RE: Google Pagerank and "Class-C Addresses"
From: Scott Howard [mailto:scott@doc.net.au]
This is not true. It's been well documented that PageRank uses a number of metrics, probably the most important of them (in terms of ranking) being the number of links to a page or site (and I believe, the PageRank of the pages/websites those links come from).
One of my websites has consistently been in the top 10 or at worst top 20 results when searching for the word "megapixel" despite the word only appearing on the resulting page about 4 times - if it was simply content based there's no way that site would be ranked so highly.
Matt Cutts from Google has publicly stated this to not be true; if it is true and he was lying, then everyone hosted at a large provider would be penalized for doing so from an SEO perspective since the likelihood of being on a 'close' network to similar content would be high when you've got hosts running hundreds of thousands of name-based sites off one /24. Actually he stated this to not be true in response to a thread I started on this list about this subject several years ago when I was complaining about Google causing IPv4 exhaustion due to people asking hosts, with some willing, to give them a bunch of IP's on different /24's for SEO purposes when there is no technical justification for it. We've had customers leave and go elsewhere after refusing to give them IP's they didn't need because they were convinced by some SEO 'expert' that they need a bunch of doorway sites on a variety of /24's. If someone is willing to leave their host over that, there are certainly going to be hosts willing to dish up IP's for SEO reasons, and the waste of addresses continues. David
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, David Hubbard wrote:
We've had customers leave and go elsewhere after refusing to give them IP's they didn't need because they were convinced by some SEO 'expert' that they need a bunch of doorway sites on a variety of /24's. If someone is willing to leave their host over that, there are certainly going to be hosts willing to dish up IP's for SEO reasons, and the waste of addresses continues.
I'll take that one further: I got -fired- my first day after explaining why using proxy servers spread across the world to "present" websites from different IP addresses a) did nothing to help their search result rankings and b) was a complete waste of resources..... Some people just don't want to know. -- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, david raistrick wrote:
I got -fired- my first day after explaining why using proxy servers spread
I should note that I was asked what I'd do with that type of setup, and assumed it was either a hypothetical situation or something that they were looking to address....I had no idea that they actually -did- that and thought it was great until after I'd answered. I could have been a bit more PC with my answer if I'd wanted to...but then again....why? :) -- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
We used to have a lot of people buying IP's in bulk for SEO. They would all cancel within one or two months citing that they couldn't afford it or the project failed, etc. Guess they realized that the whole thing is a myth. Jeff On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, David Hubbard wrote:
We've had customers leave and go elsewhere after refusing to give them IP's they didn't need because they were convinced by some SEO 'expert' that they need a bunch of doorway sites on a variety of /24's. If someone is willing to leave their host over that, there are certainly going to be hosts willing to dish up IP's for SEO reasons, and the waste of addresses continues.
I'll take that one further:
I got -fired- my first day after explaining why using proxy servers spread across the world to "present" websites from different IP addresses a) did nothing to help their search result rankings and b) was a complete waste of resources.....
Some people just don't want to know.
-- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
Hey, I should tell my customers that the cross sum of the domains ip also count to the pagerank, and the ip 255.255.255.255 is the best of all. bye, ingo flaschberger
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
We used to have a lot of people buying IP's in bulk for SEO. They would all cancel within one or two months citing that they couldn't afford it or the project failed, etc. Guess they realized that the whole thing is a myth.
.. or, which is more likely given my brief exposure to this crap, the search engines cottoned on and changed the metrics again. adrian
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
We used to have a lot of people buying IP's in bulk for SEO. They would all cancel within one or two months citing that they couldn't afford it or the project failed, etc. Guess they realized that the whole thing is a myth.
Or they burned through all those IPs, google penalized domains on those IPs for obvious SEO gaming and they've now gone off to poison some other IP space --srs
participants (6)
-
Adrian Chadd -
David Hubbard -
david raistrick -
Ingo Flaschberger -
Jeffrey Lyon -
Suresh Ramasubramanian