Forum Moderators: open
I came across this message while searching for new hosts.
I certainly hope that it isnt true!
Comments would be very much appreciated.
"The difficulty with name-based hosting is that several, if not hundreds of sites may be sharing the same IP address. Any one of those sites either deliberately or inadvertently may get their site banned by the search engine. When a search engine bans a site it bans the IP address so not only would that site be banned, but every site on that IP address.
If you are running a family site where being found on a search engine is not important, this won't matter. However, if you do need to be found, you need your own IP address. Make sure you don't get it banned; get your own IP address."
leo
Then it can be slightly difficult to get legitimate emails to people.
It's a good thing to check once in a while and see if anyone is sending spam from a shared server.
Servers these days are so cheap, and if your running your own server then you'll have your own IP.. just make sure that you don't get one of your sites banned!
It does sound like an ad though, I agree ;)
Anything in to scaring you into spending more money I guess!
I just wish that GG would clear this up as it is a fact that really should not be hidden!
Virtual servers sometimes have hundreds if not thousand of websites on one IP address.
So this means that one irresponsible webmaster could bring down thousands of others with him?
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! Especially since IP addresses are running short and soon virtual hosting will be the only option.
YOU ARE THE MAN!
Couldnt agree more!
Wrong. Dunno if Google does it, but I have heard of cases where SEs have banned IPs of servers that were almost exclusively spammers. Makes some sense. Easier to whack the IP once, than keep whacking new spam domains on the server one at a time. Obvious problem is collateral damage. On the theory that a SE might ban the IP of an entire server, I can't imagine any serious e-commerce site without a static IP. Such would be sheer stupidity. A static IP costs like 2 bucks a month. Please note even if Google doesn't block IPs, some SE might. If I ran an e-commerce business, I'd pay $2 a month to make sure I don't get banned by Wisenut.
http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml
Seems to me that it resolves the name to an IP then gives you all suspected spam coming from that IP. When I entered my domain name then it came back with about 4 spam email examples that come from other sites (funny, I don't see diet pills) that must be hosted at the same IP or sending email via the same mailserver.
It can suck when other people's spam gets you into trouble.
Man I sound like an advertisement! :-)
But banning an IP from a search engine doesn't make sense. The spammer could get back in w/o losing his domain name & whatever effort he's put into that branding. I would hope all the SE's that matter would be smarter than that.
people usually ask about bandwidth and backbone connection speed but they seem to forget to ask about what the cpu type and mhz speed the server has, and more importantly how much ram their box will have
once a server is online, most shared server hosts will resist upgrading the box to prevent the risk of extended downtime
you can attempt to figure out who is on your current or potential shared server by using
www.alltheweb.com "limit by ip" - use the following line and replace the "1.2.3.4" with the server ip
www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&advanced=1&depth%5Bp%5D=%3D&depth%5Bv%5D=top&nooc=off&limip=1.2.3.4
I don't like this concept - I had a domain get caught in a broad-based filter a while back, and it was hosed for months. But the reality is that if my widget information site disappears, the widget information sites that remain will convince most searchers that they are getting a variety of meaningful results. Filters, even those other than IP banning, are often blunt instruments, too. Sometimes in war there's collateral damage, and innocent sites caught by crude spam filters fall into that category. (I don't mean to imply that all SE people are heartless robots - but they are motivated to produce better results above other concerns.)
As far as whether SEs have used IP banning, I think an internal Ink ban list was leaked a couple of years ago, and it appeared that at least some spammers were identified by IP.
I run a virtual server, all the sites share the same IP. One of my casino sites was banned from Google for high risk SEO techniques, the other site, which uses a no/low-risk SEO strategy (and which thankfully ranks much better anyway) is absolutely fine.
So, I can say with conviction that if a site is banned, other sites using the same IP are not banned automatically.
As a larger-picture comment, James, I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions from single anecdotes. We can all find examples of sites with hidden text or excessive crosslinking that are still in Google's index - that doesn't mean that they won't get nailed sooner or later. One value provided by WebmasterWorld is the opportunity to talk to a broad spectrum of site owners so that a statistical picture can start to emerge.
ATW's "Limit by IP" is great. Have noticed it a few times on the advanced search page and really didn't know what to do with it. And it confirmed that the few sites we have set up name-based are on servers with only a virtual handful of other not high traffic sites. My host really is honest, go figure.
There are good reasons for getting a unique IP for ones website (for example if you think you may need SSL support in the near future), but SEO is not one of them.
You've inspired me to conduct a study. I will cloak one domain and host 19 others on a single IP address and send spam reports to each engine in a couple of months. I'll make absolutely sure I suggest that all the sites on the same IP should be banned.
My guess is that an extremely small percentage (if any) of the sites using the same IP will be banned. I also doubt that many of the engines will take any action at all, even if I plead with them.
Actually, most sites on shared servers get their own IP #'s. Sites hosted on virtual servers share an IP - sites that are on virtual servers tend to be all from the same company or a small time hosting company hosting a handful of sites.
I asked a similar question a couple weeks ago because I was considering moving a half dozen sites to a virtual server to save money, but realized that I might lose some of my link popularity because they would all share the same IP address. Does anyone know if search engines look at this? I have a feeling they might.
you can attempt to figure out who is on your current or potential shared server by using www.alltheweb.com "limit by ip" - use the following line and replace the "1.2.3.4" with the server ip
This works fine for my sites at two hosts. But it does not work for at least two sites at 64.81.247.205 that you can confirm by pinging their domain names (specifics in a help query at google.public.support.general today. Subject line is "reverse links don't show up".)
Any ideas?
What I do know is that other servers can block ip:s or ip blocks. I use some scripts at my web sites to collect dynamic info from various sources. So for me it's a wise choice with decicated ip:s I think.
Another thing is that a host that is only offering shared ip:s, is likely to be a reseller or a low quality host. I avoid those.
A dedidated ip is cheap. I pay $1/month for each dedicated ip at my host. But I know even that money can be expensive if you're only putting up a simple site. If you can afford it, get it. But not for the sake of SE:s.
I have a dedicated server currently hosting 15 sites on a single IP. I will probably put up to 100 domains on there ultimately. I wanted to spread these over several IP addresses for some of the reasons already suggested (mainly insurance purposes)
I requested another 5 IP addresses and was told my need was not justified. I was told that each IP had to have either a SSL cert. or a FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name). What do I have to do to justify the need for additional IPs?
