homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.80.55
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mademetop

General Search Engine Marketing Issues Forum

    
Virtual IP vs Dedicated IP
nervous_seo




msg:242893
 3:16 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi There

I came across this message while searching for new hosts.
I certainly hope that it isnt true!

Comments would be very much appreciated.

"The difficulty with name-based hosting is that several, if not hundreds of sites may be sharing the same IP address. Any one of those sites either deliberately or inadvertently may get their site banned by the search engine. When a search engine bans a site it bans the IP address so not only would that site be banned, but every site on that IP address.

If you are running a family site where being found on a search engine is not important, this won't matter. However, if you do need to be found, you need your own IP address. Make sure you don't get it banned; get your own IP address."

 

le_gber




msg:242894
 3:23 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sounds like advert to me, at the end did they offer to give you a single IP, I yes, can't be trusted.
Well, for what I know!

leo

MetropolisRobot




msg:242895
 3:37 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

One area you do have to worry about this is if you happen to be on a server with a spammer. I have had instances where the IP of the server I am located on as been recorded with spamcop.net as being a source of spam.

Then it can be slightly difficult to get legitimate emails to people.

It's a good thing to check once in a while and see if anyone is sending spam from a shared server.

yetanotheruser




msg:242896
 3:40 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the SE's block the IP address rather than the domain.. But I wouldn't worry too much..

Servers these days are so cheap, and if your running your own server then you'll have your own IP.. just make sure that you don't get one of your sites banned!

It does sound like an ad though, I agree ;)

nervous_seo




msg:242897
 3:42 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

It is on a webhosts website.

Anything in to scaring you into spending more money I guess!

I just wish that GG would clear this up as it is a fact that really should not be hidden!

nervous_seo




msg:242898
 3:46 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Blocking an Ip address and not a domain would not be fair.

Virtual servers sometimes have hundreds if not thousand of websites on one IP address.

So this means that one irresponsible webmaster could bring down thousands of others with him?

Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! Especially since IP addresses are running short and soon virtual hosting will be the only option.

WibbleWobble




msg:242899
 3:50 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Aren't we all supposed to be bracing for the impending IPv6 format? More IPs! ;p

Tony_Perry




msg:242900
 3:50 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is UTTER RUBBISH! Phone them and tell them so. 90% of all websites use shared hosting, so if the started banning IP addresses, most of the www would disapear! So many people in this industry haven't a clue what they are talking about it's no wonder that internet users are so mislead and frightened!

nervous_seo




msg:242901
 3:53 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Tony Perry

YOU ARE THE MAN!

Couldnt agree more!

rfgdxm1




msg:242902
 3:59 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Phone them and tell them so. 90% of all websites use shared hosting, so if the started banning IP addresses, most of the www would disapear!

Wrong. Dunno if Google does it, but I have heard of cases where SEs have banned IPs of servers that were almost exclusively spammers. Makes some sense. Easier to whack the IP once, than keep whacking new spam domains on the server one at a time. Obvious problem is collateral damage. On the theory that a SE might ban the IP of an entire server, I can't imagine any serious e-commerce site without a static IP. Such would be sheer stupidity. A static IP costs like 2 bucks a month. Please note even if Google doesn't block IPs, some SE might. If I ran an e-commerce business, I'd pay $2 a month to make sure I don't get banned by Wisenut.

MetropolisRobot




msg:242903
 4:00 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)
Without being alarmist, I would check on your mail/spam though. Have a look at this link

http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml

Seems to me that it resolves the name to an IP then gives you all suspected spam coming from that IP. When I entered my domain name then it came back with about 4 spam email examples that come from other sites (funny, I don't see diet pills) that must be hosted at the same IP or sending email via the same mailserver.

It can suck when other people's spam gets you into trouble.

mediaman




msg:242904
 4:05 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is why you should be using a dedicated hosting plan of some sort. Then you have your own machine with your own pool of IP's. And for a little extra cash you can even get them to assign you additional IP's. So the risk is eliminated. Plus you then have better support, etc...

