Internet Marketing Tycoon

**chrishirst** · 09-08-2010, 05:02 PM

Apart from the fact that it is NOT true.

We run 3 servers on 4 consecutive IPs plus 2 IPs in the same nnn.nnn.nnn.xxx group with DNS IP in the same group.

The vast majority of our clients are in the same business (show business), Agents, Artistes, venues, publicists and some of their publicity and website designers. These people al link to each other with no thought of Search Engines.
Yet funnily enough they all thrive and get found in search engines.

You would think that with reciprocal linking and cross linking being so risky, and of course links from the same IP ranges being a "criminal offence" they should have all been banned by now!

**scorpionagency** · 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

Apart from the fact that it is NOT true.

We run 3 servers on 4 consecutive IPs plus 2 IPs in the same nnn.nnn.nnn.xxx group with DNS IP in the same group.

The vast majority of our clients are in the same business (show business), Agents, Artistes, venues, publicists and some of their publicity and website designers. These people al link to each other with no thought of Search Engines.
Yet funnily enough they all thrive and get found in search engines.

You would think that with reciprocal linking and cross linking being so risky, and of course links from the same IP ranges being a "criminal offence" they should have all been banned by now!

Whilst I agree that cross linking sites on the same IP server still get found in google & still get some value. I stick to my original comment that multiple cross linking on the same server IP tends to devalue the links. What exactly the % of devaluing google has set their algorithm to do is unknown though.

We see some network link wheels, link farms, etc. being devalued & or penalized using similar (same ip) tactics. However, there are many different ways to strategically execute a proper network link wheel without it being flagged.

When i say network link wheels, I refer to a cluster of websites owned by the same person and cross linking with each other (As I have 14 websites spread across 3 servers, each with a unique ip). There are definately ways to run a network linkwheel when you have multiple IP's at your disposal to retain maximum value of each link.

Again, I'm not saying that any site cross linking will be dropped from google and not found (that was never something I would refer to). However, I do feel very confident that if a large number of inbound links to a site are coming from the same IP, that those links will lose some of their value.

This is a convo that's been talked about in the google webmaster help center as well: (Ignore the PR talk on that page, as it's not even part of the real equation) http://www.google.com/support/forum/...7d7aba06&hl=en

It seems that lot's suggest preventing 2 sites on the same IP from cross linking with each other to much for the same worries I've expressed. Similar debates can be found on this subject all over the internet.

You know, i could be completely wrong in my assessment of how my network of sites have been fluctuating in response to different link campaigns I've run over the years. However, i would like to think that the easy answer of "Same IP cross linking devalue algo" is the right one in this case.

By all means though, I would love to continue debating about it to learn more

**chrishirst** · 09-08-2010, 07:33 PM

Spammy cross linking is spammy cross linking no matter how many IPs it is spread over. The whole "Class C IP" thing is really just a scam used by the link sellers to bump the price up to mugs who fall for it.

"IP Classing" hasn't existed in TCP/IP networking since 1993 when CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) was introduced, which, of course was before the current leaders in SE technology even existed!

**scorpionagency** · 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

Spammy cross linking is spammy cross linking no matter how many IPs it is spread over. The whole "Class C IP" thing is really just a scam used by the link sellers to bump the price up to mugs who fall for it.

"IP Classing" hasn't existed in TCP/IP networking since 1993 when CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) was introduced, which, of course was before the current leaders in SE technology even existed!

See, it's interesting that you mention Class C ip's, as one thing has become very evident with just about any backlink checking tool (An yes, i understand that 99.9% of tools are not accurate) that google seems to only be counting class C ip's once, while other engines seem to be reporting multiple backlinks from the same class c ip.

For example, here's a tool (not so accurate) that will give you an idea about what I mean, simply enter one of your sites (or any site) in it & you'll notice that the google counts are maybe 1% to 5% of all the other engines:: http://www.seocentro.com/tools/searc...opularity.html it's readings like this that make me think google is basing value on unique class C ip's in their algo while others ignore it.

I do tend to agree that class C networks are being promoted as a marketing gimmick to sell more links to people that just don't know any better. However, I still have to ask myself if somewhere on the bottom of the coin, if maybe there is at least a little truth to it being a small algorithm factor for the big "G" (Google).

