| 8:21 pm on Mar 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Sure Google might look at historical information. Google could access many other avenues to see a connection in domain ownership, too.
My preference is to be right up front (or possibly to use "anonymouse" registration options to cut down the spam and junk postal mail.) One related backlink among many won't be a problem for Google. But if the entire backlink profile for a domain looks manipulated, then there can be a problem.
| 5:23 am on Mar 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think you are paranoid. IMO if you are a trustworthy business then you do not have anything to hide, have correct whois and have a correct contact page. also include an about us page where it is even added value to link to your other sites which are operated by you.
A reason why you should not be paranoid is also that google has become much smarter and it is hardly possible that anyone could push a site with some links from own sites. Such a linkgraph just will not work, it does not even need a penalty for that.
| 6:06 am on Mar 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Imagine Google buying data from your ISP and seeing which domains your account uploads to through ftp. Just imagine it - I'm not saying that they do it. Then you can call your therapist (or mine) for help with paranoia ;)
| 11:49 am on Mar 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I vote paranoid also.
| 12:08 pm on Mar 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Woah tedster, you've just taken my paranoia to a new level! ISP access records?!? No wonder they want to provide free bandwidth etc...
I'm normally more upfront too, but I'm thinking of trying something a little grey, and if it all goes wrong, I don't want my legit sites to suffer. So I think paranoia is the approach to take...I don't want any traceable connection between the two sites.
| 1:37 am on Mar 7, 2008 (gmt 0)|
AnonyMouse - better do not make these kind of posts, the google toolbar recorded when you visited this page and submitted a post request, and they can compare that to the date associated to your post. ;)
Anyway, you should not try grey things, it could stick to you for a long time.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 1:56 am (utc) on Mar. 7, 2008]