Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
Many other members can tell the same story.
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.
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?
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?
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
joined:Feb 16, 2004
[edited by: Marcia at 3:47 am (utc) on May 4, 2004]
[edit reason] Rudeness deleted. [/edit]
joined:Feb 16, 2004
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.