| 11:08 am on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hey man, half of the web is powered by shared hosting, but still all these websites are indexed and ranked and even get some reasonable G traffic. It would be a great stupidity to ban IP-sharing.
| 11:19 am on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would consider a more likely scenario to be that sites competing for the same phrases may struggle under the same IP.
| 11:29 am on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is no problem in general, but there are specific situations where it could hurt you:
- if someone else shares IP with you, and makes extensive spamming actions of any sort, leading IP to be banned, added to spam lists or something of this sort
- if you intend to do linkfarming between your sites, having them on the same IP and even C-block may increase the risk your linkfarming would be detected and penalized
If someone can list more situations like these, it would be welcomed.
I have a few servers on separate IPs, each one with ability of hosting unlimited number of domains and subdomains, and have no problems with sites I administrate. But I don't do linkfarming, I crosslink them only if it makes sense for users, and all my sites are doing great.
But I have seen spammy sites, each one on different IP, but same C-block and linked from same high PR page to boost their rankings, being hurt with Allegra.
| 4:01 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was thinkg about it and that's what I've found: my sites are actually on common hosting services,
I did tracert mydomain.com and the IP appeared.
I did tracert myotherdomain-hosted-on-same-hosting.com and *same* IP appeared
I did tracert myhostingurl.com and *same* IP appeared.
My conclusion: I'm already using same IP on a shared server so there must not be any difference with paying a new plan on a shared server for 1 account and using multidomain, hosting my sites there.
I guess I'm already doing that now without knowing but just paying for each account to my hosting service separately.
Am I right?
BTW they are moderately crosslinked, makes sense for users and no problem there, decent ranks.
Any input about it?
| 4:21 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yes its something thats confused me too recently in light of other posts. More concerned about the "bad neighbourhoods" thing. If its a multi-host service provider on one IP and some of the sites are pron, could that be hurting me in G's rankings without me even knowing?
| 4:36 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I manage about 29 client sites. When shared IPs started being available a few years ago I put most of my clients on them (starter accounts are usually Shared IPs).
However this last year with the Google 302 redirect problem I started switcing all my clients to dedicated IPs because I found at least one client who had a shared IP where someone else on the same IP had set up a 302 redirect to one of their pages and Google attributed it to my client's site.
ALSO, and this happened with several clients, someone on the shared IP was using spamming techniques and my client was blacklisted. This can be determined by using Bruce Clay's blacklisted tool on his Tech tips page. I can't post the url so you'll have to google it but it will let you know if any company has your IP banned or blacklisted and if so you need to get a dedicated IP. I don't know how long it takes to recover from a blacklisted IP but seems to me it's worth the extra $1.00 per month to get your own IP. If your host doesn't offer a dedicated IP then it's time to change hosts.
| 6:33 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Scary. If that's correct no one should ever use other than dedicated IP hosting...
| 6:45 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Under ARIN rules you need a valid reason for a dedicated IP. I guess SSL certificate is probably the best way to get around this, but you don't really know whether the IP you are getting is already "banned" or was used by a known spammer. IP addresses after all are finite.
| 6:53 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I found at least one client who had a shared IP where someone else on the same IP had set up a 302 redirect to one of their pages and Google attributed it to my client's site. |
Do you know in which way he made 302?
| 6:57 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
div01, you don't get one IP address from ARIN.
You ask it from your hosting provider and get one dedicated for your site, usually for the time being with the provider.
| 11:38 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|div01, you don't get one IP address from ARIN. |
div01 didn't say that's were you got and IP address. ARIN makes the RULES as div01 points out.
I also agree with div01, you need to be careful what address you get. Most are recycled (finite as div01 also correctly points out) and you need to make sure you're not getting one that a spammer just gave up.
| 6:24 am on Jun 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|- if someone else shares IP with you, and makes extensive spamming actions of any sort, leading IP to be banned, added to spam lists or something of this sort |
that may be true for smaller hosts and resellers, but I doubt they will apply this tactic to a big host, I am sure Google has IPs of big hosting companies (at least in US!) on their list.
I'm hosted on a huge host, (shared IP), and there are 9909 other sites on the same IP, some of them are definately blackhats, some even may have been banned, but it never hurted my ranking, and I think it's kinda stupid to ban 9908 sites because of 1!
| 9:38 am on Jun 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is just one thing to think about.
Would a high quality high budget seriously backed site use a shared IP?
The answer is almost always no. And the reason is generally that they will be on a dedicted server anyway.
So if you want to look like a big boy to google - then...
| 10:13 am on Jun 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I am not a big boy! First of all, I'm not a boy at all... lol
but seriously, high budget doesnt mean high quality, sorry.
and btw what's wrong with not having a high budget? yes I don't have one, so what? I am what I am - just a housewife with few small sites. But that doesn't give anybody right or reason to ban or filter me, just because I don't have a bunch of money.
