| 1:27 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I doubt it. I do too on many domains.
| 1:35 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
ok just wanted to know
| 3:15 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
no no its just a myth
| 7:01 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I don't think so, most of my domains are private -- that said, something interesting happened to me a few years ago:
My WhoIs on one site was public, but then I made it private. Within a day or two, my rankings dropped like a rock. I gave it a couple days, and then completely panicked and changed it back to public. Within a day or so, the rankings came back.
I don't think that public vs private has an impact, but I do think there are a couple possibilities:
1. Changing your WhoIs could possibly have an effect in some circumstances (I don't know if it's true, but it sure *felt* true in that case)
2. It was a complete coincidence.
| 7:28 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Sure, it's possible. Here's what Eric Schmidt of Google had to say about anonymity a while back:
|"Within search results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the top (verified) results. The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance." |
It's also easy to imagine Google being skeptical of anonymity in some cases but not others. Common sense would suggest that an e-commerce or affiliate site that sent spam signals might get dinged for hiding its owner's identity, while a Chinese political dissident's site might get a pass.
| 8:20 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I never believed it made a difference but in the case of manual action against the site then web anonymity might be seen as a spam signal.
| 8:29 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Doesn't Eric Schmidt talk about author rank ? and not who is ?
| 9:14 pm on Jan 13, 2014 (gmt 0)|
He was talking about "verified online profiles" vs. anonymity.