homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.141.230
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Don't go with virtual hosting - go with a stand alone IP.
I need feedback from this statement.
chopin2256




msg:766734
 9:58 pm on Apr 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

I read this statement, I think it was posted by the owner of this site, but I am not sure.

Don't go with virtual hosting - go with a stand alone IP.

Can any of you explain to me what this means? Right now I pay 7 bucks a month for shared hosting, however my website is profitable, and growing. I plan to pay $20/month for virtual hosting, but this statement scares me. I am not really big enough to go for dedicated hosting yet. I only receive 500 uniques a day, but I am constantly growing making new pages, and I get on Google with no problem anymore. Protecting my site is now essential. Finding a great reliable host (not too expensive yet) is also essential. So what does this statement mean and why is it important?

So the question I want answered is:

Does going with a stand alone IP mean to purchase a Dedicated Server Space? How would this be a benefit for the search engines, and how would it protect me? Do you guys recommend me going with this "stand alone IP"?

 

Reid




msg:766764
 9:43 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yep Im on a shared IP
I,m not too concerned though.
Is there a way to findout who Im sharing with?
My host is reputable and does have a TOS against 'abuse'. I think they do protect users somewhat.

sirkei




msg:766765
 9:52 pm on Apr 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

[dnsstuff.com...]

You can only view 3 reverse i.p with free login.

ownerrim




msg:766766
 8:38 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I found the entries in this thread a little confusing. I always thought virtual hosting and shared hosting were synonymous. I did a look up online and found semi-defined terms like virtual hosting, virtual private hosting, virtual dedicated hosting.
Am I correct in assuming that virtual hosting with a dedicated IP is fairly safe when it comes to the IP banning issue that Brett mentioned? This is, what, usually just a few bucks more each month?

BillyS




msg:766767
 9:01 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

My understanding, in general what you can expect:

Virtual Hosting or Simply Web Hosting - least expensive option, shared server resources (CPU, RAM), one instance of Apache running (on reboot, all sites sharing the server go down during the boot process). Anywhere from 20 - 300 sites sharing a server. Costs range from $3.00 / month to $30.00 / month. IP address optionally added.

Virtual Private Server or Virtual Private Hosting - shared server (box) but ususally you are guaranteed minimum resources (150 Mhz on the CPU, 256 MB RAM), lower number of websites sharing the server (10 - 30 sites), multiple instances of Apache running (one for each website), rebooting essentually restarts your Apache instance. Costs range from $40.00 to $90 / month. Ususally includes 1 or 2 unique IP addresses.

Semi-Dedicated Server - a hybrid between Virtual Hosting and Virtual Private Server. Basically you are sharing the box with fewer sites. You are not necessarly guaranteed resources on the box, only there are fewer sites contending for resources. Costs run from $50 - $120 / month

Dedicated Server - You are essentually leasing the server - it is for your website(s) only. Normally includes 1 or more unique IP addresses. You have "complete" control over the box and all its resources (CPU, RAM). Costs range from $130 to $400 / month.

You can shop around, but you get what you pay for. Things you should look out for are add on costs such as back up fees, control panels, support. With dedicated you can ususally pick higher CPU speeds or more RAM.

ownerrim




msg:766768
 9:23 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks, that's a lot clearer than what I read online BillyS.

I have a site hosted on pair. It's on a shared server for 30 bucks a month. I chose pair because I've heard and read that they're reliable with little downtime. I think they also offer a dedicated IP for 5 bucks more each month. I don't have any reason to believe that I need more resources than this, given my traffic levels. At the risk of being redundant, if I pay the extra five spot for the dedicated IP, have I made myself safe from being banned if some other site on the same server becomes persona non grata with google?

sirkei




msg:766769
 10:28 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

What i understand is search engine may ban the specific i.p and if you are on that i.p, you will get hurt. Like the server i am on now is $7.95 a month and hosts 68 other websites. Therefore, getting a dedicated i.p is good. After this thread, i have made up my mind and moved to a virtual private server. Now in progress of changing DNS. Wish me good luck.

annej




msg:766770
 10:59 pm on Apr 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been on shared hosting for the last 8 years and it hasn't affected my PR or search engine ranking at all. In fact I'm very pleased with how well pages on my sites do in Google's serps.

Is there something new that would make this a concern or is this just a possibility?

GuinnessGuy




msg:766771
 12:12 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Annej,

I've been on shared hosting for the last 8 years and it hasn't affected my PR or search engine ranking at all. In fact I'm very pleased with how well pages on my sites do in Google's serps.

The impression I get is that having a dedicated IP is probably good insurance against being penalized for being in a bad neighborhood. I guess it's kind of like not wearing seat belts in a car. Most people will not have a problem, but if you get into a serious accident, it can save your bacon.

We've just switched to dedication IP on a shared server after getting some sort of dup penalty, perhaps related to 302's linking to us. I've cleaned that up and gotten a unique IP. As it was free to do in our case, it was a no brainer.

GuinnessGuy

BobSprocket




msg:766772
 3:00 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

okay can you help finally clarify this for a newbie?

The cheapest option w/ a dedicated IP address would be to use a virtula host but to ask one with a "dedicated IP address"? does "unique IP address" mean the same thing?

Thanks for the good thread, having a little trouble with all the options..

Reid




msg:766773
 3:33 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

unique IP dedicated IP same thing.

if you can reach your website by typing in your IP then you have unique IP.
If you can't then you are sharing an IP with others, that is, the DNS points to your host company for that IP and your host company sorts out where you are (instead of IP address).

I can see the dangers of a shared IP but if you have a good hosting company they will be mindfull of these issues - after all they don't want their IP blocked either. So if they are doing their job they are grouping 'low risk' sites together on an IP and either denying service to 'high risk' or grouping them on a 'high risk' IP.

Point being they are responsible for keeping things good. But if someone you are sharing IP with gets banned from google or some other important resource then you, your host and everyone sharing that IP is screwed.

Here is where the power of a host comes into play, if someone is using 'less than fair' tactics from a shared IP then you could complain to the host and 'if they are smart' they will deal with that one guy. Because maybe he doesn't care if he gets banned but they sure do.

So shared host - you are not at the wheel on these issues, you host is.

So I guess what also comes into play is the reputation of the hosting company. Some of these are spam cities or adult-content neigborhoods where they are all blacklisted and banned here and there but just don't care. While other hosting companies maintain a good reputation. So a google tech may say - gee this guy should be banned but this host does not deserve such treatment- after all there may be 67 other sites on that IP so I'll just fire off a note to the host,wait for a reply - or as Brete says - do the easiest thing and ban the IP.

Reid




msg:766774
 7:34 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

can somebody decipher this?
its about renewal
You can transfer your domain to us. The fee is $xx.95 and includes one additional year of registration for your domain name. You must be outside of a 30 day window that precedes your domain name expiring to do this.

MHes




msg:766775
 10:29 am on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Reid

I read it as you get an extra year domain name reg worth a few pounds and you can transfer the domain if the current registration still has at least 30 days to run.

Brett_Tabke




msg:766776
 12:49 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

how to know?

(warning rare url drop ahead as requested by mods and users alike - value is warrented.....) Go to whois dot sc. Use their tool to see what sites are on your ip. It can be shocking...

> pros cons.

Cons:
- may be used in a "ban the ip" scenario because of your neighbors.
- may be used in a "penalize the ip" scenarios because of...

Pros:
- Google almost surely uses it in the algo as a sign of a quality site.
We had a friend run a cross check against the top 1500 listed alexa sites - only 22 were found on virtual hosted ips. Clearly, a stand alone ip and a high traffic site have a pretty close to 1-to-1 correlation.

MHes




msg:766777
 12:58 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

>We had a friend run a cross check against the top 1500 listed alexa sites - only 22 were found on virtual hosted ips. Clearly, a stand alone ip and a high traffic site have a pretty close to 1-to-1 correlation.

I think this is miss interpretation. Its like saying yeast kills you because 99.9 percent of dead bodies have traces of yeast in their stomachs. If a site is in the top 1500 they have serious traffic and probably need their own server. They will be serious outfits who automatically think big and have big budgets. The fact that 22 sites did not have stand alone ip proves to me that it is not a factor.

What could be a factor is server response time. Spiders may like fast servers which has a knock on effect in sites being indexed by many other directories and many pages being picked up on each visit.

