Backlinks to a site from 2 sites of the same ip address

45 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hey fellow SEO Warriors.

What are YOUR thoughts on this.

I've got a client i'm working with

I've already linked from one site I own to their site a few times

I just obtained a new PR4 site (very relevant) and want to link to them, but I hosted it on the same account - thus it's on the same IP address.

My FIRST site is a PR0, this new site is a PR4 so I definitely want to take advantage of it.

Would it just be best to get another hosting account for it? Or would it be ok with just one link from this new site to theirs?

I've been BUYING backlinks for a while (high PR) on diff IP addresses, but just recently started buying my OWN - so I just want to make sure I don't harm any of the sites involved if I do this.

I know google loves links from diff class 3 IP addresses, which is what I"ve BEEN doing. Being that I've never had 2 links to a site FROM 2 diff websites on the same IP, I figured i'd ask here

Thoughts?

Thanks

Jeff
#address #backlinks #site #sites
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
    Yukon what's YOUR take on this?
    Signature

    Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8427949].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
    Google doesn't care what IP's anything is from unless you're providing junk irrelevant content or you're trying to pass up fake sites. 99.9% of the internet is name based hosting anyway, so at that point the IP address becomes irrelevant despite what the "gurus" say.

    I'll sit back and wait for the experts to come in so I can get flamed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428103].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

      Google doesn't care what IP's anything is from unless you're providing junk irrelevant content or you're trying to pass up fake sites. 99.9% of the internet is name based hosting anyway, so at that point the IP address becomes irrelevant despite what the "gurus" say.

      I'll sit back and wait for the experts to come in so I can get flamed.
      It does not impact ranking, but if you are building out a network of sites to build links off of, you want to leave as little of a footprint as possible that would allow them to be tied together. For that reason, it is a good idea to have the site on a different IP address.

      Ranking wise, it plays little to no role whatsoever really.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428139].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        It does not impact ranking, but if you are building out a network of sites to build links off of, you want to leave as little of a footprint as possible that would allow them to be tied together. For that reason, it is a good idea to have the site on a different IP address.

        Ranking wise, it plays little to no role whatsoever really.
        Thanks, to both of you so far :-)

        So, obviously I don't want to leave a footprint.... I'm not building a HUGE network of sites, I'm buying links mostly on diverse IPs but got a few good domains that were relevant AND had great incoming links.

        I could link to 2 guest posts I had made that link to MY site - so 2nd tier link some guest posts with the high PR link - that'd be harder to track right?
        Signature

        Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428213].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kpmedia
      Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

      99.9% of the internet is name based hosting anyway, so at that point the IP address becomes irrelevant despite what the "gurus" say..
      Yep.

      I get so tired of that "network of sites" crap. As if it makes any difference what they call it. They're just sites to Google, which ignores the IPs anyway. :rolleyes:

      For those who want cheap, Arvixe is $4. Less than the cost of lunch for 1 day.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428624].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danparks
      Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

      Google doesn't care what IP's anything is from unless you're providing junk irrelevant content or you're trying to pass up fake sites. 99.9% of the internet is name based hosting anyway, so at that point the IP address becomes irrelevant despite what the "gurus" say.

      I'll sit back and wait for the experts to come in so I can get flamed.
      I understand why people debate whether or not different IP address matter as far as ranking. But why are some people so adamant about disagreeing with the notion that diversity of IP addresses might be important? What about manual review? If a site is under manual review, and it has 50 great, high PR backlinks, from 50 sites *all hosted on the same server*, wouldn't you concede that this would spell immediate death for that site? What are the odds of a site getting great links from a huge number of "independent" sources *all* hosted on the same server? I don't know how the Google manual review process works (no one does, exactly), but if I were writing the rules for it, that's pretty much all it would take for me to decide that the links were unnatural. No?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428695].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kpmedia
        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

        I understand why people debate whether or not different IP address matter
        It's only a debate when you're on the anti-facts/science side. It's a lot like climate change, 9/11 or Elvis. It is happening, it was not an inside job, and the man is dead. Yet lots of people believe in lots of stupid crap, and should be called out for it. This is the online version of stupidity.

