|Links from same IP ? How much less value they contains ?|
| 1:40 pm on Oct 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I know links from same IP don't contain as much value as some other C class IP link, but really how much value the contain ? 50%/25%/10% ? I am thinking of linking some of my PR4 sites which are on same host and just wondering its consequence ? will it even help to link them ?
| 2:01 pm on Oct 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I can't say if it helps, though I suspect it does. If done correctly, it certainly doesn't hurt. I interlink between my sites as it makes sense. Calculator site links to hosting site links to forum, and so on.
Here's what I'd watch for (again, no idea if this helps or hurts, but it's what I'd watch for). Make sure all your sites are ontopic. Make sure all the sites have unique content. Make sure all the sites have their own relevant set of discrete backlinks - in other words make sure all the sites stand on their own. Then if you interlink, I think worst case is that you're telling Google you own all the sites. Best case you're telling Google that you can pass trust and relevance around the sites.
Just interlinking a bunch of same sites (i.e. 5 mostly the same copies of the same site) would make me nervous.
| 8:41 am on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't think hurts, until it's pretty obvious that all the sites are yours and you are linking them for the purpose of getting links.
Just make sure when you inter link, you don't put the links of rest three sites on each site, giving 1 link would be best:
Site 1 Links to Site 2
Site 2 Links to Site 3
Site 3 Links to Site 4
Site 4 Links to Site 1
even 2 links on the same site should not be bad, but make sure it doesn't seem obvious.
| 7:21 am on Oct 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion, circulating link is welcome, interlaced link is inadvisable.
| 8:41 am on Oct 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
@Richard zhou - what does this mean ? interlaced links and circulating links ?
| 10:43 am on Oct 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think he means
(Circular could also be <> rather than one-way)
However, I think Wheel is right. Each site should have unique, related content and stand alone. Then, interlinking works. Why wouldn't it?
If there is duplication, you are effectively trying to get all sites ranked for the same content. This is unlikely to work without interlinking, and once you interlink, the bad smell (plagerism and/or scraping) gets passed around rather than the trust.
If there is no relation between sites, PR might get passed (but who cares about that, unless you're selling adverts or links), but ranking is unlikely to get a boost.
[edited by: Shaddows at 10:43 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2008]
| 4:42 pm on Nov 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
How much of a risk is it that Google will think this is a spammy 3-way link, and drop all the sites? Or would that be unlikely to happen assuming all your sites are legitimate?
| 7:39 pm on Nov 6, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The company I work for has several brand sites in the same industry that we run out of the same datacenter all using the same class C addresses. Interlinking between our sites definitely helped the weaker sites. It was less noticable on the stronger sites. When we first implemented it, we could see an almost immediate lift on the weaker sites - rankings went up, number of pages indexed went up. And we have never been penalized in any way for doing so.
But these are large brand-name trusted, authoritative sites. The rules are likely different for smaller sites. We get away with a lot of things that smaller sites would never be able to get away with.
PS: I cornered Mr. Cutts at Pubcon last year about this very topic because I was wondering if there would be any sort of penalty for doing so. He said something to the affect that as long as each of the sites were distinct businesses with their own brand, it didn't matter that we were sharing the same IPs running out of the same datacenter. But again, this may only apply to larger brand sites. They may take a closer look at smaller sites doing similar things.
[edited by: ZydoSEO at 7:45 pm (utc) on Nov. 6, 2008]