**chrishirst** · 09-09-2010, 06:36 AM

You can't take anything that a link: search returns as a basis for proving or dis-proving a theory.

I tried for many long hours to find some correlation between the links displayed for a site/page and (all)inanchor, (all)intitle searches for the words that return the page. Each time I thought I had found a pattern another set of results would show it was incorrect.

Certainly if all or the majority of links came from a small range that may raise a red flag. Then on the other hand, blogger.com, wordpress.com, hubpages, squidoo, digg, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc etc are not each spread over different IP subnets, yet the same people who advocate multiple range IPs ALSO advocate "link building" using those sites to create multiple entities all linking back to your "main site"

The vast majority of these "facts" can be shown to be wrong just by using common sense and logic alone, it does not need any extensive testing, just a logical mind that isn't given to flights of fancy.

**nancy12** · 09-09-2010, 08:18 AM

I think you have to post more articles on ezinearticles.com and see the results.

**scorpionagency** · 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

You can't take anything that a link: search returns as a basis for proving or dis-proving a theory.

I tried for many long hours to find some correlation between the links displayed for a site/page and (all)inanchor, (all)intitle searches for the words that return the page. Each time I thought I had found a pattern another set of results would show it was incorrect.

Certainly if all or the majority of links came from a small range that may raise a red flag. Then on the other hand, blogger.com, wordpress.com, hubpages, squidoo, digg, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc etc are not each spread over different IP subnets, yet the same people who advocate multiple range IPs ALSO advocate "link building" using those sites to create multiple entities all linking back to your "main site"

The vast majority of these "facts" can be shown to be wrong just by using common sense and logic alone, it does not need any extensive testing, just a logical mind that isn't given to flights of fancy.

This actually makes perfect sense taking into account some of the large community networks. However, I always thought that the BIG communities like Facebook, Myspace, Squidoo, etc.. used a server cluster though (Multiple servers for load balancing, each having their own Class C ip). I could be wrong again of course. And even if sites that size used 3 servers clustered for load balancing, it would still be housing billions of outbound links per server.

Do you think that their may still be a devaluing factor at play for multiple links with the same anchor from the same website though, even if it was only in the 1% to 5% range of differences? Or are we starting to border a spam devaluing once we get say 100+ links from the same site with the same anchor (Such as a forum sig on accounts with 1,000+ posts)?

I might be trying to put way to much thought into this & giving search engine algorithms more credit than they deserve. lol

**chrishirst** · 09-09-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

I always thought that the BIG communities like Facebook, Myspace, Squidoo, etc.. used a server cluster though (Multiple servers for load balancing, each having their own Class C ip)

They do,
Facebook has an IP pool of 69.63.176.0 to 69.63.191.255
Digg has 64.191.203.0 - 64.191.203.255

Blogger is obviously in Googles IP pool

**jy@cityhouse.cn** · 02:12 PM

it's so hard to app

**lenco12** · 09-16-2010, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bettyboo

What is spamming and blogging, how are they different? I am trying to promote my site on forums but to what extent is it classed as spam...? Sorry im new to this

Craig, did you copy and paste this from another thread on here? Who I might add also copied and pasted it from somewhere else.

**princedlight** · 09-17-2010, 12:53 PM

I want some more technique is a 3-way link is a way of link building, One way link building and 2 way link building. I prefer to this to built the link building is the best method of link building.

**robmac** · 09-18-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VIBGYORtel

social bookmarking is not in link building its just drive traffic on your site

Social bookmarking is linkbuilding and an improtant part of the whole process. you need to mix it up a bit

**chick_webb** · 09-24-2010, 06:28 AM

answering betty:
<quote>What is spamming and blogging, how are they different?</quote>

spamming is when you 'irritate', blogging is when you 'educate'

**chick_webb** · 09-24-2010, 06:28 AM

terrible HTML know-how :-(

**bryansmith1** · 09-24-2010, 07:29 AM

Any one has the list for creating a free blogs.

**rockinrob283** · 10-27-2010, 11:49 PM

THanks for the post. It's really important information