        Worth repeating:
        The difference is: they're not junk sites with crap content.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430296].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author danparks
          Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

          It's only a debate when you're on the anti-facts/science side. It's a lot like climate change, 9/11 or Elvis. It is happening, it was not an inside job, and the man is dead. Yet lots of people believe in lots of stupid crap, and should be called out for it. This is the online version of stupidity.
          In your posts stating that IP addresses don't matter, both you and Kingfish85 skip the part about manual review. You honestly believe that getting a huge number of PR backlinks from "unrelated" sites all on the same server won't matter in a manual review?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430525].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
            Originally Posted by danparks View Post

            In your posts stating that IP addresses don't matter, both you and Kingfish85 skip the part about manual review. You honestly believe that getting a huge number of PR backlinks from "unrelated" sites all on the same server won't matter in a manual review?
            Key word: unrelated.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430535].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author danparks
              Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

              Key word: unrelated.
              Care to elaborate?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430552].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
                Originally Posted by danparks View Post

                Care to elaborate?
                Makes sense to me actually

                You honestly believe that getting a huge number of PR backlinks from "unrelated" sites all on the same server won't matter in a manual review?
                He means YES, it will matter IF they're un-related.

                HOWEVER - if the content is quality and the sites are LEGIT and actually related, you should be fine.

                In my case for example, both sites I own (pr 0 and 4) are related very much. I also fill them both with high quality content that google loves.

                If they were all of different niches, pointing to the same site (unrelated) - that might look bad

                BTW - Thanks all for your feedback on this, I worked for an SEO company before that did NOT allow us to buy high PR links like this, they juse did high paid guest posts. Now that i'm doing something else, i'm able to buy my own high PR links and buy my own sites - which I'm doing and having great success with so far.

                Thanks again EVERYBODY for your feedback and input -
                Signature

                Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430609].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author danparks
                  Originally Posted by eljeffe77 View Post

                  He means YES, it will matter IF they're un-related.
                  Kingfish has said in many threads that it's pointless and a waste for a person with a PR network to bother with getting multiple hosting accounts for IP diversity. If he thinks that Google doesn't care about IP diversity in regards to backlinks, fair enough, that's his opinion, I get it.

                  But I haven't seen him comment on the other reason networks use multiple IPs - to help survive a manual review. When I say "unrelated" I don't mean topic/content of a backlink-supplying site is unrelated to the target site, I mean the site the link is coming from is supposed to seem unrelated to the target site (so it doesn't seem like a site exists only to be a backlink source). If he agrees that it's a bad idea to host many link-supplying sites on the same server as far as surviving a manual review goes, then in a way his notion that multiple hosting accounts is a waste for link networks falls apart. But I haven't seen him address that point. I only repeatedly see his response that Google doesn't care about IP diversity.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430697].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                    There are networks built for nothing more than linking, backlinks,
                    selling links, trading links, etc. Those are junk to begin with,
                    and most assuredly any reputable link "broker" will have nothing to
                    do with such crap.

                    However, if you build an online empire, like wikipedia, amazon, gasbuddy,
                    zap2it, go.com, ebay, etc. etc. and of course, etc., then you have
                    nothing to worry about. Same IP or not.

                    If google really cared or could detect link networks, then why would IP
                    matter? If people think google is so dumb, why do they keep insisting that
                    google is so smart? Does not make sense in the real world.

                    Junk = junk. Period.

                    Paul
                    Signature

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

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430714].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author danparks
                      Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

                      There are networks built for nothing more than linking, backlinks,
                      selling links, trading links, etc. Those are junk to begin with,
                      and most assuredly any reputable link "broker" will have nothing to
                      do with such crap.

                      However, if you build an online empire, like wikipedia, amazon, gasbuddy,
                      zap2it, go.com, ebay, etc. etc. and of course, etc., then you have
                      nothing to worry about. Same IP or not.

                      If google really cared or could detect link networks, then why would IP
                      matter? If people think google is so dumb, why do they keep insisting that
                      google is so smart? Does not make sense in the real world.

                      Junk = junk. Period.

