optimization question

  • homer simpson
  • Student
  • Student
  • homer simpson
  • Posts: 96

Post 3+ Months Ago

How bad will trading links w/ your own sites on the same server be in regards to PR and Google positioning?

Will it hurt?
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

homer simpson wrote:
How bad will trading links w/ your own sites on the same server be in regards to PR and Google positioning?

Will it hurt?



If you sites are different, not duplicates, it's a great thing to do. To my knowledge, Google does not check who owns the site nor does Google care if two sites are on the same server, in fact, Google does not know what site is on what server. Sure, they could detect this information, but as far I as know, they have no reason to do that.

However, if your sites are related, like two sites about renting apartments, your competitors might report you to Google.

Bompa
  • Thanol
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • Thanol
  • Posts: 38

Post 3+ Months Ago

Accually Google does care now. They've institued LocalRank.

Phil Craven wrote:
LocalRank
Another idea that has taken hold is that Google have implemented LocalRank. LocalRank is a method of modifying the rankings based on the interconnectivity between the pages that have been selected to be ranked. I.e. pages in the selected set, that are linked to from other pages in the selected set, are ranked more highly. (Google took out a patent on LocalRank earlier this year). But this idea cannot be right. A brief study of LocalRank shows that the technique does not drop pages from the results. It merely rearranges them a bit.
Taken from: http://www.webworkshop.net/florida-update.html
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanol wrote:
Accually Google does care now. They've institued LocalRank.


Thanks for the reference.

In reading that article, the first thing that strikes me is that the author clearly points out that he is repeating the theories of others, not known facts.

Also, according to his explanation of LocalRank, owners and servers are still not figured into the equation, but simply the interconnectedness, (reciprocal linking), of the pages. He then states that more interconnectivity means higher ranking, (not penalizing).

Take a look at his paragraph labeled Evidence. It starts like this: "One piece of evidence that everyone jumped to conclusions about ...", hehe, and ends with: "But that was a mistake".

It's clear, to me at least, that the author realizes that he is speculating on the speculations of others. The problem is that many readers will take bits and pieces of an article like that and quote it as fact.

Oh yah, he ends his article with this:

"Reminder
Don't forget that all this is just theory, ..."


The bottom line is this.

1. If the statement is not derived from a test, it's just opinion.

2. If the test results are not publicly documented, it's a hoax.

3. The test results are only as credible as the person conducting the test.

I know of only two publicly documented search results tests. One is my own and the other I found months ago with a "PageRank" search. I'll look for that again when I have time and post it here. I do remember that it was done by a guy with a very Chinese name, heh.



Bompa
  • Thanol
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • Thanol
  • Posts: 38

Post 3+ Months Ago

Good points. I'll be sure to reread things a bit more next time. :) I was in a bit of a rush so yea.

Oh and I never said they penalized people for interlinking sites. Your words not mine.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanol wrote:
Oh and I never said they penalized people for interlinking sites. Your words not mine.


Sorry, didn't mean to imply that.
  • JohnScott
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • JohnScott
  • Posts: 7
  • Loc: Seattle/ Tokyo

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
In reading that article, the first thing that strikes me is that the author clearly points out that he is repeating the theories of others, not known facts.


LocalRank theories are based on a published Google patent. Whether Google uses the patented algo or not is unknown, but it is indeed a patent owned by Google and therefore we suspect that Google may have partially instituted it.



Quote:
Also, according to his explanation of LocalRank, owners and servers are still not figured into the equation, but simply the interconnectedness, (reciprocal linking), of the pages. He then states that more interconnectivity means higher ranking, (not penalizing).


Not servers per se, but IP's. And sites on the same server usually have the same or similar IP.

This is direct from Google's patent:

Quote:
Re-ranking component 122 begins by identifying the documents in the initial set that have a hyperlink to document x. (Act 301). The set of documents that have such hyperlinks are denoted as B(y). Documents from the same host as document x tend to be similar to document x but often do not provide significant new information to the user. Accordingly, re-ranking component 124 removes documents from B(y) that have the same host as document x. (Act 302). More specifically, let IP3(x) denote the first three octets of the IP (Internet Protocol) address of document x (i.e., the IP subnet). If IP3(x)=IP3(y), document y is removed from B(y).

On occasion, multiple different hosts may be similar enough to one another to be considered the same host for purposes of Acts 301 and 302. For example, one host may be a "mirror" site for a different primary host and thus contain the same documents as the primary host. Additionally, a host site may be affiliated with another site, and thus contain the same or nearly the same documents. Similar or affiliated hosts may be determined through a manual search or by an automated web search that compares the contents at different hosts. Documents from such similar or affiliated hosts may be removed by re-ranking component 124 from B(y) in Act 302.


Again, Google may or may not have used this patent - that is unknown.
  • pompei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • pompei
  • Posts: 117

Post 3+ Months Ago

I agree that Google probably uses IP addresses for websites rather than the actual server names. It makes sense if you think about it: an IP address for one is an efficient way to store a site's name, and at the same time, also lets you know which sites are stored on the same servers and potentially the same owners. I think the original Google stanford paper describes how it indexes sites by IP, though I should check if this is true.

Then again...many webhosting companies put multiple sites on the same server for obvious cost reasons, which is the only reason I figure Google would distinguish sites by their names rather than IPs. Most quality websites have a unique server IP though...
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

pompei wrote:
Most quality websites have a unique server IP though...


The quality of a site has absolutely nothing to do with having
a unique ip or sharing an ip.


Bompa

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 9 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.