Can't find a good hosting for satellites

11 years ago

You do not want to go with a host offering anything like that. The only people using those hosts are ones building networks. Google knows this. They have been targeted by Google for the past 3 years. Stay away from SEO hosts.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9859800].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

Mike, I build networks and I know how profitable they are. Moreover, I know how to build them safely. Please, don't post offtopic.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9859850].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Ok nevermind. Do whatever you want.

Every host that offers multiple IP packages is a target for Google. Multiple shared accounts is much safer.

That being said, if you still want that sort of host, I would check out WebHostingTalk to find what you are looking for.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9859878].message }}

Cthulchu 11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

I would check out WebHostingTalk to find what you are looking for.

Finally! This may actually help.

Any other suggestions (preferably without any additional SEO gossips and legends)?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9859934].message }}
- MikeFriedman 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Cthulchu
  
  Finally! This may actually help.
  
  Any other suggestions (preferably without any additional SEO gossips and legends)?
  
  None that I am willing to share.
  
  And none of that is gossip or legend. Anyone that has been building networks for longer than a week knows that SEO hosting is a horrible idea.
  
  Good luck.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9859969].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

lol

I've been building networks since 2011.

you just don't know how it should be done.

PS

I wouldn't recommend satellites to newbies, though. It's not easy. And it's impossible to do it efficiently without formidable knowledge in web development, networking, programming and SEO, of course.

PSS

And it's bloody expensive. It takes at least $10k to create a small network.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860010].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Cthulchu

lol

I've been building networks since 2011.

you just don't know how it should be done.

PS

I wouldn't recommend satellites to newbies, though. It's not easy. And it's impossible to do it efficiently without formidable knowledge in web development, networking, programming and SEO, of course.

Lol. I've been building networks for over a decade, since long before anyone referred to them as networks.

I have shared as much free information about building networks as anyone on this forum.

You are right though. I have no idea how it should be done.

The $10k thing is relative. What is a small network? I have networks of 20 sites. I have networks over 100 sites. For some networks, $10k is plenty. For other networks, $10k is my monthly budget for getting them started.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860024].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

The $10k thing is relative. What is a small network? I have networks of 20 sites. I have networks over 100 sites. For some networks, $10k is plenty. For other networks, $10k is my monthly budget for getting them started.

you're right. It depends. $10k is my bottom. I just don't work on cheaper networks. It's not interesting.

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Lol. I've been building networks for over a decade, since long before anyone referred to them as networks.

you've been building networks for over a decade and you don't know how to build them? Wow. You must be incredibly rich to be able to afford wasting a decade

Well, now I understand why you're so sure networks are not worth working on. The issue is that one should learn everything they can while they promote sites. Everything in SEO should be a small experiment. Otherwise SEO-specialist ends up using obvious public techniques for funny money.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860047].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

I never said networks were not worth working on. I said that SEO hosting is a really bad idea for your network.

Private networks are the single biggest expense for my business, which is precisely why I keep them off of SEO hosts.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860050].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

oh, hm... Well, I built a few networks using hostings like that. And I got the same results I always do. Why do you think SEO hostings are bad? It sounds like a rumor: "Google knows about hostings! Google fights satellites! Google will magically detect SEO-hostings. Google divinates by IP!"

not really scientific explanation

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860052].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Cthulchu

oh, hm... Well, I built a few networks using hostings like that. And I got the same results I always do. Why do you think SEO hostings are bad? It sounds like a rumor.

They work the same as any other host. The problem is that SEO hosts attract mostly people who are building networks. Google knows this and has gone after them in the past.

In other words, if you use an SEO host, you are increasing the chances of your network sites being deindexed by Google. Even if you build really good network sites, it is still an increased risk of just being collateral damage from the other sites hosted with you.

There are tons of stories out there of Google going after SEO hosts.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860057].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

Google knows this and has gone after them in the past.

rly? that's funny. I'm more than sure that google doesn't "go for" anything specific. Google's path in 99% of cases is general algorithms, which makes perfect sense, considering what Google is. Yes, sometimes Google does that. Like with that crappy Chinese hoster with tons of doorways and exploits (co.cc, I think).

In other words, if you use an SEO host, you are increasing the chances of your network sites being deindexed by Google. Even if you build really good network sites, it is still an increased risk of just being collateral damage from the other sites hosted with you.

I agree, but is it worth considering? I mean, the chance is like +.1%, whereas it's so bloody painful to manage tons of small hostings. You should pay multiple times on time , speak with different support teams, keep and manage authorization data somewhere (I use google docs, btw), monitor all the sites uptime separately, manage sites separately (especially when creating website instances), etc, etc, etc...

There are tons of stories out there of Google going after SEO hosts.

There are tons of rumors and tons of examples of incompetent analysis. You should know it: when an SEO specialist tries not to find explanations for the phenomenons they notice, but to find phenomenons that would confirm their thoughts and beliefs. Generally, that's why I think SEO should be treated as science by SEO-experts; therefore, SEO is not a right place for humanitarians. It's always funny to read general stuff like: "write nice articles", "don't buy links", "don't copy". It seems like people just prefer ignore their ability to think.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860076].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Google is not going after private networks with algorithms. It is all manual so far. One of the ways is SEO hosts. I've experienced it myself. The first two domains I ever had deindexed were with SkyNet hosting on an SEO hosting plan. When I checked the servers, over 85% of the domains on the same servers were deindexed. Others have reported similar cases with SEO hosts.

