Forum Moderators: open
I'm thinking time and economics here. If I have 20 sites on 20 different hosting accounts I am sure that would be best. However, if I could put 2 or more sites per account then I could save some $$$ and also the administration would be easier. I would not want to save a few bucks though if it would hurt the "weight" of my cross links.
Any thoughts?
So I'd say it's the sites that matter, not the host.
I have about 100 websites on one account, and 99 of them link to the 100th, and so far everything has been just fine...
Wow, how long have those been up?
It's hard to say if G would *penalize* the sites for all being on one server. After all, there are maybe 100's of sites on every server so there is the possibility that some of them might be linked even by chance.
I was just thinking that if 10 or 20 sites are all on the same server AND linked together then they would stick out like a sore thumb as as an island of linked sites and maybe even a small link farm. If G saw it that way then maybe they would discount the inbound links at the least or blacklist the sites at the worst.
There has to be a threshold at some level... whatever it is 2 sites? 3 sites? Who knows.
And people often choose a server on the recommendation of people they know, and with personal sites people often do link to the sites of people who are just friends. Thus if Google is dealing with this algorithmically, they'd want to set the penalty level high enough to avoid dinging lots of amateur sites.
With a commercial site you obviously have to concern yourselves with page rank and incoming links. I agree though that G must have some sort of a threshold. I hope so anyway....
If you sell widgets, I would think it poor judgement to break the site into blue widgets, green widgets, red widgets, etc.
However, if you sell widgets, and sell wadgets, and also weedgits, all products not related, then your okay.
Just my 2 cents worth.
You can not get penaltized for same server links.
I have about 100 websites on one account, and 99 of them link to the 100th, and so far everything has been just fine.....
Wow, how long have those been up?...
I'm ( an I bet I aint alone ) am amazed you didn't go BOOOM! ...long time ago ...?
And I dont know what else you want me to say - I gave you the most hard-core proof about it.
I would be surprised if they are still there in another 4 months though.
I would still love for you to be right ..but ....
( Blaze ..what you smokin? )...
I don't think you ever lose page rank for having bad sites link to you
Why not ..? ..cos you ain't as dumb as you just posted!
and I 'm not searching a fight here but ..you know that you know better! ...and if I knew how to make search here work for me ( constant lament ) ..I'd find your own posts to contradict you with ..I read em ..I liked em ..I agreed with em ...
I would love for altrus to be right ..for him / her ..you ..me lots of folks ..Maybe he /she is ..but I was originally trained for observational sciences ( 'mongst other stuff )..and 4 months "doth not a summer make" ( sorry Will ..fair use? )...and I dont depend on the web for my bread ..but I wont risk even my spammy sites ( and there are those here who know ..lord!.. do I got some spammy looking sites..some not so much ...but ..) ..on 4 months observed data ...survive Hilltop plus Florida at top 5 ...and ok some of us will beleive you may have something ( usually clever cloaking )..and even so I'd be scared by "wiggy backlinks" ...and cross links like that? ..jeez ..look at the "crowned heads of Europe" ..that kind of inbreed ing makes even small dogs double take ..let alone search engines!
Plus Heisenberg ( damn the spellcheckers eyes) ...
people from google read these threads ( if you keep the words short )...so even if .. you were a quarter right..wouldn't last ...
'scuse spelling comme d'ab
Otherwise, taking out competitors would be a trivial matter of setting up a few hundered PR0 websites and then just linking those bad boys to your competitors.
My network is large, spammy, clean, informative, useless and everything in between. I have wrenched myself this year over all the SE changes and have been working very hard implementing elements I find posted from users I feel I can trust.
The changes as a whole have been very complicated but the overall direction has appeared through the foggy mist:
Our sites need to have unique content with unique links. Our sites need to be real sites. If we don't do this, the search engines will always eventually nail us.
Only exception would be the ultra spammers that don't mind burning 1,000 domains on short term networks. But I don't think most of us are in that category.
Can I get a witness, or am I missing the boat?
