit from cross-linking, cover your tracks by putting them on different IPs. If you're going to game the engines, cover your tracks.

But your point is irrelevant. Because we're talking about reseller/shared hosting. Ebay isn't sharing an IP address with joesautobodyofdesmoines.com . If they chose to filter links within an IP because there were 50 small domains cross-linking, it would be a drop in the ocean.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2993088].message }}

Tina Golden

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

Let's recap:

--Andy Henry joins the conversation to point out the danger of making assumptions and conveying them as fact...of course, what started the conversation was an assumption made by you. He didn't make an assumption. He asserted what he believes to be a fact. There is a difference.

--You and Andy both recall these "tests" you have done that prove your theory (convenient). How the test was conducted remains a mystery. For you to make a statement like this about the two gentlemen in question only goes to show your own ignorance of their characters. What was that you said about assumptions?

--You ignore a link where Matt Cutts says cross-linking several sites on the same IP is not good from an SEO perspective. You ignore the several people who pointed out the context of that statement and added what Matt Cutts said later in the same conversation, i.e. "I'm not saying anything at all about class C's (good or bad)".

--You ignore the lessons of basically every link network, blog network, SEO, or common sense that says if you're going to game the search engines....at least be a little sneaky about it. What lessons? They believe there is a penalty but I didn't see you provide any proof of that fact. Did these networks ever test the theory? Did you? Because someone else believes a myth, does not make that myth a fact. There are still many people who believe in the duplicate content myth, as well, despite it having been debunked pretty thoroughly through the years.

If you are going to debate, try doing it without casting aspersions on people's characters and by bringing facts to your side of the table, not beliefs.

Tina

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2993015].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

If you are going to debate, try doing it without casting aspersions on people's characters and by bringing facts to your side of the table, not beliefs.

Tina

I didn't get very far with your comments. I stopped after you said that my opinions were "assumptions" and others weren't assumptions, they were " what he believes to be a fact"

You're kidding right? (you don't have to answer that)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2993067].message }}

Tina Golden

16 years ago

Originally Posted by Dave Rodman

I didn't get very far with your comments. I stopped after you said that my opinions were "assumptions" and others weren't assumptions, they were " what he believes to be a fact"

You're kidding right? (you don't have to answer that)

You do know that you are comparing apples to oranges, right? The initial use of assumption was based on what Andy and Bill state as fact because they actually tested it. I refer to it as "what he believes to be a fact" because I honestly don't know whether it is a fact or not. I wasn't agreeing with his premise as I don't have enough knowledge to vote on that topic.

The second use of assumption was when you were casting doubt on someone's character when you don't know either gentleman, therefore you have no way of knowing their characters. Therefore that comment could be no more than an assumption.

You don't have to agree with them, but it is completely unnecessary and rude to take the tone that you did as to their characters.

Tina

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2993168].message }}

Dave Rodman

Banned 16 years ago

Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises

You do know that you are comparing apples to oranges, right? The initial use of assumption was based on what Andy and Bill state as fact because they actually tested it. I refer to it as "what he believes to be a fact" because I honestly don't know whether it is a fact or not. I wasn't agreeing with his premise as I don't have enough knowledge to vote on that topic.

The second use of assumption was when you were casting doubt on someone's character when you don't know either gentleman, therefore you have no way of knowing their characters. Therefore that comment could be no more than an assumption.

You don't have to agree with them, but it is completely unnecessary and rude to take the tone that you did as to their characters.

Tina

I thought they took a ruder tone with me than I did with them, but either way, it doesn't really matter to me.

I just think it's a copout when people get into a discussion and all the sudden pull out the old "Oh yeah, I've tested this and it proves my point". Because unless you're going to explain how you tested it, the methodology, and some screenshots (backup), then you might as well just say you didn't test anything. Because too many people pull out that hail mary when they feel like they are losing an argument.

Of course, I don't really expect people to do that. If I had test results and someone was questioning them, I wouldn't feel it necessary to prove my point that I had proved it to myself. It's not worth the time.

I've read TPW's posts and he's usually the one that does the questioning like I was questioning him. I kinda get the sense that established warriors don't like to be questioned and circle the wagons a bit. And then when they feel they are being backed into a corner, they resort to mockery to some degree....and pulling out the "I've TESTED THIS" card..also known as "get out of jail free card". It might work with some people....but back your claims or cite your sources. We'll never get to a definitive agreement, but people reading the thread will have more information from opposing views. People are skeptical when a guru makes a claim they can't back, I expect the same out of someone on here.

In other words, in a court of law, your unpublished tests get thrown out. So if that's all you got, then just admit it's kind of tossup.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2993298].message }}

Andyhenry 16 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Andy!! Pull your head out... If I am wrong, then you are wrong for backing me up!!!

Hehe - Hey, who said being wrong is a crime? I'm happy to be wrong if someone has the 'right' answer.
- Thanks
Signature

nothing to see here.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990940].message }}

KEY

16 years ago

(edit: I see tpm beat me to the punch/post while I was typing:p)

@Dave R,
I have to chime in here and say that you have taken Matt Cutt's
quote out of context of the whole picture of his post/article...as
further down it is clear that he is commenting on having the 'secret'
sites that NIN (nine inch nails) fans were to try and find? that is
would be made easier by the fact that they were all on the same IP.
(for the more clever of them at least)

graywolf, I'm not saying anything at all about class C's (good or bad), other than adoring fans would be willing to check the other domains on the same class C, so that might not be ideal for NIN's viral marketing campaign.

@dankat

a self made IP link system will never never compete with the power and
speed of just getting your site(s) buzz/links up and out on: digg, twitter,
facebook. wordpress, hi-5, blogger, squidoo, youtube, press releases, etc, etc, etc...

KEY (eric)

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990640].message }}

Andyhenry

16 years ago

Ok - I'm leaving it there now.... Thanks for the fun.

Thanks

Signature

nothing to see here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990721].message }}

SEOExpert999

16 years ago

You guys need to chill out all three of you are right. The main thing you need to consider when putting all your websites on a single IP is if that IP has been banned for spam or hacking which can happen to anyone. But your big companies like Yahoo sees the problem before the IP gets Banned and gets rid of the bad customer. If you are dealing with a small company that does not have data intrusion hardware and software to catch it then that IP can get banned and everybody is shutdown on that IP as far as SEO Goes.

Thanks

Signature

Amazing SEO Packages|AffordableSEOKeywordResearch| Email Marketing Solutions |Internet Resource Guide | Easy Social Marketing

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990800].message }}

cashcow

16 years ago

I like hostgator myself.

Just the other day, one of my Hostgator sites was using too many server resources so they disabled it but they not only emailed me straightaway but also called me (this was on Thanksgiving day BTW) so I was able to resolve the issue and have it up and running again in under an hour.

I don't know if you need seperate ip's - I think that reasons for that were beaten to death above, but also, are you really going to be cross linking your local business sites? Much more cost effective to get a reseller account IMHO.

Lee

Thanks

Signature

Gone Fishing

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990816].message }}

SEOExpert999

16 years ago

Yes KEY you are right about the domain server setup and Yes you will get faster results if you are on your own domain name server and IP but you will get the same results on a shared IP, it will be slower because of the other sites on the IP. It boils down to which one is more beneficial to your pocket.

Thanks

Signature

Amazing SEO Packages|AffordableSEOKeywordResearch| Email Marketing Solutions |Internet Resource Guide | Easy Social Marketing

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2990956].message }}

AnitaCross

16 years ago

Originally Posted by dankat

Hey Warriors,
Here I have a question I'd like your advice with:

I have around 50 websites of local businesses I manage in different cities across the US, and it's time for me to get a better hosting becuase the one I have now is very bad (it's a small company someone recommended me... too bad!).

My questions are:

1. Which hosting company would you recommend? I've checked of course GoDaddy, HostGator and also InMotionHosting. Do you guys have experience with InMotion? any feedback?

2. Considering that I have 50 independednt websites and I want to take advantage of them for SEO and Local SEO purposes... should I need a unique IP for each one of these sites? if yes... do I need different C Class for each one as well or same C Class is ok if there are all unique IPs?

Thank you very much!
Dan

Dan,

I use to work for a local ISP. When I left, I moved my sites. Long story short, I tried three hosting companies before I found one I was truly happy with. When they forced me to move from the Saavis Data Center, and royally screwed up the move, I ended up going back to my local ISP.

I now have my own computer co-located with the local company, PacInfo.com, now owned by one of the guys I use to work with. Randy is the absolute best. I plan on keeping my sites there forever! I can and do heartily recommend them.

From my own experiences, I would recommend getting a dedicated server, with a raid, and putting all the sites on the one machine. Additional IP addresses are usually not too expensive. I get them for only $1 each per month. You may be able to negotiate a better deal when you set up the dedicated server.

As for SEO purposes, I don't know who is right on the myth debate. What I do know, as I've been doing SEO for a very long time, is at one point the Google Guidelines actually stated that the algorithm takes over 100 factors into account. That was several years ago. More recently, it stated over 200 factors.

I went to the guidelines so I could quote that here, and they've removed it from the document. Guess they decided knowing that so many factors are involved took away from their air of mystery.

Anyway, with pagerank being one of hundreds of factors, it just doesn't carry the weight it use to way back when. I honestly don't think you need to worry about having all the sites in the same C class: it is also only one of hundreds of factors.

I would recommend springing for the dedicated IP addresses for each site, however.

Good luck,
-Anita

Thanks

Signature

Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

Anita is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2991670].message }}

rondo

16 years ago

I'd spread the 50 sites over 2 or 3 hosting accounts with different providers so:
If one host goes down, the rest of your sites will still be running.
If your'e concerned about IPs/SEO you can do some 3-way link building between your groups of sites.

Andrew

Thanks

Signature

Online courses

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2992157].message }}

Hosting, IP's and C Classes - Help Me!

Trending Topics

Lightening strikes :(

Visual marketing ideas and concepts - How do I present myself to the marketing world?

If you had to start over today -- what would you do ?

" It is what it is" ... overused way too much imo

What would you do without the Internet ??