It increases the risk by a lot more than 0.1%.

Managing multiple hosting accounts is really not that complicated. Pay 1-3 years in advance for each hosting account. That pretty much takes care of the invoicing nightmare. Create a spreadsheet with all the domains and hosting info (logins, etc.) in one place. Problem solved.

As for monitoring uptime, that is a problem with shared hosts or an SEO host. You still need to monitor each domain because they are on different servers. So that is a wash. (By the way, Sitewink works really well for this.)

SEO hosts are no less expensive than multiple shared hosts, so cost is not really a factor either.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860092].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

Google is not going after private networks

I would stop right here

It is all manual so far

If a network can be detected by assessors, it's a shitty network. Never have I built stuff like that. Have you read Google's instructions for assessors? They reveal a lot, actually.

The first two domains I ever had deindexed were with SkyNet hosting on an SEO hosting plan. When I checked the servers, over 85% of the domains on the same servers were deindexed. Others have reported similar cases with SEO hosts.

It's not evidence. Use critical thinking. you may have had there low quality content, or you may have purchased poor links, and I can generate hundreds more reasons. Why would anybody pick just one and go with one particular? Right! just because they want to believe.

Problem solved.

there's much more than that. What if one hosting is down? you now should monitor every hosting. Different hosters have different configuration, so it takes much more time to solve issues on different histings. What about backuping nightmare? Updating nightmare?
Usually, I hire a system administrator to manage my hostings and sites technically, but it's much more expensive than having everything in one place... At least in 4-5 places (15-20 sites per hoster just for diversification)

As for monitoring uptime, that is a problem with shared hosts or an SEO host. You still need to monitor each domain because they are on different servers. So that is a wash.

lol

rarely are they on different servers. And even if they are, there are often virtualization systems that simulate one server and would signalize in case if a particular part of it is down.

By the way, Sitewink works really well for this.

I have a few scripts running on my servers for this, but thanks, I'll check that out.

SEO hosts are no less expensive than multiple shared hosts, so cost is not really a factor either.

SEO hosts are MUCH cheaper than separated hosts. I can buy 10 IP hosting for $20, whereas 10 cheapest hosting plans would cost around 10*$5

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860130].message }}

MikeFriedman 11 years ago

My networks look like real sites.

Here is what I am trying to explain to you and I have personally seen across a half dozen SEO hosts... Most of the sites hosted with an SEO host are network sites. You are putting yourself in a bad neighborhood that Google is manually targeting. No matter how good your site is, it could get swept away with the rest of them because it is surrounded by so much trash.

It's not your site you have to worry about getting caught. It's all the shitty network sites around you.

You are exponentially increasing that risk on an SEO host versus shared hosting. That's all.

The Skynet hosting was just one example. And when over 85% of the sites that were on the same IPs were also deindexed, and I have seen this over and over again on other SEO hosts, yeah, that is pretty strong evidence.

As for the backups, it is not hard to setup automatic backups when you setup the site. Really not any different on shared hosting versus SEO hosting.

SEO hosting being cheaper than multiple shared accounts is a big myth, especially if you shop around for special offers and hit sales. I can get good shared accounts for the same price you are paying for SEO hosting. I can make it even cheaper by adding multiple domains on the same account. (Note: Those are multiple domains that are part of different networks. I would never put domains of the same network on the same IP address.)

Anyhow, like I said, it really doesn't matter what you build or how you build it. Putting a network on SEO hosting is just an additional, unnecessary risk.

If it is working for you, go for it.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860161].message }}

Cthulchu

11 years ago

It's not your site you have to worry about getting caught. It's all the shitty network sites around you.

and still, I don't think google checks this. And I haven't seen any information about hostings in google's 2011, 2012, 2014 guidelines for assessors. I think you're simply see what you want to see, while the problem is somewhere else.

You are exponentially increasing that risk on an SEO host versus shared hosting. That's all.

exponentially? cool. I've hosted around 300 sites on different "SEO" hosts and everything was fine.

- Horses would never step on a lying man.
- Do horses know that?

Maybe if I had known that SEO hostings exponentially increase the risk, I would've notice it

As for the backups, it is not hard to setup automatic backups when you setup the site. Really not any different on shared hosting versus SEO hosting.

Well, if you use default hosting backup system, good luck with that. I don't. I set up my own scripts that store the backups in local storages, where the hard drives are much cheaper. And in my case I can set the backup rotation and rules as I want, without the hoster's limits.

This conversation becomes even more redundant. However, it was quite a nice discussion. It would be really cool for me if everybody believed in that hosting and other myths.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860197].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

4 years experience, debunked myths, now go buy your SEO hosting & be done with it.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9860360].message }}

Can't find a good hosting for satellites

Trending Topics

What's one thing on your bucket list you have to do ??

Ever wonder why great things happen to bad people and horrific things happen to good people??

New member aboard!

Walking for Exercise is a Different Animal...

Sell more wellness products by marketing small habit wins