Hi Folks - have started the new job and am still on a steep learning curve getting my head around all the arms to the business and online marketing opportunities.
I won't post the companies URL here at this stage because these questions are fairly general in nature.
The company has perhaps as many as 150 different websites in the news and media sector all accross Australia and NZ. Most of these sites are PR5 and above - have found 2 so far that are PR8.
These 150 odd sites sit on just 4 IP addresses - 2 in Aust and 2 in NZ.
I am interested in moving these sites out to different IP addies to provide better redundancy / backup and also so that they provide greater benefit to each other with PR transfer between sites.
Spoke with docarl yesterday and he feels the "Goose is already cooked" in that Google now knows that the sites are all related and rolling them out to different IP addy's won't assist.
Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Any of the regulars that want to have a look at the actual sites, shoot me an email and I would be happy to give you a link.
I'm very skeptical that IP addresses have any significant role in Google's automated ranking processes. I know that many years ago it was a common practice for SPAMmers to throw up hundreds of sites using a shared host or within the same Class C block, which led to this legend in the first place, but the search engines haven't fallen for those tactics in a very long time. Unless the sites were so heavily and/or unnaturally cross-linked that they triggered a manual review, I don't think the IP address would come into play at all. Its not a violation of the Guidelines to cross-link a large number of sites unless the intent is to try to manipulate the rankings. Letting Google know that a group of sites have a common ownership is not the kiss of death. Its only if you were to do something overtly intended to manipulate the rankings - for example, using site-wide footer links consisting solely of keyword-rich <a>nchor text - that you'd have any trouble. I think many people have the impression that Google's ranking methods are this enormous game of Gotcha! where you dare not tread too boldly for fear of tripping a secret penalty flag. Build good sites and, as they themselves say somewhere, don't do anything you wouldn't be embarrassed to explain to a competitor and you'll do fine. Good luck!
> Hi Folks - have started the new job and am still on a steep learning > curve getting my head around all the arms to the business and online > marketing opportunities.
> I won't post the companies URL here at this stage because these > questions are fairly general in nature.
> The company has perhaps as many as 150 different websites in the news > and media sector all accross Australia and NZ. Most of these sites are > PR5 and above - have found 2 so far that are PR8.
> These 150 odd sites sit on just 4 IP addresses - 2 in Aust and 2 in > NZ.
> I am interested in moving these sites out to different IP addies to > provide better redundancy / backup and also so that they provide > greater benefit to each other with PR transfer between sites.
> Spoke with docarl yesterday and he feels the "Goose is already cooked" > in that Google now knows that the sites are all related and rolling > them out to different IP addy's won't assist.
> Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> Any of the regulars that want to have a look at the actual sites, > shoot me an email and I would be happy to give you a link.
As I said volvox - that's only a hunch - if Google does in fact devalue the passing of PR between sites on the same IP (or same C class) I'd say they'd already know about them given the stated network history of your organisation. I'm not sure whether changing from a virtual hosting setup sharing your companies sites between only a few IP's to dedicated servers for each of the 130 odd sites would remove any such signals.
As I mentioned, there are specific reasons OTHER THAN any inter-site linking practices that could be perfectly good justification for splitting your site much more widely geographically or indeed between more servers - for redundancy - to avoid the impact of 'backhoe fade', to load share - all of these things are just standard operating procedure for sites / companies with high and bursty traffic like your own.
> Hi Folks - have started the new job and am still on a steep learning > curve getting my head around all the arms to the business and online > marketing opportunities.
> I won't post the companies URL here at this stage because these > questions are fairly general in nature.
> The company has perhaps as many as 150 different websites in the news > and media sector all accross Australia and NZ. Most of these sites are > PR5 and above - have found 2 so far that are PR8.
> These 150 odd sites sit on just 4 IP addresses - 2 in Aust and 2 in > NZ.
> I am interested in moving these sites out to different IP addies to > provide better redundancy / backup and also so that they provide > greater benefit to each other with PR transfer between sites.
> Spoke with docarl yesterday and he feels the "Goose is already cooked" > in that Google now knows that the sites are all related and rolling > them out to different IP addy's won't assist.
> Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> Any of the regulars that want to have a look at the actual sites, > shoot me an email and I would be happy to give you a link.
I should point out - these are not SPAM sites - they are all legit websites of regional newspapers accross Aust and NZ.
I don't feel that rolling them out to different IP addy's would constitute anything Black-Hat.
The issue is that finding new homes for all of these websites will involve significant expense and I guess I am looking for peoples thoughts on whether or not this is going to provide any advantage WRT PR transfer between sites.
I think the answer is perhaps / maybe but on the basis of what I know, It's not a powerful enough justification for doing so. I'd be getting graphs of server loads over time, and assessing the design of your existing network infrastructure and using that for justification if you feel that this is going to be an advantage - at least that way if it doesn't work you can still show improved network integrity as a major justification for the expense.
Ok.. 2ndly.. it struck me from our conversation last night - has your organisation signed up with google news as a news provider? Traffic wise, if they haven't, your going to look like a genius if you can do that for them.
> I should point out - these are not SPAM sites - they are all legit > websites of regional newspapers accross Aust and NZ.
> I don't feel that rolling them out to different IP addy's would > constitute anything Black-Hat.
> The issue is that finding new homes for all of these websites will > involve significant expense and I guess I am looking for peoples > thoughts on whether or not this is going to provide any advantage WRT > PR transfer between sites.
> I think the answer is perhaps / maybe but on the basis of what I know, > It's not a powerful enough justification for doing so. I'd be getting > graphs of server loads over time, and assessing the design of your > existing network infrastructure and using that for justification if > you feel that this is going to be an advantage - at least that way if > it doesn't work you can still show improved network integrity as a > major justification for the expense.
> Ok.. 2ndly.. it struck me from our conversation last night - has your > organisation signed up with google news as a news provider? Traffic > wise, if they haven't, your going to look like a genius if you can do > that for them.
> Cheers,
> M
> On Jul 6, 9:34 am, Volvox777 wrote:
> > I should point out - these are not SPAM sites - they are all legit > > websites of regional newspapers accross Aust and NZ.
> > I don't feel that rolling them out to different IP addy's would > > constitute anything Black-Hat.
> > The issue is that finding new homes for all of these websites will > > involve significant expense and I guess I am looking for peoples > > thoughts on whether or not this is going to provide any advantage WRT > > PR transfer between sites.- Hide quoted text -
(Presumably all class C ) as i understand there might be a very small amount of negative scoring but that is reduced if you ensure the sites have different content without excessive cross linking. From a past experience I would agree with docarl that its too hard to break the association once made by google but i'm sure the same class C issue had been hyped up out of porportion as i can't see any evidence of an adverse impact on the PR of the sites we have on the same class C. Is it worth all the extra administration costs, firewalls, servers etc Best of luck.
> (Presumably all class C ) as i understand there might be a very small > amount of negative scoring but that is reduced if you ensure the sites > have different content without excessive cross linking. From a past > experience I would agree with docarl that its too hard to break the > association once made by google but i'm sure the same class C issue > had been hyped up out of porportion as i can't see any evidence of an > adverse impact on the PR of the sites we have on the same class C. > Is it worth all the extra administration costs, firewalls, servers > etc > Best of luck.
> So try one out with static ip even on the same host and see if it make > a difference for you!
> On Jul 6, 9:02 am, silverstall wrote:
> > (Presumably all class C ) as i understand there might be a very small > > amount of negative scoring but that is reduced if you ensure the sites > > have different content without excessive cross linking. From a past > > experience I would agree with docarl that its too hard to break the > > association once made by google but i'm sure the same class C issue > > had been hyped up out of porportion as i can't see any evidence of an > > adverse impact on the PR of the sites we have on the same class C. > > Is it worth all the extra administration costs, firewalls, servers > > etc > > Best of luck.- Hide quoted text -
> His servers do have static IP's, Igor. They are just shared.
> M
> On Jul 6, 10:04 am, ivb wrote:
> > Good point!
> > So try one out with static ip even on the same host and see if it make > > a difference for you!
> > On Jul 6, 9:02 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > (Presumably all class C ) as i understand there might be a very small > > > amount of negative scoring but that is reduced if you ensure the sites > > > have different content without excessive cross linking. From a past > > > experience I would agree with docarl that its too hard to break the > > > association once made by google but i'm sure the same class C issue > > > had been hyped up out of porportion as i can't see any evidence of an > > > adverse impact on the PR of the sites we have on the same class C. > > > Is it worth all the extra administration costs, firewalls, servers > > > etc > > > Best of luck.- Hide quoted text -
Late last fall, Matt C. addressed the issue on his blog. I was going to post what I could remember but makes more sense to go read it. Took me a little while to find it. Didn't address it as much as I thought it did.
> Okay, maybe what I mean is dedicated IP address!
> So you can open each Website by a domain name and by IP address!
> On my business Website I have a dedicated IP, which makes the Website > look more professional. Plus for SSL you need dedicated IP.
> So I feel dedicated IP makes the Website better in Google!
> If you want to test that theory try it with one of your Websites on > the same server and see how it works.
> Igor
> On Jul 6, 9:12 am, dockarl wrote:
> > His servers do have static IP's, Igor. They are just shared.
> > M
> > On Jul 6, 10:04 am, ivb wrote:
> > > Good point!
> > > So try one out with static ip even on the same host and see if it make > > > a difference for you!
> > > On Jul 6, 9:02 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > (Presumably all class C ) as i understand there might be a very small > > > > amount of negative scoring but that is reduced if you ensure the sites > > > > have different content without excessive cross linking. From a past > > > > experience I would agree with docarl that its too hard to break the > > > > association once made by google but i'm sure the same class C issue > > > > had been hyped up out of porportion as i can't see any evidence of an > > > > adverse impact on the PR of the sites we have on the same class C. > > > > Is it worth all the extra administration costs, firewalls, servers > > > > etc > > > > Best of luck.- Hide quoted text -
> Late last fall, Matt C. addressed the issue on his blog. I was going > to post what I could remember but makes more sense to go read it. > Took me a little while to find it. Didn't address it as much as I > thought it did.
> > Okay, maybe what I mean is dedicated IP address!
> > So you can open each Website by a domain name and by IP address!
> > On my business Website I have a dedicated IP, which makes the Website > > look more professional. Plus for SSL you need dedicated IP.
> > So I feel dedicated IP makes the Website better in Google!
> > If you want to test that theory try it with one of your Websites on > > the same server and see how it works.
> > Igor
> > On Jul 6, 9:12 am, dockarl wrote:
> > > His servers do have static IP's, Igor. They are just shared.
> > > M
> > > On Jul 6, 10:04 am, ivb wrote:
> > > > Good point!
> > > > So try one out with static ip even on the same host and see if it make > > > > a difference for you!
> > > > On Jul 6, 9:02 am, silverstall wrote:
> > > > > (Presumably all class C ) as i understand there might be a very small > > > > > amount of negative scoring but that is reduced if you ensure the sites > > > > > have different content without excessive cross linking. From a past > > > > > experience I would agree with docarl that its too hard to break the > > > > > association once made by google but i'm sure the same class C issue > > > > > had been hyped up out of porportion as i can't see any evidence of an > > > > > adverse impact on the PR of the sites we have on the same class C. > > > > > Is it worth all the extra administration costs, firewalls, servers > > > > > etc > > > > > Best of luck.- Hide quoted text -
Given the expense that would be involved in moving all these sites onto different servers, I'll go with JohnMu's comment on that page - we aint trying to do anything dodgey - so I will drive my own car to the bank.
> Given the expense that would be involved in moving all these sites > onto different servers, I'll go with JohnMu's comment on that page - > we aint trying to do anything dodgey - so I will drive my own car to > the bank.