                      Paul
                      Sure, if a person is trying to rank his own site, of course invest time and effort in creating a great, useful site. But you know that people who are creating PR networks are doing so for the purpose of doing SEO on the sites of others. I can't go around creating "empires" for everyone so they rank. If you want to advise someone looking for SEO to focus on quality and content and creating an authority site as opposed to going with a SEO person who provides backlinks, that's fine. No problem with that thinking. But there are people who create networks and successfully use them to rank the sites of others. If that type of person has a question about networks, then it would be nice if people would give an answer regarding networks, rather than just saying "it's a bunch of crap." We get it, some people hate PR networks. Why throw that line in as answer to a question concerning PR networks?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430953].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
                    Originally Posted by danparks View Post

                    Kingfish has said in many threads that it's pointless and a waste for a person with a PR network to bother with getting multiple hosting accounts for IP diversity. If he thinks that Google doesn't care about IP diversity in regards to backlinks, fair enough, that's his opinion, I get it.

                    But I haven't seen him comment on the other reason networks use multiple IPs - to help survive a manual review. When I say "unrelated" I don't mean topic/content of a backlink-supplying site is unrelated to the target site, I mean the site the link is coming from is supposed to seem unrelated to the target site (so it doesn't seem like a site exists only to be a backlink source). If he agrees that it's a bad idea to host many link-supplying sites on the same server as far as surviving a manual review goes, then in a way his notion that multiple hosting accounts is a waste for link networks falls apart. But I haven't seen him address that point. I only repeatedly see his response that Google doesn't care about IP diversity.
                    The only reason for trying to "hide" this so called footprint is because you're trying to game the search engines. Here's a suggestion: stop building crap fake sites trying to push rankings. Put quality content on your sites and you'll have no problems. You guys spend too much time focusing on trying to get around what the search engines are looking for and not enough time on the sites themselves.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430727].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author danparks
                      Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

                      The only reason for trying to "hide" this so called footprint is because you're trying to game the search engines. Here's a suggestion: stop building crap fake sites trying to push rankings. Put quality content on your sites and you'll have no problems. You guys spend too much time focusing on trying to get around what the search engines are looking for and not enough time on the sites themselves.
                      I don't create sites. I'm not trying to rank my site. I'm ranking the sites of other people.

                      It seems odd that you'll go on and on about how using different IPs isn't important as far as rankings, but you never address if it matters as far as a manual review. You just switch to the "networks shouldn't be needed/crap sites" line. Okay, fine, your opinion. But then why give detailed answers about IPs don't matter in networks when it comes to backlink relevancy, and never an answer about IPs and manual reviews?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430919].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
                        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

                        I don't create sites. I'm not trying to rank my site. I'm ranking the sites of other people.

                        It seems odd that you'll go on and on about how using different IPs isn't important as far as rankings, but you never address if it matters as far as a manual review. You just switch to the "networks shouldn't be needed/crap sites" line. Okay, fine, your opinion. But then why give detailed answers about IPs don't matter in networks when it comes to backlink relevancy, and never an answer about IPs and manual reviews?
                        I figured my responses were kind of self explanatory. If you are providing quality content that isn't faked or attempting to fool the search engines, they do not care. Manual review, automatic review, robots whatever.

                        I mean, do you really think that the people at Google are that stupid when doing a manual review and say "Well, these sites really have no quality information or relevant content BUT they use different IP addresses so they must be legit"? No, that's not how it works.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430951].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author danparks
                          Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

                          I mean, do you really think that the people at Google are that stupid when doing a manual review and say "Well, these sites really have no quality information or relevant content BUT they use different IP addresses so they must be legit"? No, that's not how it works.
                          Your generalizing on networks, that they all consist of unrelated spun garbage with a bunch of paid-for links. I have mine broken up into niches so backlinks to sites are relevant. I also don't sell links on it, so there aren't a bunch of short little meaningless articles about different topics in order to fit in sold links. I don't use spun garbage content, I craft a site so it actually has some useful information. It's certainly not an authority site, but any one site ain't too bad.


                          Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

                          What I find amusing is the term "successful". In the grand scheme of things, when it comes to SEO goobers (ninjas, rockstars, gurus, whatever), I've never met one with what I'd define as success. Make a few bucks temporarily, maybe. Long-term? No.

                          I'm always amused by the mommy bloggers that (at best) make some extra spending money, NOT a living wage, and then brag. Their "proof" of success is showing off what their sugar daddy hubby made. It has NOTHING to do with her! Same for kids who show off what mommy/daddy gave them.

                          So many affiliates are nothing more than exaggeraters and liars. So sad.

                          I have, however, met some great people with great sites, who are successful. And they're the quiet ones, doing what they do, not posting BS methods on how to get rich fast on the interwebs, and not advising others of silly things like using IP addresses for "SEO" (translation: failed attempt to spamdex crap).

                          Some folks will never learn.

                          You can be successful, but it takes work, doing the meat-and-taters of making a site, and not trying to perform magic tricks or searching for magic fairy dust.
                          Not sure what thread you're responding to, it doesn't seem like this one. Who here claimed to be "rockstar" SEO "guru" or anything similar? Who was mentioning get-rich SEO? I'm just talking about the use of IP diversity in PR networks. Never participated in spamming type SEO myself so I wouldn't know about that. My network sites follow a theme, have pretty fair content, work to help rank sites.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431450].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
                            Originally Posted by danparks View Post

                            Your generalizing on networks, that they all consist of unrelated spun garbage with a bunch of paid-for links. I have mine broken up into niches so backlinks to sites are relevant. I also don't sell links on it, so there aren't a bunch of short little meaningless articles about different topics in order to fit in sold links. I don't use spun garbage content, I craft a site so it actually has some useful information. It's certainly not an authority site, but any one site ain't too bad.
                            Well, because most of them are. The general practice in the "internet marketing / SEO" world is to build a bunch of junk sites to give the perception that they're good quality when in reality they're not, hence the need to cover up their tracks. Unless that's what you're doing, this "IP Diversity" doesn't mean anything.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431488].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author danparks
                              Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

                              Well, because most of them are. The general practice in the "internet marketing / SEO" world is to build a bunch of junk sites to give the perception that they're good quality when in reality they're not, hence the need to cover up their tracks. Unless that's what you're doing, this "IP Diversity" doesn't mean anything.
                              Okay, so you were generalizing about PR network owners. You're correct that many do create craptastic stuff. But some people don't do that. And if you are trying to create a decent network, you're still going to be concerned with leaving a footprint because there are site owners that will try to report or in some way minimize a network if it's being used with a site that competes with that person's site. There are legitimate reasons to try to move under the radar. There are reasons to not want a manual review, and to be able to survive one. And Google is always evolving and getting better and better at things, so even if backlink server diversity isn't considered now, why rule out that it could be in the near future? Doesn't hurt to plan ahead. Having multiple hosting accounts isn't a huge cost or time burden, so some people think it's worth the fairly minor cost/time increase. Doesn't seem like a topic worthy of so much wrath. You don't think it's of value, fine - point taken.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431538].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author mrkitty
                      Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

                      The only reason for trying to "hide" this so called footprint is because you're trying to game the search engines. Here's a suggestion: stop building crap fake sites trying to push rankings. Put quality content on your sites and you'll have no problems. You guys spend too much time focusing on trying to get around what the search engines are looking for and not enough time on the sites themselves.
                      If you're building a link network to rank websites, you're trying to game the search engines. Quality content doesn't change that fact, it just disguises it a little better. And anyone who doesn't believe Google refers to IPs to help snag search engine manipulators is in denial. And I've got another newsflash....no one is going to get ranked simply because they have quality content on their sites.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431660].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Make Money Ninja
    Its fine as long as its just a couple, and they are not the only links the site has.

    You only have to worry if you have like 100 links, from 100 domains, all on the same IP... All linking to each other. Google will detect that as a network.

    Just a few sites, linking one way, no problem.
    Signature

    The Ultimate Guide To Link Building

    Get More Links - Generate More Traffic - Make More Money!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428349].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author micksss
    Exactly, here and there it will not raise any red flags but if it is a common part of your profile you are a risk.
    Signature
    Web Hosting Reviews ► www.CastironHosting.com ◄ Read or Submit Feedback on Web Hosts.
    Web Hosting Coupons, Deals & Promos!

