want definitive answer for interlinked sites on same ip

[neticule]

Ive browsed through alot of different places and cant find a for sure answer to this.
I have 5 domain names on the same server/ip address.
They are all uniquely designed, with no duplicate content, a few similar pages here and there though.
"Site A" and "Site B" have pagerank 4, they have been around for a few years.
Sites C,D, and E are all brand new.

question 1:
I really would like to link to some content that is on Site A and Site B, from the 3 new ones, because well, its good content!
Would I be penalized in any way for this by google.

question 2:
Similarly, I want to get the 3 new sites off the ground with a bit of pr, and would like to link to all 3 of them from Site A and Site B.
Would I be penalized in any way for this? if so, how badly?

I see alot of conflicting information everywhere for this!
If anything, I would imagine qestion 1 would be fine, and 2 I may be penalized for.

I would appreciate some input on this...

[virgohippy]

Why not spend the few extra dollars to get unique IP's for each, and not worry about it?

In the time spent researching and trying to get a definitive answer, I'm sure it's easy enough to do something which can pay for the unique IP's.

Besides that, even if there is no penalty now there could be one in the future.

[neticule]

I would rather not spend the money on extra IPs just yet, i mean, im only at 5 sites. Eventually i want to have over 100, and I dont think my host will just charge a few extra bucks for that many

I will probably get a new IP for every 10 sites or so I own...

Anyways, anyone have an answer to my question?

[Bill]

Well, you can't get a definitive answer. It's just not possible.

I'd say you would be perfectly fine.

It's not like you're trying to spam the SE's, with thousands of script generated pages, where the very minor advantage in the lesser search engines of having seperate IPs can make a difference to how your spam does.

At the scale of linking you are talking about doing, it just doesn't matter.

But, I personally still do like to have a seperate IP per domain. Old ways die hard.

[Halfdeck]

Like Bill said, its a matter of scale. Link in a way that's useful to surfers (not necessarily benefitial to you), and you should be fine.

[SirMoby]

What if you have different IPs on the same subnet? Does Google notice that it's obviously the same box?

[Bill]

SirMoby, I've been interested in the question for a long time, and looked for opinions and information about it, but after all the examination, I still end up with the conclusion that nobody knows for sure.

The effect of having domains on seperate IPs, for instance, has gotten weaker over time. 4 years ago it was a noticably strong effect, but now it's a fairly mild effect.

And, 4 years ago if you were doing SE building, it was commonly accepted that spreading your domains over several servers was good practice. Nowadays, I can say with some certainty that the effect of having multiple servers is also a weak effect.

I could list all the different opinions you'll hear in this or that place, but it all boils down to this - people just don't know.

If I had to sum it up, I'd say the slight majority opinion - I'll estimate and say that about 60% of the people studying the question seem to believe this - is that google doesn't notice or care that it's on the same box.

You have to contrast this, however, with the well known and fairly commonly agreed principle that google can see and judge pages based on their "neighborhood".

[BishopWeber]

Originally Posted by neticule

question 1:
I really would like to link to some content that is on Site A and Site B, from the 3 new ones, because well, its good content!
Would I be penalized in any way for this by google.

If you use some apache mod_rewrite tricks, the content will look like it's on the same domain, there is no way to trace where it comes from and that helps you with any hotlinking penalty if exists.

[Halfdeck]

If I had to sum it up, I'd say the slight majority opinion - I'll estimate and say that about 60% of the people studying the question seem to believe this - is that google doesn't notice or care that it's on the same box.

Polls are useless in SEO.

Here's what Matt Cutt said in his recent video regarding this topic (use the info at your own risk):

Question: Can you put an end to some myths about having too many sites on the same server, or having sites with IPs too similar to each other, or having them all include the same javascript off of different sites?

In general, if you're an average webmaster, this isn't something I'd really worry about. Now I have to tell a story about Tim Myers and I being on a panel together, and somebody said, "You took all my sites out!" Uh..he said both Google and Yahoo did. and uh.. I didn't really have that many. So Tim Myers thought to ask, "Well, how many sites did you have?" And the guy looked a little sheepish for a minute, and said "Well...I had about two thousand sites." So there's a range, right? There's a continuum. If you got 2,3,4, 5 sites and they're all different themes, stuff like that, you're not in a place where you really need to worry that much. If you have 2000 sites, you need to be asking yourself, do you really have unique value-added content to support 2000 sites? Because the answer is, probably not. But if you're just your average guy..you got a few sites, I wouldn't worry about them being on the same IP address, and I definitely wouldn't worry about them being on the same server. That's something that everybody does.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60678227172395

[Bill]

Yeah, I was taking into account that statement by Cutts in my assessment.

