View Full Version : Problems with not having a unique IP address
03-30-2000, 06:43 PM
Please excuse this lengthy post :)
Let me start by saying that I am new to this community, having just moved my domains to FutureQuest. I did so after many experiences with other hosts :( I did *ALOT* of homework on FutureQuest before moving here and could find no one with a bad opinion of the company. I read many posts here and came to conclude that Deb & Andrew were honest, fair and straight forward in dealings with their customers and that seems to be rare in the hosting biz. I even went so far as to signup & prepay for a year ....and I learned loong ago to never do that. I really want to stay with this company until we decide to just co-locate.
Now for my area that troubles me:
I sent the following email to FutureQuest support last night and received the following answer.Greetings,
I have just signed up with FutureQuest for hosting of our b45.com domain and if all goes well we will move our other 6 domains over in the very near future.
My surprise came when I just realized that FutureQuest does not provide each domain it's on unique IP address. I fully realize that you use the HTTP/1.1 protocol and I am aware of all the arguments why a unique IP address isn't really necessary;) , but it is something that I am not comfortable without.
* Can you issue my domain a unique IP address? this was the reply...I'm afraid we can't as UUnet won't allow it...
We must utilize our address space to maximum efficiency, which helps reduce routing table bloat...
Until IPv6 rolls out, I'm afraid that IPv4 address space is quite restricted...
Here are my concerns: I have had many conversations with people in the Search Engine arena & have heard several different authorative voices on the unique STATIC IP ADDRESS ISSUE.[nbsp][nbsp]Most the "experts" agree that a unique IP is very important & not having one opens you up to some potential problems with the search engines and a couple other things. To make this post a little shorter here are a few quotes from people who make their living worrying about this sort of thing:) You can certainly change your IP, but at least you need one!
Some hosting services have a single IP for lots of pages, combined with a kind of "sniffer" that looks at the URL people are trying to reach and instantly refreshes to the site in question.
That's why search engine spiders get mixed up if you do not have a unique IP. Some get stuck before this refresh process, some will flat out refuse to process it and some will mark down the relevancy of your page accordingly.
Anyone who says that a redirected IP is as good as a unique IP is either A) Misinformed or B) Trying to con you -- I would have thought that in the case of a hosting company whose business it is to host peoples' sites, B) would be closer to the mark.
Why don't hosting services hand out unique IP addresses? Simply this: IP addresses cost money. They did not use to, but a charge was applied fairly recently. I don't think it was back-applied, so hosting services that already had a huge number of IP addresses are sitting pretty.
The exposure you have is that if someone else does something silly that violates an SE's spamming policy you can get hurt by it too.
As far as HTTP/1.1 goes it does nothing to help you with SE placement or avoiding the problems of shared IP's. It simply allows browsers that support it to resolve your domain correctly. Older browsers which do not support HTTP/1.1 will display a list of all domains on the shared IP and the user must choose the one they want.
Yes it is cheaper to get an account with a shared IP but usually only by a few dollars, (I have seen anywhere from $2 to $10 per month less). The reason it is cheaper is because the provider gets to save on the number of IP addresses they have to use up per customer and therefore can have a larger customer base using the same fixed block of addresses they own.
If you use an ISP that shares your IP with your website as well as someone else, then anything that the other people do could get your site banned. Most SEs will either ban the domain name, the IP address or both. So you might be left in the lurch for something someone else did.
*Where you will have problems is with the morons running Safe Surf blocking services. Their people are so lazy they just ban everything in sight just so they won't have to actually do the work they promise when they extort money from parents and politicians.
Should one of the domains on an IP get banned on AV then all other domains on that IP will also be banned.
Some hosting companies are trying to fob customers off with the kind of fake domain name hosting I described as the hosting company only has a very limited number of IP addresses to go round and is saving them for better companies.
You want to make sure your host provides you "Your own IP address". If a potential host you like doesn't say this in their list of features, write to them first and specifically ask them for it. If they give you ANY run-around answer instead of a solid YES, ignore them and move on. Nothing else will fool InfoSeek (or any other search engine) as I discovered the hard way.[nbsp][nbsp]
Some quite large hosting services run this dodge, and most site owners never see it, as they tend to use at least fairly modern browsers. It has no effect on search engine performance, but it can in the low-level router table arena. For instance, non-HTTP1.1 compliant browsers, such as early AOL, and Internet Explorer 2.0, won't be able to handle this. People using those browsers can go to www.yoursite.com (http://www.yoursite.com), which might be #1 on a search engine results page, and instead of seeing 'your site', they see a directory listing of all hosted domains! Not generally a good situation.
As said in previous responses, always make sure that whoever does your hosting really does assign you a unique IP address with your domain name. There are still a *lot* of those older browsers out there, especially amongst the AOL population, which is huge.