    Need a Virtual Private Server? www.VPSPlan.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428360].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
      Thanks Gents

      Thats what I THOUGHT - but I'm also getting commission for sales I get on this one - so i'm being EXTRA careful :-)

      Jeff
      Signature

      Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428430].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Big Kahuna SEO
    For the few bucks it would cost you monthly to get a totally separate hosting account why take the chance? You are going to have a lot of people on here tell you it won't make a difference. I disagree. My own testing tells me it does make a difference. So, my vote is, get a separate hosting account for your new domain. Again, for the low cost, why even debate it? You are trying to give yourself every advantage and this seems like an easy one to me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428434].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
      Originally Posted by Big Kahuna SEO View Post

      For the few bucks it would cost you monthly to get a totally separate hosting account why take the chance? You are going to have a lot of people on here tell you it won't make a difference. I disagree. My own testing tells me it does make a difference. So, my vote is, get a separate hosting account for your new domain. Again, for the low cost, why even debate it? You are trying to give yourself every advantage and this seems like an easy one to me.
      Fair enough - recommend a cheap host? I use hostmonster currently, have SOME on godaddy - who's cheap these days for JUST hosting? It's already registered via godaddy

      Thanks
      Signature

      Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428449].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Big Kahuna SEO
        You will get a lot of different answers on that one... It doesn't really matter WHO the host is as long as its different than what you currently have. For less than $4.00 a month you could use hawkhost, levelhosting, or stablehost. I use all three (and many more) and they work just fine for what you are trying to do.

        Originally Posted by eljeffe77 View Post

        Fair enough - recommend a cheap host? I use hostmonster currently, have SOME on godaddy - who's cheap these days for JUST hosting? It's already registered via godaddy

        Thanks
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428474].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
          Originally Posted by Big Kahuna SEO View Post

          You will get a lot of different answers on that one... It doesn't really matter WHO the host is as long as its different than what you currently have. For less than $4.00 a month you could use hawkhost, levelhosting, or stablehost. I use all three (and many more) and they work just fine for what you are trying to do.
          Nah I know, I just dont want to pay $80 a year for another hostmonster acct when i'm sure there is stuff tha'ts much cheaper

          Thanks

          Jeff
          Signature

          Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
    I knew this would start this type of debate - hahaha

    I do think google looks at IPs though, why would they not.
    Signature

    Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428691].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
      Originally Posted by eljeffe77 View Post

      I knew this would start this type of debate - hahaha

      I do think google looks at IPs though, why would they not.
      Because the internet is name-based hosting & shared hosting runs the internet. When IPV6 is more standardized, the whole IP diversity/network class crap will sound even dumber.

      Fact: Good, quality relevant content trumps whatever IP address a site/server/application is on.

      There are plenty of high ranking websites out there, linked together that have good quality content that are run on plain old shared hosting without hiding tracking codes, whois info etc etc. My advice would be to stop trying so hard on deprecated practices and focus on making good websites/content.

      Sure, the "seo experts" will come in and say different however, as I hosting provider I can tell you that we have customers with multiple sites, one the same plan that are in fact linked together that rank very high. The difference is: they're not junk sites with crap content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8429756].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Make Money Ninja
      Originally Posted by eljeffe77 View Post

      I knew this would start this type of debate - hahaha

      I do think google looks at IPs though, why would they not.
      Money, processing, resources...

      Just because they can do something, doesnt mean they will.. their goal is to get the best set of results with the minimum effort on their part
      Signature

      The Ultimate Guide To Link Building

      Get More Links - Generate More Traffic - Make More Money!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8429804].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author littlepandaman
    My sites -- five or so -- are all linked, same account/IP... but my sites are part of a "network" and I make no effort to hide that, in fact, I advertise that. So I can't imagine I would be discounted.

    It would be like a car dealership has separate sites for cars, trucks, bikes, RVs -- but they're all under the same umbrella, but rather distinctly different sites.