Cutts is not on our side in this business, I don't assume that what he says is the flat truth or the whole truth. And, if you analyze his statement, he says nothing useful.

But, like I said, the majority opinion is that google doesn't notice or care.

However, it's clear google has the tools to detect cliques and clusters of domains crowded on one server, but I would say the evidence is that they don't apply those tools unless they already have a reason to believe you are trying to spam.

In this past year, I've consolidated down from 7 servers to 4 servers, I don't expect to consolidate any more than that. The benefits of having many servers had clearly reduced, the conveinience and savings of concentrating domains made sense.

[BishopWeber]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Here's what Matt Cutt said in his recent video regarding this topic (use the info at your own risk):

There is a lot of people following Matt Cutt, so, where can I see his profile? Does this guy work at google? I just want to know a little more about him.

[T Pat]

Originally Posted by BishopWeber

There is a lot of people following Matt Cutt, so, where can I see his profile? Does this guy work at google? I just want to know a little more about him.

Yes Matt works for google, you can google his name or check out his blog
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/

[BishopWeber]

Thank's T Pat, I'v seen his blog, there is a lot of info in there, and if he works for google it may be a good thing to spend some time reading it.

[Halfdeck]

But, like I said, the majority opinion is that google doesn't notice or care.

Like I said, I'd hate to base my views on polls.

If you have 100s of crap domains with no value sitting on 100s of IPs spread across a dozen hosts, the least of your worries is IP and hosting.

[Bill]

I don't know what the fuck you're on about, dude, because it's not a fucking poll.

When you're king of the fuckin serps, dude, and can come up with a better argument than that Cutts clip, which don't say nothin but that if you don't spam you don't have to worry about having a couple domains on the same server, then you can come on like a hard ass search engine expert.

If you fuckin disagree with my summary, which is that it probably doesn't matter, then make your fucking argument.

That Cutts clip is crap, your argument is unsupported, you're basically agreeing with me while shitting on my choice of ways to present the material.

Nobody's fuckin impressed, dude. You know some things, your studies are fine, so why are you fuckin with your reputation by playing ego games?

[Halfdeck]

I don't know what the fuck you're on about, dude, because it's not a fucking poll.

I'll estimate and say that about 60% of the people studying the question seem to believe this

Come on Bill, that's a poll.

I realize I came off as an ass. Sorry dude. I just really don't have a stomach for polls used to decide what's true or not true about search engines. I admit it. I'm an egomaniac. It's one of my seven deadly sins, and there's not much I can do about that.

When you're king of the fuckin serps, dude, and can come up with a better argument than that Cutts clip, which don't say nothin but that if you don't spam you don't have to worry about having a couple domains on the same server, then you can come on like a hard ass search engine expert.

First off...better argument? What argument? I wasn't making one.

Second, if I sound like an search engine expert, its all in your head. If I really knew shit about search engines, I wouldn't be talking about it.

You're basically agreeing with me while shitting on my choice of ways to present the material.

Right.

Nobody's fuckin impressed, dude. You know some things, your studies are fine, so why are you fuckin with your reputation by playing ego games?

Dude, you KNOW I respect your opinions about search engines. Why are turning this into a lame flame war? I don't give a fuck if I'm right or wrong. In fact, I wasn't even making an argument in this thread.

[stuveltje]

i will fuck up this thread, in all those years i had all my domains (200+) on one ip, same niches, and i always linked them together, never see a problem with that, if site had a pr4, i would linked that site with site f on the same ip and that one got then a pr3 or pr4 in a month with traffic, i never understood how ip worked or how the fucking ses worked, if i got in ses good then yippeeee, but how the fuck i manage that??? i realy dont know, now... yeah i do it different, but i am just testing and exploring things, all say do this and do that, well not all are right about this and that...so only way to find out?....is doing all and try to find out what works best! My motto is try out to find out , you all probably dont care about what i am saying, but i have a right to speak, even some think its bullshit talk.....so fight meand if not agree suck my

[stuveltje]

oh you guys are throwing with the name dude, now what is the name for a woman, dudine, lol that reminds me of a post at flashcash board that time now stop arguing!!! btw if you still dont like this post you still can suck my ...now stu is thinking of hiding herself because she probably gets some hate icq messages

[stuveltje]

btw to test all the talk about different ips and host i have now myself 5 hosting companies, like i said, i have to find out myself because i dont know what to follow all, one say this is best ...the other say that is best...i will find out myself...you people drive me nuts

[Halfdeck]

btw to test all the talk about different ips and host i have now myself 5 hosting companies, like i said, i have to find out myself because i dont know what to follow all, one say this is best ...the other say that is best...i will find out myself

Dudette, imo that's the best policy. (no stu, not dudine)

in all those years i had all my domains (200+) on one ip, same niches, and i always linked them together, never see a problem with that, if site had a pr4, i would linked that site with site f on the same ip and that one got then a pr3 or pr4 in a month with traffic

What worked last year isn't necessarily going to work this year or next year, and TBPR isn't the metric I'd use to gauge the success of an optimization tactic. Also, how many of those domains are one pagers with stuff in frames? But if those domains are kicking bootay on Google, let me know cuz then I'd suck your boobies (nah, that's your hubby's job).