Man I sound like an advertisement! :-)

Tony_Perry




msg:242905
 4:07 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

I hear stories everyday, and you know what? They're just bar talk. There isn't 1 true example of any SE banning an IP.

Brett_Tabke




msg:242906
 4:08 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

The first message in the thread makes a very good point. It is also good to investigate an ip before the host assigns it. See if they will tell you which ip will be yours. Try that ip around the search engines and see if you get any hits. It could be an ip that was previously banned.

leoo24




msg:242907
 4:36 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

would it be reasonable to ask a prospective host who you will be sharing an ip with or would that be a bit cheeky?

rogerd




msg:242908
 7:54 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

leoo24, I don't know how cheeky it would be, though I question the likelihood of a host being entirely honest. "Yeah, we have a few adult sites, plus some guys doing e-mail campaigns for mortgages and bodily enhancements. A couple of link farms and crosslinked networks of sites, too." :) In fact, many hosts may not really know that they have allowed a spammer on their system until after the site has been operational for a while.

dwilson




msg:242909
 8:33 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

The bit about email spammers is true. I used to work for a hosting company. Back before everybody knew how to combat spam, the company had left open relaying on on their SMTP server. Some spammer took advantage & sent spam through their server. The company's SMTP server was black-listed by the bigger companies around. Didn't work well for those trying to send legitimate mail out from the server!

But banning an IP from a search engine doesn't make sense. The spammer could get back in w/o losing his domain name & whatever effort he's put into that branding. I would hope all the SE's that matter would be smarter than that.

amznVibe




msg:242910
 9:06 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

never be shy about asking questions when shopping around for a shared hosting server

people usually ask about bandwidth and backbone connection speed but they seem to forget to ask about what the cpu type and mhz speed the server has, and more importantly how much ram their box will have

once a server is online, most shared server hosts will resist upgrading the box to prevent the risk of extended downtime

you can attempt to figure out who is on your current or potential shared server by using
www.alltheweb.com "limit by ip" - use the following line and replace the "1.2.3.4" with the server ip


www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&advanced=1&depth%5Bp%5D=%3D&depth%5Bv%5D=top&nooc=off&limip=1.2.3.4

rogerd




msg:242911
 10:02 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

To the posters who think IP banning is ridiculous, unfair, etc., I'd suggest looking at it from the SE's point of view. Each spam problem is approached from the standpoint of whether search results can be improved. If a SE can blow away hundreds of persistent spam domains, losing some legitimate domains in the process may not be a huge deal.

I don't like this concept - I had a domain get caught in a broad-based filter a while back, and it was hosed for months. But the reality is that if my widget information site disappears, the widget information sites that remain will convince most searchers that they are getting a variety of meaningful results. Filters, even those other than IP banning, are often blunt instruments, too. Sometimes in war there's collateral damage, and innocent sites caught by crude spam filters fall into that category. (I don't mean to imply that all SE people are heartless robots - but they are motivated to produce better results above other concerns.)

As far as whether SEs have used IP banning, I think an internal Ink ban list was leaked a couple of years ago, and it appeared that at least some spammers were identified by IP.

James_Dale




msg:242912
 10:09 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, here's some proof for you:

I run a virtual server, all the sites share the same IP. One of my casino sites was banned from Google for high risk SEO techniques, the other site, which uses a no/low-risk SEO strategy (and which thankfully ranks much better anyway) is absolutely fine.

So, I can say with conviction that if a site is banned, other sites using the same IP are not banned automatically.

rogerd




msg:242913
 10:26 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

James, I don't think anyone is claiming that IP banning happens all the time, or that it happens at all on Google. The only claim being made is that IP banning HAS happened occasionally on non-Google SEs. Certainly, most SEs would choose to ban by domain name; IP banning would be reserved, one hopes, for egregious situations involving larger numbers of spam domains from the same IP.

