__/ [ Star Gazer ] on Tuesday 21 February 2006 15:17 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dtfa02$1nm7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> __/ [ Star Gazer ] on Tuesday 21 February 2006 14:46 \__
>>
>> > Is it worthwhile to have a different ISP for each web site in order to
>> > maximize ranking (assuming you own a few different web sites that are
>> > linked)? I read that having websites on the same server linked to each
>> > other is of less value.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> > Bill
>>
>> I believe that C block penalties are a myth. They can be unfair and
> penalise
>> genuine sites and particularly Web developers who centralise their
> clients'
>> site under the same umbrella. If you want to read more on the opposite
> view,
>> see:
>>
>>
>
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20050407GooglesNewLinkFilter.html
>>
>> <quote>
>> Google's possible purpose for filtering new links
>>
>> While Google's algorithm is not made public, it's generally thought
> that
>> Google intends to clamp down on link sales for PageRank and for ranking in
>> the SERPs. Also on Google?s hit list are multiple interlinked sites,
>> existing on the same ip c block, entirely for the purposes of link
>> popularity and PageRank enhancement.
>>
>> Purchased links tend to be added to a website in medium to large
>> quantities, and often all at one time. Large quantities of incoming links,
>> appearing all at once, might indeed trip a filter.
>>
>> Google could suspect a high volume of links added at one time to be
>> purchased, and therefore suspect. The possibility would be in keeping with
>> Google's strongly suspected policy of discouraging link sales. After all,
>> Google's guidelines point out that any type of linking schemes are against
>> its policies.
>>
>> The ip c block is the third series of numbers in the identity of an
> ISP.
>> For example, in 123.123.xxx.12 the c block is denoted as xxx. Google is
> able
>> to readily identify those links.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> Webmasters were humming about this topic when Jagger Update made the
> rounds.
>> Many sites lost traffic for no obvious reason, so paranoia and rumours
>> started to have an effect and take their toll. It soon turned out to have
>> been just a garbage excuse, assuming that I recall correctly.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>> Roy
>
> Hi Roy,
>
> Thank you for the information and link. So, it sounds like it would be
> safer and more productive to have the other websites (a blog website and
> informational website) created on a different ISP than the main website (as
> these are interlinked). Does that make sense?
>
> Thanks again for the help.
> Bill
Exactly. _Productivity_ is a factor I was going to add, but it wasn't part of
the problem at hand. Having various different shared servers, let alone
different hosts, leads to multiple addresses, passwords, fragmentation of
support, lack of familiarity with the staff (which can come handy) and the
list carries on and on...
Hope it helps,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Free the mind, the source will follow"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:35pm up 4 days 3:54, 8 users, load average: 0.05, 0.06, 0.03
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
