homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.134.183
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >     
Incoming Links and IP Addresses
Is it really necessary to have incoming links from different IP ranges?
petehall




msg:179857
 1:20 pm on Oct 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

We have just completed a new website which we believe has unique and useful content.

Due to the nature of the site, it makes sense to deep link to three of our other sites from various sections / pages.

This would be one way linking not reciprocal.

We have our own server but I read time and time again that if you're going to get incoming links they should be from different IP ranges.

Obviously we can't divide the server in two, so this creates a bit of a problem as we require an additional hosting location.

Has anyone got any evidence to support the claim that incoming links are much more beneficial from different IP ranges?

Or any evidence to suggest that linking in this way could be damaging to us?

Many Thanks

 

notredamekid




msg:179858
 2:34 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Pete,

I think to an established site these links would not cause a problem (although they might not give much benefit, either).

However with Google nowadays, I would think this sort of link structure might get you 'sandboxed' - it seems any 'unnatural' link structure gets you sandboxed.

I would suggest getting some backlinks from unique IPs (maybe from some directories, and backlinks from press releases), let them be awhile, and then implement these links. "For some odd reason" new sites' backlink structures are just touchy in Google.

Critter




msg:179859
 2:53 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't know about "unnatural linking".

It would be rather easy to integrate IP addresses into the Pagerank formula--the further away the IP of the linking site is from the linked site, the higher weight given to the link's passed pagerank.

Self-balancing inverse-proportional network-based, etc. :)

notredamekid




msg:179860
 3:19 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

It seems it would be rather easy -- nonetheless, linkbuilding for google is AFUBR.

prairie




msg:179861
 10:05 am on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "AFUBR" stand for?

Prairie.

glengara




msg:179862
 10:45 am on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

*Or any evidence to suggest that linking in this way could be damaging to us?*

As described, and on a stand-alone basis, I would doubt it.

*incoming links are much more beneficial from different IP ranges*

Apart from the accepted wisdom that incoming links are worth more than internal ones, the only possible benefit would be a smaller chance of the links being seen as "affiliated" as per the Hilltop/LocalRank computations.

That's somewhere down the line though, and would probably also depend on the overall linkage pattern.

matt21811




msg:179863
 11:32 am on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Until recently, almost all my sites were located at the same IP address. This did not seem to damage me in any way and they were linked in a non reciprocal way.

Over the last month, I have been moving my sites out to web hosters on the net and my SERP results have improved.

I beleive Hilltop is here and penalises (igmores) links from the same IP addresses (or C-class).

buddhu




msg:179864
 11:32 am on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Forgive my ignorance, but what does "AFUBR" stand for?"

Looks like an anagram of FUBAR (fouled up beyond all recognition)...

brixton




msg:179865
 12:47 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

"backlinks from press releases"
Some of my sites have been in press releases from PR8 PR9 sites (because of the so called unique content of my sites) and i am still at PR5 and 6,so what's the big deal....while junk (copy paste change keyword)pages with over 13.000 in yahoo linkdomain:blablabla and google link:blablabla are PR7...oh by the way the 100% of yahoo linkdomain:www.mysite.com shows your 10% link:www.mysite.com at google.(PS) for the ones that argue about G's BWL's

glengara




msg:179866
 12:55 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

AFAICR, the parameters of "affiliation" are quite narrow, in that pages must first be returned for a particular search term before being put to the affiliation test.

The way Petehall describes it, it sounds unlikely those pages would be jointly returned for the same search term.

notredamekid




msg:179867
 4:35 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Apart from the accepted wisdom that incoming links are worth more than internal ones, the only possible benefit would be a smaller chance of the links being seen as "affiliated" as per the Hilltop/LocalRank computations.

Yet Google is filtering out massive amounts of links based on Hilltop/LocalRank, so I think this "possible benefit" is significant.

notredamekid




msg:179868
 4:38 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Some of my sites have been in press releases from PR8 PR9 sites (because of the so called unique content of my sites) and i am still at PR5 and 6,so

You need to look at the permalink for your press release. If the main page of the press release site is pr8, and your release is on their for a day but then permanently moved to a PR2 "permalink", than you have a pr2 link. Its still a relevant link.

I'll take a PR6 from relevant links over a PR8 from unrelated bought links any day...

glengara




msg:179869
 5:08 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

*..filtering out massive amounts of links based on Hilltop/LocalRank..*

I'd have thought that due to the parameters the numbers would be quite small, unless part of a domain farm or links scheme.

Are you seeing this in a particular sector NDK?

shaoye




msg:179870
 8:50 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am using dedicated server it hosts many of my sites
seems pr passed ok...

internetheaven




msg:179871
 10:40 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am using dedicated server it hosts many of my sites
seems pr passed ok...

I wouldn't class "PR passing" as an indication that the link is stable. Google recognises many different types of links and I don't understand how anyone can judge if a link is passing PageRank unless they don't have any other links pointing to them.

However with Google nowadays, I would think this sort of link structure might get you 'sandboxed' - it seems any 'unnatural' link structure gets you sandboxed.

Eh? Has "sandboxed" become the code-word for anything that you can't think of a word for? Besides that, many companies have networks of sites that link to each other. Done right it can really benefit but never as much as distant IP addresses - (Note that's DISTANT, not DIFFERENT).

AFAICR

AFUBR

Could you please explain both of these for the benefit of those of us who don't spend our lives in chat-rooms and in forums?

shaoye




msg:179872
 10:50 pm on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

could that explain why my pr dropped by 1 after I put all sites on one ip?

before that, I have pr 6 now 5. my same ip sites' links do not count any more?