As a larger-picture comment, James, I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions from single anecdotes. We can all find examples of sites with hidden text or excessive crosslinking that are still in Google's index - that doesn't mean that they won't get nailed sooner or later. One value provided by WebmasterWorld is the opportunity to talk to a broad spectrum of site owners so that a statistical picture can start to emerge.

jimbeetle




msg:242914
 10:41 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

amznVibe,

ATW's "Limit by IP" is great. Have noticed it a few times on the advanced search page and really didn't know what to do with it. And it confirmed that the few sites we have set up name-based are on servers with only a virtual handful of other not high traffic sites. My host really is honest, go figure.

phaze3k




msg:242915
 10:33 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am a sysadmin at a large-ish 'free' ISP in the UK. We have over 56 000 websites hosted on one IP. I know for a fact there are sites hosted on this IP which have been (quite rightly) banned from search engines, however we also have a number of sites hosted on this IP which are number 1.

There are good reasons for getting a unique IP for ones website (for example if you think you may need SSL support in the near future), but SEO is not one of them.

James_Dale




msg:242916
 1:00 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmm,

You've inspired me to conduct a study. I will cloak one domain and host 19 others on a single IP address and send spam reports to each engine in a couple of months. I'll make absolutely sure I suggest that all the sites on the same IP should be banned.

My guess is that an extremely small percentage (if any) of the sites using the same IP will be banned. I also doubt that many of the engines will take any action at all, even if I plead with them.

webconnoisseur




msg:242917
 5:03 pm on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Phone them and tell them so. 90% of all websites use shared hosting, so if the started banning IP addresses, most of the www would disapear!

Actually, most sites on shared servers get their own IP #'s. Sites hosted on virtual servers share an IP - sites that are on virtual servers tend to be all from the same company or a small time hosting company hosting a handful of sites.

I asked a similar question a couple weeks ago because I was considering moving a half dozen sites to a virtual server to save money, but realized that I might lose some of my link popularity because they would all share the same IP address. Does anyone know if search engines look at this? I have a feeling they might.

danwinchester




msg:242918
 12:42 am on Mar 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Checkout this thread for a relevant comment from GoogleGuy:
[webmasterworld.com...]

profitpuppy




msg:242919
 9:56 pm on Mar 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

It only costs me an extra $2 per month for a dedicated IP so I figure, why not?

anallawalla




msg:242920
 3:50 am on Apr 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

you can attempt to figure out who is on your current or potential shared server by using www.alltheweb.com "limit by ip" - use the following line and replace the "1.2.3.4" with the server ip

This works fine for my sites at two hosts. But it does not work for at least two sites at 64.81.247.205 that you can confirm by pinging their domain names (specifics in a help query at google.public.support.general today. Subject line is "reverse links don't show up".)

Any ideas?

johannes




msg:242921
 8:59 am on Apr 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't think that SE:s block an ip from their results very often.

What I do know is that other servers can block ip:s or ip blocks. I use some scripts at my web sites to collect dynamic info from various sources. So for me it's a wise choice with decicated ip:s I think.

Another thing is that a host that is only offering shared ip:s, is likely to be a reseller or a low quality host. I avoid those.

A dedidated ip is cheap. I pay $1/month for each dedicated ip at my host. But I know even that money can be expensive if you're only putting up a simple site. If you can afford it, get it. But not for the sake of SE:s.

muppets




msg:242922
 9:02 am on Apr 12, 2003 (gmt 0)

I agree with Johannes and a few of the others that a dedicated IP is worth the extra money but don't do it just for SEO reasons.

I have a dedicated server currently hosting 15 sites on a single IP. I will probably put up to 100 domains on there ultimately. I wanted to spread these over several IP addresses for some of the reasons already suggested (mainly insurance purposes)

I requested another 5 IP addresses and was told my need was not justified. I was told that each IP had to have either a SSL cert. or a FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). What do I have to do to justify the need for additional IPs?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved