__/ [wd] on Sunday 23 October 2005 06:36 \__
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:06:35 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [wd] on Sunday 23 October 2005 05:24 \__
>>
>>> Google apparently penalizes for linking between sites on the same c-block
>>> of IP addresses, and some people say the penalty is looking worse with
>>> the update. ...
>>
>>
>> This raises many concerns; to some this may be considered outrageous. I
>> know many sites of people who go under a personal and professional
>> identity and these are innately inter-linked. Naturally, the host is the
>> same in most circumstance so the IP addresses vary just slightly, if at
>> all. Would this ever be a justifiable factor to panelise by?
>
> I think that it's a terrible idea to penalize by c-block or exact IP
> address match. I can think of many cases where web designers either link
> to their clients or vice versa. If the web designer is also hosting
> sites, the IP of the client might be exactly the same. I have just
> been looking this up for the past 30 minutes. I'm finding designers who
> link to their clients and checking IP addresses. There are a lot of
> matches.
I was using /exactly/ the same example when I composed an item for my blog
(now among the drafts), which I intended to publish this afternoon.
<snip>
Think of a Web designer, Mr. X, who has built commercial sites for Mrs. Y and
Mrs. Z. Since Mr. X knows his Web host rather well and wants to centralise
his bills, he registered the sites for his clients (possibly ownership is
also made his own). Once done, he does not neglect to add the new sites to
his portfolio page. Moreover, he remembers to include a footer in his
clients' sites, which link back to him and potentially attract some clients
who liked his work.
Will a search engine panelise X, Y and Z as a consequence? Will they all run
out of business because they work together, acknowledging one another
reciprocally? Some links are exchanged for the benefit of the visitor (as
illustrated above). Cohesiveness and communities are the way our Internet is
built and research in IBM has shown that.
</snip>
> In this case, contrary to what Google webmaster guidelines say, you would
> have to be careful about your IBLs.
See:
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20050407GooglesNewLinkFilter.html
which discusses 'link filtering'.
>> I know that Google recently patented something which gave clues as to
>> their intention to make use of site's age and expiry date. This was
>> intended to help discerning ham from spam. Getting ownership information
>> can be done in tandem. If you want to get a burger, why not just go for
>> the Happy Meal?
>
> I don't like that idea either. Some major registrars don't allow
> registration of more than one year at a time.
I know. It also penalises small companies whose future is not yet certain.
Google used to be in that exact same position, so it's a two-face scenario.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 85% of plant life in in the oceans
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
7:45am up 58 days 17:54, 9 users, load average: 1.41, 1.04, 0.74
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