My sites are still good, my visitors love 'em and in some cases they outrank those "big boys".
| 11:52 am on Jun 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Most logical way is that domains that link to the same IP block are not as valuable as external links but treated more like internal links.
| 6:53 pm on Jun 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
With shared IP's being so prevalent these days I would imagine google penalizing domain names and NOT IP's. Unless you are the only white hat sharing IP with 9999 black hats.
| 10:44 pm on Jun 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The problem isn't with shared hosting per se, you can have unique ips on every account on a shared hosting server, but you have to use the right hoster.
We run some pretty major sites for their areas shared, there's no problem with that, our traffic could go up 10 times and not be a problem, as long as you use high end shared. In this case a penny saved is not a penny earned, it's usually many dollars lost. You get what you pay for, but that doesn't mean if you pay a lot you get a lot, shop around and you'll find high end shared solutions.
Main issue with shared is how much db stuff you are doing, that's where you really have to watch yourself.
| 10:52 am on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Same here, I'm on an IP with over 900 other domains and I'm perfectly happy with the way things are going, after poking around a bit I attribute it to the guys runnng the machines, they're doing a great job, and know how to maintain a clean host.
It's a large and well established host too so they must know what they're doing. My site was down for maybe an hour over the past year, a lot less headaches for me if they can keep it up.
| 5:29 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This question has been coming up again and again since HTTP 1.1 came out.
It seems to me that Google should make a public statement one way or the other.
There is no advantage to Google in secrecy on this particular issue.
| 6:55 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'd agree with Vince.
FWIW, IIRC, Bruce Clay looked into this a few years ago, and found most top results he researched used a dedicated IP.
He didn't say it's a "must have", but implied that, if all other things being equal, the dedicated IP wins out.
| 5:13 am on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|He didn't say it's a "must have", but implied that, if all other things being equal, the dedicated IP wins out. |
The problem with that is why are there more dedicated IP's in the top results?
Could it be that there is a greater percentage of long established and brand-name sites in those results?
And that among longer established sites and brand-name sites there is a higher percentage of dedicated IP's?
| 5:44 am on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is a silly topic. If you're not making enough to pay the extra $1 a month for a dedicated IP then you need to seriously reevaluate your chosen profession.
Get a dedicated IP. Why? Because you can. It's not like it's going to hurt your site, and at worst it will only help it marginally.
| 4:06 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Micfo hosting for instance charges U$10 for each domain not U$1.
Why paying U$10 for each domain if you don't need to?
Other reliable hosting companies just doesn't. They allow up to 6 domain with 1 account. Then you need to pay 1 hosting plan for each, lets say some U$96 annual for each domain. You do the maths if you have some 6 sites (96 x 6 = U$576 instad just U$96)
The point is not how much you your site returns to you. The point is if you *need* a unique IP or not.
BTW hosting is not so affordable in certain countries and makes a difference.
| 8:12 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
" Micfo hosting for instance charges U$10 for each domain not U$1.
Why paying U$10 for each domain if you don't need to?"
Why pay a hoster that much if you don't need to? As others mentioned, $1 a month is what most higher end shared hosters who provide dedicated ips seem to charge for extra dedicated ips, if that's an issue you are probably, as noted, in the wrong business.
It all comes down to traffic and how many resources your sites consume. With no db stuff, you can serve around 1/2 a million visitors a month, give or take, on high end shared hosting, with db stuff it drops to around 50-100 k a month, give or take depending on how much db work is required and how optimized the queries are.
After that, you can move to VPS, which is a good intermediate step, you can get decent packages for around 60-70 a month, that provides enough to run anything other than a super high traffic site.
| 8:38 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
$10 is a ONE TIME fee.
| 10:14 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh, a setup fee, that's normal, again, if $10 one time fee is too high for someone... what's that, two or three beers? If one's budget is really this tight, I don't know, again, I think another line of work might be in order, you can make $10 in tips working at a cafe for one shift, probably more. For the rest of us, paying $10 once for a site that will be up for years, there may be things more trivial to worry about re my websites, but I can't think of any right off the top of my head.
Of course if the goal is to setup hundreds of spam sites on an ongoing basis or something I can see where this might start adding up, otherwise it's hard to see the problem, no?
| 10:32 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If $10 is too high, the site is garbage, and nobody would miss it. Cost is no consideration here. (Whether or not it makes a difference is a different issue.)
| 12:14 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No, you don't need a dedicated IP address.
I would venture go as far as to say that it doesn't make any difference in your rankings at all whether you're on a shared IP or a dedicated IP.
I use both and haven't seen any shred of evidence that shows that the serps are effected one way or another.
| 12:19 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Get a dedicated IP. Your competition is doing it. So should you.
| This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: 50 (  2 ) > > |