__/ [nathan.staudt@xxxxxxxxx] on Sunday 13 November 2005 14:40 \__
>
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > __/ [John Bokma] on Friday 11 November 2005 22:57 \__
>> >
>> >> Berimor <berimor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hey guys,
>> >>>
>> >>> the site beign hosted on virtual server currently - on one IP there
>> >>> are more than 400 sites. Is there any difference for Google -
>> >>> whether site on virtual hosting or has the dedicated IP? Can PR
>> >>> gain something if site is on its own IP?
>> >>
>> >> Does it matter to your visitor(s)? No. Most don't even care, unless
>> >> your site becomes very very slow.
>
>> >>
>> >> So in short: I doubt if Google rewards dedicated IPs. Based on what?
>> >> Do they have better content?
>> >
>> > Might that often provide an indication of *credibility*?
>>
>> No, since many people that are not spammers use virtual hosting.
>>
>> > very few
>> > spammers will be willing to invest in expensive hardware.
>>
>> And IP address is just a few bucks a month more. Just a fraction of the
>> costs of bullet proof hosting etc.
>>
>>
>> > The question is: will it be *ethical* to penalise virtual hosting?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> --
>> John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
>> or have them custom made
>> Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
>
>
> I couldn't agree more: there's no way a dedicated ip should make any
> difference to your search engine ratings. With hardware continuing
> it's upward trend, it'd be ridiculous not to host multiple sites per
> machine - nevermind search engine ratings, you can't ignore the bare
> basics of finanace... increasingly few sites will have dedicated
> systems as CFOs work out the math. :D Here's a good hosting provider
> which does just that, and in doing so is able to offer pretty darn
> affordable hosting:
>
> http://www.mysimplehosting.net/
Meanwhile, my Web host is knackered *frown*. They did well in the first year,
but recently the servers have been more flaky. Either way, I agree with you
John and Nathan.
Roy
|
|