Kristos




msg:179873
 1:47 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

AFAICR
As Far As I Can Remember

AFUBR
All Fouled Up Beyond Repair

notredamekid




msg:179874
 2:45 am on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Are you seeing this in a particular sector NDK?

Mesothelioma and other competitive SERPs.

Eh? Has "sandboxed" become the code-word for anything that you can't think of a word for? Besides that, many companies have networks of sites that link to each other. Done right it can really benefit but never as much as distant IP addresses - (Note that's DISTANT, not DIFFERENT).

I have an exact meaning, thank you. When I say "sandboxed" I mean a new domain with "unnatural" incoming links is seemingly penalized to the bottom of the SERPs (it is not grey bar's though). Older domains with these same "unnatural" links arent penalized.

Plenty of sites on the same IP do link to each other (with no harm), but I am stating that the SEO benefits of these links will be filtered. They should yield other benefits if they make sense for your users. And for new (< 6 months old) domains, I think this will greatly increase your chance of being "sandboxed".

Does this make sense according to the Hilltop paper? No. But Google is not behaving according to the Hilltop paper. IMO they are about 2 years past that, and have added a whole bunch of "SEO filters" into the algo.

webhound




msg:179875
 8:07 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"IMO they are about 2 years past that, and have added a whole bunch of "SEO filters" into the algo."

Well whatever SEO filters G has in place, they aren't working. Do a search in any competitive category and it's filled with spam. Sites that simply shouldn't be there.

nuevojefe




msg:179876
 8:39 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't know about "ANY competitive sector" being filled with spam.

SEOPutte




msg:179877
 8:49 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I don't know about "ANY competitive sector" being filled with spam."

Same here...the serps are very clean on competitive phrases.

Philosopher




msg:179878
 10:40 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well I guess it depends on your def. of SPAM. If they are above me, they have to be spam and should be taken out with impunity. ;)

internetheaven




msg:179879
 11:59 pm on Nov 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have an exact meaning, thank you. When I say "sandboxed" I mean a new domain with "unnatural" incoming links is seemingly penalized to the bottom of the SERPs (it is not grey bar's though).

Brett and some Mods have all requested at some point that people stop using the term "sandboxed" to refer to the "ranking lag" experienced by some webmasters. Sandbox is the term used for experimental projects by both Google and MSN. I haven't got a clue why someone started using the word sandbox to describe what you are alluding to but it is an incorrect term. That's all I was saying, I wasn't commenting on your intelligence or anything ...

Webhound - are you in the UK? For some reason, every UK webmaster agrees with me that the commercial sectors are full of spam where the US ones say they are fine. This would go in line with the recent thread on German Google being "left out in the cold".

Kristos




msg:179880
 2:31 am on Nov 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

SPAM
Sites Postioned Above Mine

notredamekid




msg:179881
 8:42 am on Nov 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Brett and some Mods have all requested at some point that people stop using the term "sandboxed" to refer to the "ranking lag" experienced by some webmasters. Sandbox is the term used for experimental projects by both Google and MSN. I haven't got a clue why someone started using the word sandbox to describe what you are alluding to but it is an incorrect term.

I understand that the term "sandbox" "shouldn't" be used here - but it is the word that is commonly used and understood to be this 'time lag' phenomenon. If the word is commonly used, and commonly understood (which it is), then it becomes "correct" -- even if originally another word "should" have been chosen.

I have heard many people voice the same thing you just have, but until another word is commonly used to mean this 'time lag' phenomenon on new domains, "sandbox" is the best way to convey my meaning.

I also find it a bit, ermm, arrogant to try to change commonly used language - remember when Wired Magazine tried to change "Internet" to "internet"? Didn't work out so well...

That's all I was saying, I wasn't commenting on your intelligence or anything ...

Fair enough.

This past summer, I optimized two domains in the exact same way (heavy link building campaigns) - the 5-year old one, with a two year old DMOZ link, is doing gr8. The brand new one is "sandboxed" (or, "it it ranks towards the bottom of the SERPs without being greybared and the majority of its backlinks do not seem to count for anything").

Note that each site was legitimate, independent and had wholly unique content. The only difference was the age of the domain and the DMOZ link.

I guess my entire point here is, be careful with your link building. A DMOZ link or link from an authority site can give your site some "legitimacy" before doing anything "grey area", linkwise. And I would definitely be careful with backlinks' IPs with a new site. A long established site doesn't seem to need to be careful.

prairie




msg:179882
 1:24 pm on Nov 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

I second the point on *old* links from DMOZ if they use good anchor text. They're gold in terms of ranking.

webhound




msg:179883
 5:00 pm on Nov 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

internetheaven, nope webhounds in the US. (well canada)

The categories I am referring to that are spammed up reeeal bad are prescription medication credit repair and contact lenses. All highly competitive cat's.

We have worked really hard to build deep useful sites for our visitors and link them in a way that we think wouldn't be hurting us, yet every month for the last 9 months we've lost Google positioning. Yet we see other sites with blog back links, template designs, template content, etc.. ranking on the first page. It defies logic. So whatever seo filter G has in place, its broken...at least in the above categories.

prairie




msg:179884
 4:43 am on Nov 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Webhound,

By template designs, do you mean pages with only a few words changed on each?

I'm hoping that pages with consistent navigation aren't included in this.

petehall




msg:179885
 11:09 am on Nov 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks for all the advice!

I have two options available to me at the moment:

1) Host on a completely different network
2) Host on the same network but with different subnet and host IP addresses

I'd really like to go for option 2 as we're very happy with our current host.

Would different subnet and host IP addressing be enough to separate the sites?

glengara




msg:179886
 12:10 pm on Nov 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well, I'm still not clear what exactly it is you're afraid of/trying to avoid....

This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved