Google problems from having all sites on same server

Or does having a unique IP prevent problems?

[funandgames]

Has anyone gotten a PR0 or a lowering of SERPS from moving all their sites to one server? Does having a unique static IP for each site prevent any such problems?

[troels nybo nielsen]

It's certainly possible that having several domains on the same IP number may be one of the factors counting to make you a spammer in the eyes of Google. But it is *not* a factor that can do the damage alone. I have two domains that have shared the same IP number for more than a year without any problem. And there is quite a bit of interlinking between them.

Many other members can tell the same story.

[drdsl2000]

Check for duplicate content.

Also, duplicate Who Is info

[piskie]

Providing all the sites and their linking credibility conform to Google Webmasters Guidelines both actualy and in the spirit that the guidelines are written, then there is no danger.

However if there is something to hide then having all sites on the same IP will makes Google far more likely to find out and take whatever action it deems appropriate.

I got that from a Google employee of sufficient status to believe.

[webmktg]

I have 10 sites on the same IP and still running without any issue regarding PR. But they dont generate much traffic since rankings are not very good. There is no crosslinking between the sites.

With my experience I'm sure that PR point of view there will be no problem. My question is regarding the effect on search engine rankings when multiple sites share the same IP?

[soccer_star]

I have a number of sites on the same virtual account that have been hit in the SERPs since November, although PR is still excellent.

I've tidied the sites up (I must admit to having done some 'selective' crosslinking, although not enough to get banned/penalised I thought) and still no change, so I think the same IP address must be the reason.

drdsl2000, you mentioned whois info. Does Google now check whois info and penalize sites registered by the same person no matter what server they're on, assuming they're too heavily crosslinked?

[ambiorix_rb]

Hi all,

I have the same problem.
A client of mine (big corporation) has a website made in Lotus. This site was nowhere to be found in the SERP's.

We decided to create a new website: pure HTML, CSS, no spamming, NEW content in another language....

The new website resides on the webserver of the client: same IP address and of course same whois.
Result: my first website which didn't succeed into the SERP's...

The customer now thinks I pulled him a leg... while my hands are bound...

Are there other 'server-releated' issus which makes sites not score in the SERPS?

thx in advance

Ambiorix

[djgreg]

I can't imagine that they use WHOIS info for that.
It is such a mass of data and in some countries (germany for example) they are simply not allowed to use it due to privacy laws.

greg

[ILuvSrchEngines]

'Hilltop' requires detecting affiliate links by both IP address and by whois. There is a lot of speculation that the <snip> over at Google are using Hilltop or a form of it.

[edited by: Marcia at 3:47 am (utc) on May 4, 2004]
[edit reason] Rudeness deleted. [/edit]

[div01]

I haven't seen any whois references within the Hilltop paper. What happens with all the proxy domain registering services? I guess the only variable there would be the email address.

[djgreg]

Also think of the free hosting services like geocities. How would they determine whose sites these are and how could they treat tld. somans and "free" webspace in the same way.
IMHO it is not possible that google uses whois data.

greg

[ILuvSrchEngines]

Well, you may be right about the whois. This nutty stuff is really dry read. I may have fell asleep while reading it the first time. :-)

2.1 Detecting Host Affiliation

We define two hosts as affiliated if one or both of the following is true:
They share the same first 3 octets of the IP address.
The rightmost non-generic token in the hostname is the same.
We consider tokens to be substrings of the hostname delimited by "." (period). A suffix of the hostname is considered generic if it is a sequence of tokens that occur in a large number of distinct hosts. E.g., ".com" and ".co.uk" are domain names that occur in a large number of hosts and are hence generic suffixes. Given two hosts, if the generic suffix in each case is removed and the subsequent right-most token is the same, we consider them to be affiliated.

E.g., in comparing "www.ibm.com" and "ibm.co.mx" we ignore the generic suffixes ".com" and ".co.mx" respectively. The resulting rightmost token is "ibm", which is the same in both cases. Hence they are considered to be affiliated. Optionally, we could require the generic suffix to be the same in both cases.

The affiliation relation is transitive: if A and B are affiliated and B and C are affiliated then we take A and C to be affiliated even if there is no direct evidence of the fact. In practice some non-affiliated hosts may be classified as affiliated, but that is acceptable since this relation is intended to be conservative.

In a preprocessing step we construct a host-affiliation lookup. Using a union-find algorithm we group hosts, that either share the same rightmost non-generic suffix or have an IP address in common, into sets. Every set is given a unique identifier (e.g., the host with the lexicographically lowest hostname). The host-affiliation lookup maps every host to its set identifier or to itself (when there is no set). This is used to compare hosts. If the lookup maps two hosts to the same value then they are affiliated; otherwise they are non-affiliated.