    In that case I can't see how it would be an issue.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428770].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danparks
      Originally Posted by littlepandaman View Post

      My sites -- five or so -- are all linked, same account/IP... but my sites are part of a "network" and I make no effort to hide that, in fact, I advertise that. So I can't imagine I would be discounted.

      It would be like a car dealership has separate sites for cars, trucks, bikes, RVs -- but they're all under the same umbrella, but rather distinctly different sites.

      In that case I can't see how it would be an issue.
      For a manual review, I don't see how that would be an issue either. However, sites that rely on external networks don't work that way. That's why I threw in the big number of 50 in my post. Your situation is from 5 obviously related, same business, same ownership, sites that logically might link together. My example is for one site getting a big number of high PR links from sites that obviously aren't any part of the business of the money site. Different situation.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8428784].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hansons
    You would get the benefit of links as long as it is looking natural.

    Think, sites/pages can be ranked using internal linking too, here there is no IP address except your website IP and you get the benefit, because you are doing naturally with relevancy.
    Signature

    Is your website Hacked? Try -> www.sitebeak.com
    Is Google Analytics installed Properly? Test -> www.GAtective.com
    Impersonal Google search? Check -> www.impersonal.me

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8429345].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yunoblog
    Unless you are dealing with thousands of backlinks from the same IP address, I don't think there will be a problem.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430756].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kpmedia
    What I find amusing is the term "successful". In the grand scheme of things, when it comes to SEO goobers (ninjas, rockstars, gurus, whatever), I've never met one with what I'd define as success. Make a few bucks temporarily, maybe. Long-term? No.

    I'm always amused by the mommy bloggers that (at best) make some extra spending money, NOT a living wage, and then brag. Their "proof" of success is showing off what their sugar daddy hubby made. It has NOTHING to do with her! Same for kids who show off what mommy/daddy gave them.

    So many affiliates are nothing more than exaggeraters and liars. So sad.

    I have, however, met some great people with great sites, who are successful. And they're the quiet ones, doing what they do, not posting BS methods on how to get rich fast on the interwebs, and not advising others of silly things like using IP addresses for "SEO" (translation: failed attempt to spamdex crap).

    Some folks will never learn.

    You can be successful, but it takes work, doing the meat-and-taters of making a site, and not trying to perform magic tricks or searching for magic fairy dust.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kpmedia
    And if you are trying to create a decent network, you're still going to be concerned with leaving a footprint
    No. That's the fallacy of your argument.

    Google doesn't give two $hits is it's a "network" or not. The sites rank on their own merits. When the site is good, it ranks. When the site is junk, it's doesn't. Links don't have as much value as many think it does, so this attempt to create your own links ("networks") is foolishness. The links themselves can has +/- value, and it's independent of IP.

    Good stuff ranks, crap does not. The end. Period.

    IP doesn't matter. It's just a protocol, not some magic SEO thing. People need to make better sites, not crap, if they want to rank. That's part of real SEO.

    Too many people still act like it's 2003 when it comes to SEO. But it's 2013.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431601].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mrkitty
      Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post


      Links don't have as much value as many think it does, so this attempt to create your own links ("networks") is foolishness.
      Speaking of fallacies, lol. That would be news to ....well, pretty much everyone at Google. I guess Google dedicates so much time, money and resources to combating backlink schemes because they're just bored, lol.

      Good stuff ranks, crap does not. The end. Period.
      On what planet, Magical Fantasy Ranking Utopia Land? There are only 10 spots on page one, so you must live in one serious Bizarro world if there are only 10 good pages on the entire web for every keyword.

      No one, and I mean no one is going to get ranked simply because they have good content.

      Too many people still act like it's 2003 when it comes to SEO. But it's 2013.
      It IS 2013, and in 2013, backlinks still drive rankings, no matter how much denial some folks prefer to live in. If not, Matt Cutts wouldn't care if you got a link from a guest post that isn't nofollow. If backlinks don't really matter, it shouldn't matter if that backlink(or any other for that matter) is nofollow or not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431698].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danparks
      Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

      Google doesn't give two is it's a "network" or not. The sites rank on their own merits. When the site is good, it ranks. When the site is junk, it's doesn't. Links don't have as much value as many think it does, so this attempt to create your own links ("networks") is foolishness.

      Good stuff ranks, crap does not. The end. Period.
      Google puts effort into finding and deindexing public blog networks, like BuildMyRank. If networks don't work, why would they care if people are buying backlinks? Because backlinks *are* very important.

      Crap ranks all the time. People complain about crap ranking all the time. When you see crap ranking, it typically has a great backlink profile. People put up a site with one picture on it or one paragraph and then rank it with backlinks just as a test.

      I wouldn't be running a network for a couple of years if it wasn't working. I'm not quite that dense. Generating PR backlinks to a site helps rank the site, regardless of the site's quality. You may not like that, and think it's wrong, or destructive to the state of the Internet, or any other reasons, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. If something is observed to work, then it's certainly not "foolishness" to do it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431704].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
      Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

      No. That's the fallacy of your argument.

      Google doesn't give two is it's a "network" or not. The sites rank on their own merits. When the site is good, it ranks. When the site is junk, it's doesn't. Links don't have as much value as many think it does, so this attempt to create your own links ("networks") is foolishness. The links themselves can has +/- value, and it's independent of IP.

      Good stuff ranks, crap does not. The end. Period.

      IP doesn't matter. It's just a protocol, not some magic SEO thing. People need to make better sites, not crap, if they want to rank. That's part of real SEO.

      Too many people still act like it's 2003 when it comes to SEO. But it's 2013.
      Some things never change in this forum. Full of self proclaimed "experts" that know more than people who've been in in this industry for for more than a few years and watched the fads come in & out.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431725].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kpmedia
        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

        Crap ranks all the time..
        Yes, but it's always temporary. That's what Google updates are for. And there are WEEKLY (sometimes daily) updates. You just hear about the big ones. The crap factor been reduced significantly in recent years (~2010-2013).

        Originally Posted by danparks View Post

        Generating PR backlinks
        PR is only a small part of ranking. You can be on p1 and have crap PR if the site is good. PR is more of a longevity ranking now.

        Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

        Some things never change in this forum. Full of self proclaimed "experts" that know more than people who've been in in this industry for for more than a few years and watched the fads come in & out.
        I know. It's so silly. It really reminds me of the Republican political bubble, and this site would be Fox News. None of my information comes from this site, and in fact maybe only 25% comes from online. Lots is offline, and some is original research that spans a decade. I was doing "SEO" before it even had a name, and this my 20th year online.

        But no, don't tell that to the "gurus" and kiddies. They know better. :rolleyes:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431751].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

          PR is only a small part of ranking. You can be on p1 and have crap PR if the site is good. PR is more of a longevity ranking now.


          I know. It's so silly. It really reminds me of the Republican political bubble, and this site would be Fox News. None of my information comes from this site, and in fact maybe only 25% comes from online. Lots is offline, and some is original research that spans a decade. I was doing "SEO" before it even had a name, and this my 20th year online.

          But no, don't tell that to the "gurus" and kiddies. They know better. :rolleyes:
          As usual, you are misquoting someone and then making an argument about something completely different.

          Nowhere did danparks say PR was a ranking factor. He was talking about the PR of the backlink pages. All other things being equal , a backlink from a page with a PR of 5 is certainly more powerful than an equivalent backlink on a page with a PR of 1.

          You assertion that links play a minor role in rankings is laughable at best. A good website does not just simply rank because it is a good website as you stated.

          A network does not have to be full of junk. I build network sites. They are perfectly viable sites on their own. They get plenty of traffic. Many have active social media accounts. I spend a great deal of time and money on content for them. I have a graphics guy that does custom graphics for many of the sites. Besides providing a couple of links, some are even monetized. A lot of them are ranking in the top 25 on their own for the same keywords my clients are targeting.

          You see, it is because I invest so much into these sites that I choose to host them on separate hosting accounts. You are under the assumption that Google and its employees are infallible. Although the sites are perfectly viable on their own, I'm not willing to take the risk that someone at Google might make a hasty decision and think otherwise. Having them all on the same IP address would make it easy for them to make a determination that they are owned by the same entity.