[edited by: MHes at 1:21 pm (utc) on April 8, 2005]

Philosopher




msg:766778
 1:19 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think this is miss interpretation. Its like saying yeast kills you because 99.9 percent of dead bodies have traces of yeast in their stomachs. If a site is in the top 1500 they have serious traffic and probably need their own server. They will be serious outfits who automatically think big and have big budgets. The fact that 22 sites did not have stand alone ip proves to me that it is not a factor.

Regardless of WHY virtually all of them have a standalone IP, they do, and that is the issue.

If Google is trying to profile sites and learn the characteristics of quality sites vs. low-quality sites (which by all evidence they are), then they are doing the same type of cross-checking Brett mentioned only to a MUCH further extent. This means they will come to much the same conclusion.

It's not that you have to have a dedicated IP to make it to the top. As others have pointed out, you can do it with a shared, but having a dedicated IP is likely just another check in the "FOR" column and one less in the "against" column giving a site a better chance of ranking.

MHes




msg:766779
 1:40 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Quality = stand alone ip (as one indicator)

The top alexa sites may not be getting their traffic from google. They may be a brand name or buying it. There is another question about sites in the top alexa positions may be popular with the type of user who has a toolbar loaded.

Often the complaints about serps are that there are too many directories and affiliate shopping sites cluttering the results. These sites may have their own servers because they are produced by people who understand these things. It is often a sign of 'internet savvy business' rather than 'quality'. People are often looking for small business sites in their area or information on a niche subject. These types of sites are normally on shared servers.

Converstion in Google:

"We must give better rankings to stand alone ip's"
"Why?"
"Because a lawn mower seller in Yorkshire must be prepared for millions of hits with state of the art equipment. He must understand ip's and servers and be prepared to invest. If he doesn't he can't be very good at selling lawn mowers"
"Dah!"

Philosopher




msg:766780
 1:59 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Who would give you the better INITIAL impression.....

A lawyer who has his/her own office or one who is sharing his office with a cleaning company, telemarketing service, drycleaner's, pet store, and a travel agent?

They both could be equally good. Heck the second could be better, but most will choose the first because he/she looks of higher quality.

Same with the SE, two sites of the same topic, one with a dedicated IP, one on shared...which one initially looks more reputable?

G won't call up the owner, talk with him/her to decide if it's a quality site. All they can really do is look at the big picture and try and deduce, from all the visible signs, the quality of a site based on what it sees as the most possible characteristics of a quality site.

matrix_neo




msg:766781
 2:17 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

After reading the whole thread carefully, I have a question. I have hosted two of my sites on a reseller hosting account, and I own that reseller account. Long time back I bought two different "C" class IPs for these sites with same hosting provider. But my sites are doing pretty good on SEs so I have not assained the IPs to my sites fearing that it may affect my SE rankings. Please advise! and clarify if there is any possible issues involved with SEs on this issue.

MHes




msg:766782
 2:32 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

>They both could be equally good.

And that is the point. Unique ip is not a sign of quality or relevance for search terms. Google would not apply such a simplistic assumption without thinking it through.

Philosopher




msg:766783
 2:39 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

As a single point, you are correct. They would not make that one thing decide, but that one thing combined with MANY other signals and you have a much better picture of the type of site you are dealing with.

Again...it's about the overall picture...not one specific point...you need to get away from that thinking. The more positive signals you have the better your chances will be.

MHes




msg:766784
 2:53 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree that no one factor is king, but instead the overall picture made up of lots of factors is important.

However, each factor has to be logical, to make the overall conclusion correct. There is no circumstance, both on its own or in combination with others, where a single ip is a mark of content quality.

Can you think of one?

Philosopher




msg:766785
 3:01 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well I know that most truly serious/reputable/established online busineses have their own IP. I also know that shared IPs are the cheapest things for spammers to use. They can set up huge amounts of domains on a single IP for dirt cheap.

I know that if I were looking at two sites on the same topic. 1 was on a dedicated IP and one was on a shared IP. With all other things being equal I would consider the one on the dedicated IP to be more serious about it's business right off the bat.

So knowing all the above, it would make perfect sense to me to look at the IP as a factor amongst other factors.

Brett_Tabke




msg:766786
 3:22 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

> Unique ip is not a sign of quality or relevance for search terms

neither is a site being registered for 10 years - but Google uses that too. I have high degree of confidence that shared hosting is a penalty point or a stand alone ip is a bonus point.

I think the moral is that if you have any domains with a value equal to the cost of a stand alone ip, then there is no sense in risking it.

JKMitchell




msg:766787
 3:44 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Given what we have learned in the last week; such as good sites register for 10 years."

The only problem with that idea is that you can only register .uk domains for a fixed 2 year period. I would love to register my business uk domains for longer but can't.

MHes




msg:766788
 4:07 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I have high degree of confidence that shared hosting is a penalty point or a stand alone ip is a bonus point.

Based on what evidence?

1) Alexa 1500 may be there for various other reasons than high ranking se traffic, such as purchased traffic, direct bookmark traffic and bias towards toolbar /internet savvy users.

2) The serps are full of spam, so this indicator does not help (if it exists). It cannot really be applied in any effective way without effecting too many legitimate sites.

3) A domain registered for 10 years AND has new links in with updated content (plus no spammy content) does show potential quality. I can see that would be an indicator. However, just because they use this does not mean they use ip.

The problem is that a serious and good site will naturally acquire links in and with good content do well in the serps. That is the reason it does well. The result of this, if a site is successfull will be too have its own ip. All our busy sites have their own ip because the shared hosting company kept complaining that we were crashing their servers! So the stand alone ip was acquired because we were doing well in the serps, not the other way around.

If I was a spammer, and having a stand alone ip makes a difference, I would exploit it and get one, the profit margin would still be huge, they don't cost much..... but it doesn't.

Kirby




msg:766789
 5:59 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

My main money domain is on a shared IP with 400+ other related sites. It has been #1-3 for 4-5 main kws for 3+ years in a competitive niche.

My main competition shares an IP with 3000+ sites. I dont see how the IP is making a difference, unless its because we are all on shared IPs.

Brett, all things being equal, are you saying that a dedicated IP will keep me ahead (#1 instead of #2) of a similar site on a shared IP?

ownerrim




msg:766790
 6:05 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just looked up a keyword niche of approx 9 million results in google search. Of the 20 serps leaders, quite a few are not on a dedicated IP. And a number of these sites have had a lock on their serps positions for a number of years.

Rollo




msg:766791
 7:07 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Which would be considered a dedicated IP? An IP with only one site, or an IP whose Reverse DNS is registered to that particular site? Or only one exhibiting both charateristics?

It's common to have only one site on an IP, but the DNS in a different name (the principle domain) on a virtual/shared hosting plan.

Reid




msg:766792
 7:20 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

So the stand alone ip was acquired because we were doing well in the serps, not the other way around.

Maybe google does award a point for stand alone just because an experienced site getting higher traffic with a larger base will eventually have to get a stand alone IP.
Maybe it's not a huge browny point though because there are millions of mom and pop websites on shared IP.

I think with shared IP the next question "who is the host"
I know one 15 yr old geocities site that claims 15,000 visits per day and is afraid to change location for fear of losing traffic.
It's an environmental authority person (a scientist) who has had the site for 15 years and has aquired thousands of authority backlinks.
She gave me a deep link because one of my (very obscure) pages is related to her side-interest which is also featured on her 'my hobbies' page. I got a notable spike in traffic along with that link.
Her authority - 'water' and 'environment'.
It's a big world out there.

Philosopher




msg:766793
 7:40 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Again...noone is trying to say you "can't" rank well or at the top with a shared IP. Having a shared IP is not, in general, going to cause you to rank badly. There are too many other criteria for that one thing to cause a huge swing either way, but it can give you or your competitor the edge.

On second thought...nevermind...shared IP's are the way to go. I always like having a slight edge. ;)

Reid




msg:766794
 8:26 pm on Apr 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

thankx for the url but I need silver menbership to see the other 991 domains I'm sharing with.

I would say for a low budget - long term in mind website it's probably a good place to start (shared) but once you get a good build up of content and start getting 'well into the game' then you eventually should look at other options.

Ok so how do I know if I'm not getting dupped when Im getting an IP.

Used to be only internic but now there are others.
Are there lots of em or only a few of em?
Wheres the best places to get an ip?
When i get one how do I associate it with my host?
I mean if I go to internic now my domain is already taken (by my host or me and my host)?

This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 81 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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