Does google use who.is data to identify linked domains?

[baldidiot]

This has been troubling me for a while and I can't figure out, or find out, the solution. If you have a network of 100 sites that all link to the same master site, would google ever look at the registration data for the domains to determine if their is any kind of relationship between the sites? (Assume all sites are on different c class IPs.)

On one hand I can see why, in googles eyes, this would be beneficial for the SERPS. But on the flip side you have domain privacy companies - every domain registered in this way would have the same who.is data (ie: the details of the privacy company) but could otherwise be unrelated.

Any thoughts?

[Simmo!]

Google applied to be a domain registrar I believe and were granted access to Whois data as a result so I would presume privacy protection could be bypassed as I think it's for guarding against public browsing/harvesting.

That said, there is an interesting discussion going on on Webmaster World about linking within a network of sites that might be worth a read: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4261445.htm

My personal opinion is that any link that is gained - or deemed to be gained - unnaturally will have a time-limit on it's effectiveness. It's just a matter of how long it takes for Google to work out how to devalue unnatural links. And let's face it, it's been ineffective in this area for years so it's unlikely to be anytime soon.

[davemerry]

Simmo has hit the nail on the head with his post. I have also heard from a number of reliable sources that registrars, such as Google, can bypass the privacy option that some registrars offer easily - therefore people who think they are hiding their network from Google using this method are wasting time. How much influence they give the data I am unsure.

That said, Google has always been slow when it comes to breaking even the most obvious networks. As an example I know somebody in the gambling arena who owns 100+ sites, all on the same C block and all with the same registration details. Nearly all of the sites interlink and have very few linking sources outside the network. Yet this guy has ranked for competetive terms for as long as I remember.

I remember when building a network a while back I registered domains in friends names etc. to ensure they were all viewed as unique properties - all got a bit messy and I wouldn't say it was worth the time given how little importance it probably holds.

[AMA Nation]

Great guys, a friend of mine searching for this concern also. Giving him the link that he might consider of help.

[MarkConner]

I have no personal experience with this, but I see no reason why google would want to devalue a link from your own site to another of your own sites, if the link has value for the reader and is relevant. I can see why they might devalue a footer link or a "resources page" link, but I fail to see why they would devalue a link from, say, an article on pokerstars pros team members, pointing to a Daniel Negreanu biography on another of my sites.It just makes common sense to place this link whether both sites belong to you or not, and I would assume Google would consider these links just as valuable as any other link.

Again, this is just my "common sense" reasoning, not based on actual experience.

[meaganandersen]

I haven't really have this kind of problem but I researched about it:

Whether the linking is done from domains on the same Class C IP makes very little difference.

Being on the same IP or same Class C, makes the "association" easier to detect (and this used to significantly affect logistical/operational performance rather affecting the principle).

But thousands of websites of completely separate ownership and content share the same Class C IPs on shared hosting platforms.

You should rather think about your arrangements in terms of:

a. the benefit to your members and their clients/visitors;

b. avoiding any arrangement which appears to be an attempt to false "boost" the importance of your main site or any of the "subsites".

Puting it extremely simplistically, it is NOT the existence of those sites (or where they are hosted) that is the issue; the potentially problematic aspects are more to do with inter-linking between the sites.

If you have say 1000 sites and they all link to your mainsite and the mainsite links to them, it might look as though you wanted to inflate the apparent "importance" of the site/s. You can avoid this problem by NOT linking excessively and by markig such links as [ rel="nofollow" ] in the HTML coding.

You mentioned having a template. That is fine for visual design and layout but you need to be careul if that template contains "boilerplate" text or links.

but there are several reasons why having the same IP can be messy:

If you cross-link, those links are devalued a bit (but not "penalized"). If one site on an ip address gets into big trouble, then the others might suffer too, but not always and especially if they are not cross-linked.

But otherwise, even being on the same ip is not a problem in my experience, and certainly the "separate c-block" idea looks like overkill to me, and I've tried it in various ways. I think a lot of this concern comes from reading information exchanged over the years by very aggressive SEO folks who really push the envelope hard. It may be important if you are being "very aggressive" - but not otherwise.

Also note, google has many ways to spot a cross-ownership "footprint" that go far beyond a shared c-block. You will most likely not hide the fact that these "hundreds of sites" are related anyway. So I'd say just don't go crazy with cross-linking and do whatever you do in that area for your visitors only, not for PR purposes. Ten sites per ip sounds fine, as well as ten ip's for each of 3 servers.

by tedster of webmasterworld

In one of his recent video sessions, Max Cutts said that the "average" webmaster with small numbers of sites on the same ip block has nothing to be worried about. This is a very common scenario all over the internet.

Its only extreme cases where huge numbers of sites are involved that may attract attention... and I dare say where they are all interlinked into a link farm.

by austtr of webmasterworld

Source: webmasterworld.com/google/3033805.htm

[baldidiot]

From the sounds of it the only problem is when it is used deceptively. So it would appear that the best strategy is to be very open with cross linking?

[Simmo!]

From the sounds of it the only problem is when it is used deceptively. So it would appear that the best strategy is to be very open with cross linking?

I think so, yes. Better to link only where relevant and don't overdo the anchor text. Make it look natural, be up front and use moderation IMO. I got a penalty once (6 months) after adding lots of internal links using the same anchor text. Not 100% sure it was this that tripped it but after I removed them I came back.

[meaganandersen]

I think so, yes. Better to link only where relevant and don't overdo the anchor text. Make it look natural, be up front and use moderation IMO. I got a penalty once (6 months) after adding lots of internal links using the same anchor text. Not 100% sure it was this that tripped it but after I removed them I came back.

Did you get sandbox? From what I know, Google filters websites that instantly gains a lot of backlinks.

[Simmo!]

Did you get sandbox? From what I know, Google filters websites that instantly gains a lot of backlinks.

True enough i believe but only if you really go overboard. Best to build links slowly and consistently but it's not something I do much of so never really experienced a problem.

[davemerry]

Did you get sandbox? From what I know, Google filters websites that instantly gains a lot of backlinks.

I wouldn't say Google penalises any site that gains a lot of backlinks. There are a lot of legitimate reasons that you may get a huge burst, if someone has mentioned you in a high profile news article or if a famous person has tweeted your site are 2 examples out of thousands.

Gaining a lot of links through natural channels should never get your site penalised due to the quality, in fact it would have the opposite affect and be regarded as a hot topic.

However if you are talking about gaining 1000 directory links overnight then yes you are in trouble. If you are looking to beat the sandbox then as Simmo says then it is all about trying to maintain consistency with a reasonable amount of links dependant on the niche you are targetting.

[meaganandersen]

I wouldn't say Google penalises any site that gains a lot of backlinks. There are a lot of legitimate reasons that you may get a huge burst, if someone has mentioned you in a high profile news article or if a famous person has tweeted your site are 2 examples out of thousands.

Gaining a lot of links through natural channels should never get your site penalised due to the quality, in fact it would have the opposite affect and be regarded as a hot topic.

However if you are talking about gaining 1000 directory links overnight then yes you are in trouble. If you are looking to beat the sandbox then as Simmo says then it is all about trying to maintain consistency with a reasonable amount of links dependant on the niche you are targetting.

That's actually what I was saying. Huge burst of sites may have consequenses especially if those sites don't have authority or even quality IMO.