          You can argue all you want about networks and your beliefs about them. That is your opinion. In my opinion, I have invested way too much money and time into these sites to take an unnecessary risk like putting them all on the same hosting account when it is so easy and cheap to have separate hosting accounts.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431864].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author danparks
          Originally Posted by Kingfish85 View Post

          Some things never change in this forum. Full of self proclaimed "experts" that know more than people who've been in in this industry for for more than a few years and watched the fads come in & out.
          Again the talk of self-proclaimed "experts" and gurus. Where did that ever enter in the picture in this thread?


          Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

          Yes, but it's always temporary. That's what Google updates are for. And there are WEEKLY (sometimes daily) updates. You just hear about the big ones. The crap factor been reduced significantly in recent years (~2010-2013).
          I ranked a site a year and a half ago, and it's still holding strong on page 1. Just good ole' high PR backlinks. Most of them weren't even from relevent sources, as a matter of fact (from "general purpose" blogs that discussed a mix of topics).


          Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

          PR is only a small part of ranking. You can be on p1 and have crap PR if the site is good. PR is more of a longevity ranking now.
          Are you talking about the PR of the target, or money, site? If so, I agree with that. A site itself doesn't need to have a high PR to rank. If you're referring to the backlinks to the site, then no, PR matters a lot. You honestly believe that if a site that doesn't have a great backlink profile gets 25 to 50 backlinks from PR2 to PR4 pages in the course of a couple of months, it won't rise in rankings? Really? I've seen it happen over and over again (maybe I shouldn't say that as it might be interpreted as me calling myself a "guru" or "expert.")


          Originally Posted by kpmedia View Post

          But no, don't tell that to the "gurus" and kiddies. They know better. :rolleyes:
          Here we go again with the "gurus," and now "kiddies." So basically you're saying that anyone who belives in, through experience, the power of sending high PR backlinks to a site for ranking purposes is a "kiddie" and just plain ridiculous?

          I think I know the source of the hostility. You're both (kpmedia/Kingfish85) smart people. I think you already know that high PR backlinks work. Probably something else going on. You think it's unethical? You think it hurts deserving sites? You think it pollutes SERP results? Crappy sites have unfairly beaten out your own site(s) in the SERPS in the past? One of those, right? Why not have a little honesty and just say it ... "yeah, it's possible to rank with high PR backlinks, but I think you shouldn't do it because [____ fill in the blank ___ ]." That kind of reply I can understand and process.

          I disagree with you both, but I don't think I hold quite the hostility you two seem to have for people who disagree with you (really, we're going to bring in the Republican party and FOX News to the thread?). So, I'm done. You are both free to have the last words here. Go ahead and compose killer posts about "gurus" and "kiddies" and posters who know nothing. I won't reply. You can have the win.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431891].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431900].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeff Lenney
    Alright guys, let's not get heated here - lol
    Signature

    Too lazy to write something clever here, so check out my marketing blog and learn from a REAL Super Affiliate at JeffLenney.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    So much silliness in this thread I can't even bother replying to it individually. Suffice to say those who Identify themselves as host or being aware of the hosting side of things -thats always been the problem - They don''t have a clue about the SEO side of things and just assume all day long based on their understanding of Hosting not SEO.

    In the OP's case I don't think he particularly needs a different Ip address. Its small scale at this point and the one PR4 is hardly going to leave a footprint. On a larger scale then yes you would want to watch footprints.

    Now some people ignorantly maintain that the minute you talk about minimizing footprints then it means you have to be talking garbage content yada yada yada.

    They have been corrected before but they choose to persist in ignorance. In the legal, insurance, professional niches some really high caliber content is used with all kinds of sites so the claim it has to mean you are building inferior sites with poor content is just garbage.

    Finally theres the usual "you are gaming the search engine" sermon. Bleh who cares really? Google allows you to OPENLY BUY the first three results on the page. If I link to other sister sites just like Disney does then thats really my business call. Silliest thing in the world is claiming a corporation gets to set morality about ranking when they outright SELL the top three slots to the highest bidder.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431875].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431896].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431970].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kingfish85
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431990].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431982].message }}

Trending Topics