Bill, what interests me about that Matt Cutts transcript are the concepts of "continuum" and "range." (warning: MY INTERPRETATION)

BTW, not taking Matt Cutts at face value is a given. I've already pointed out on a different thread where he misreported how Google treats <STRONG> as opposed to <BOLD>. I also questioned him on his blog when he said invalid markup doesn't cause problems for Google. That's not his department. He wasn't even aware of the recent TBPR update till he read about it on the Web. In this thread, I qualified his transcript by adding "use this info at your own risk." I do NOT blindly trust polls, consensus, popular opinions, rumors, forum posts, people working at wikipedia or cnn (though cnn.com ranks #1 on Google for "news" - it doesn't make them seo experts a.k.a snake oil salesmen), or statements made by so-called "authorities."

During the spaces.live.com migration, according to Matt Cutts, a flag was tripped to due to millions of pages suddenly added to live.com. Trust "rating" of each page took a serious enough hit that Google refused to index the new pages without a handjob. He explained this is usually not a problem unless you're talking about hundreds of thousands of new pages. That's an example of a "range", where publishing 100 new pages a day goes under the radar, but publishing million of pages a day trips a flag.

As for the concept of a continuum... What if there's a threshold value (say 5 million new pages in the span of a day). That would mean adding 5 million new pages a day will trip a filter, but adding 4.9 million pages or 2.5 million pages a day for three days won't?

That makes no sense.

On the other hand, a continuum would gauge one factor on a scale. So, for example, having 100 sites on the same IP with the same whois may be better than having 200 sites on the same IP, and having 1000 sites on the same IP may be better than having 2000 sites on the same IP - assuming Google algorithmically runs whois on domains (there are cases where thousands of domains belonging to different people sit on the same IP on a virtual host) instead of only when other flags are tripped, and assumming there's at least a weak connection between what Matt Cutts says and reality.

Add to this the concept of co-dependent factors (quote from caveman, a mod at wmw):

the reason some did not believe it for a long time is that — as is true with so many of G’s algo elements — things are co-dependent. So the addition of x 1,000 pages for site A will not have the same effect as the addition of 1,000 pages for site B, and the difference is not just limted to the pre-existing number of pages on each site. Many other factors involved.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3070792-6-10.htm

There is no simple yes or no answer. What worked for me isn't necessarily going to work for you.

[stuveltje]

What worked last year isn't necessarily going to work this year or next year, and TBPR isn't the metric I'd use to gauge the success of an optimization tactic. Also, how many of those domains are one pagers with stuff in frames? But if those domains are kicking bootay on Google, let me know cuz then I'd suck your boobies (nah, that's your hubby's job).

ah you mean sites like this http://www.gallery86.net is in frames got an pr and is in google, is on the same ip as most of my sites so again i dont know shit about ips and ses but i will see where all ends...mmm Dudine sounds better then Dudette

[Simon IA Cash]

I spoke to a guy I know whose job is to optimize SE results for a fairly large company. He said use different ips. That's enough for me.

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by Simon IA Cash

I spoke to a guy I know whose job is to optimize SE results for a fairly large company. He said use different ips. That's enough for me.

i speak also to different seo guys and all say the same,but that still dont explain why my same ip domains and niche sites get in google with nice traffic and get a nice pr. and even a seo guy or a blackhat guy, even they get hit when google fucks up by putting up wrong database or something else, i keep saying the ses is an diffecult issue to follow..........and i dont know anything about ses....my point...try it yourself and find out what works for you

[Halfdeck]

try it yourself and find out what works for you

Nah, you're supposed to take a poll or listen to the owner of wowtgp.com, cuz he ranks #1 for "tgp" and "free porn", so the guy must be an SEO expert.

mmm Dudine sounds better then Dudette

Dudine isn a word, you anti-sex housewife...

[stuveltje]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Nah, you're supposed to take a poll or listen to the owner of wowtgp.com, cuz he ranks #1 for "tgp" and "free porn", so the guy must be an SEO expert.



Dudine isn a word, you anti-sex housewife...

heay now its is a word i am a anti-sex dudine housewife