__/ [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?
> ... But are there any penalties for sites with the same c-block that
> are not linked to each other but might have the same registration
> information?
That's an interesting question. It should be possible to automate some
registration information lookups and keep track of who owns what. Under such
circumstances, Google may know about geogrpahical proximity, identity, age,
etc. of each sitesand be able to practice some valid judgement.
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?
> If you want to launch 10 sites (all 100% legitimate and not
> interlinked) and they are in the same c-block or even same exact IP
> would it be a problem? (Same registration information, and/or same AdSense
> account so identifiable as same owner, but not spam sites.)
I don't have a definite answer, but it would not be hard to spot who owns
what. Whether a penalty was authorised by the more senior people (perhaps as
part of some strategic move) only the folks behind that flamboyant logo
know.
The least we can do is judge to what extent this is true and I vote "yes"
based on what I can gather. PageRank updates have not affected anything
either, which is odd.
Roy
|
|