It is my experience, that yes, unique IP's are an advantage for Excite
It does not require a unique IP address but does give an advantage to sites that have one.
Excite likes individual IP addresses for each domain, even for third level domains. We had to switch to individual IP's for each domain and machine to keep sites in.
Apache, Website, and other web server operating systems, have the ability to "virtually" host multiple domains configured to the same IP address.
This is where the problems begin. Everyone trying to optimize in the major search engines should avoid these "hosting" companies.
AV and Excite are the reason it's critical to have a unique IP for your domain.
Excite will randomly spider sub-pages, but you can't submit them currently. AV places heavy relevancy on the root page, compared to the sub-pages...
Make the switch before you get to deep. Ask your hosting company for a Unique IP address. It's not that big a deal for them to configure one for just your domain.
Other issues on AV include, too many URL's submitted by other domains sharing the IP, and banning is an issue that you wouldn't have any control over...
They DO ban IP numbers. I had two domains on a virtual host, and couldn't submit to Alta Vista for 3 weeks "TOO MANY URL'S". They FINALLY answered frantic e-mails and said that the number was banned, and suggested I move. My host moved me to another location with my own separate IP numbers, and I am again able to submit.
AV can ban domains in many ways..
they can ban by:
1. Domain Name.
2. IP Address.
They usually start by banning an entire Class E (255 IP's) and then investigate, if the Class E has a lot of Spam domains on it the entire range gets permanently banned, if the DNS is within that IP range the DNS also gets banned.
If it appears that the offending site is a one off bad domain they depending on circumstances ban either the Domain or IP address, usually both.
On the whole unless the service provider themselves complain about the banned Class E they don't bother investigating and the whole Class E stays banned!
Should the same DNS server show up with many banned sites they Ban the DNS and wait to see how much flack they get.
I am not saying that it is not possible to get good SE placement with a shared IP. I have done it for many clients! But without one there are situations that can arise that will severely hurt you. Am I the only one this concerns?
I post all this because I really don't want to cancel my hosting here at FutureQuest but these are concerns that should not be ignored. I hope that Deb will respond to these things and if I & others are wrong please show me why we are mistaken.
03-30-2000, 08:44 PM
First off, I've never heard of this:
Some hosting services have a single IP for lots of pages, combined with a kind of "sniffer" that looks at the URL people are trying to reach and instantly refreshes to the site in question. Browsers (or any HTTP/1.1 compliant user agent) send a HOST header, which tells the server which domain it wants. The web server serves the proper page based on that header, and does not produce any sort of refresh or redirection at all. Nearly all browsers are compliant, as well as most search engine bots.
Most search engines ban by domain name rather than IP. IPs can change (if a spam site is blocked from a search engine, it is likely that they will be kicked by their host as well, thus changing IPs). Domain names aren't as easily changed (if you want people to know how to get to your site anyway). I agree that if too many sites within the same C-block are found to be spammers they may ban that C-block... Which is one of the reasons for our very strict Terms of Service (http://www.futurequest.net/tos.php) which is very strongly against SPAM.
Considering the limits of a 32 bit IP addressing scheme, this leaves only 4 billion unique IP addresses possible (minus the reserved blocks). That might sound like a lot, until you consider that every machine connected to the net (including PC's dialed in, routers, web servers/name servers, etc) need an IP. If you also add 1 IP for every domain name (and even subdomains in some cases), that 4 billion doesn't sound all that great...
The HTTP/1.1 protocol helps to reduce the cost by allowing multiple sites hosted on a single IP (among other benefits). We currently limit this to between 20 and 30 domains per IP.
By the way, the term "static" is used improperly in place of "dedicated". Static means it does not changed - a static IP has nothing to do with sharing the IP, only that it doesn't change (as opposed to a "dynamic" IP generally associated with dialup service)...
Hope this helps to clear any confusion...
FutureQuest (http://www.FutureQuest.net/index.php) Support
I'd have to disagree about the "cost" issue as it's the "availability and performance" issue that affects us most here.
For further reading you may want to visit
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-344569.html?st.ne.fd.mdh.ni as well as searching the aota.net forums for "HTTP/1.1" where you'll find other discussions that address your concerns.
[nbsp]- Things are changing, stay informed.
03-30-2000, 09:08 PM
I've done a little background checking, and before I make the community, um, less pleasant, I'd like to ask the FQ folks a Very Important Point:
In his message, octobersky says he's paid for the year. Is this true?
You see, if this is true, it tends to point more towards ignorance than malice... otherwise, I've got a pile of text and some PG-13 verbiage for octobersky.
03-30-2000, 10:01 PM
Thanks for the quick follow-up. That is just another indication of the fact that FutureQuest is a well run business:)
Nearly all browsers are compliant, as well as most search engine bots. the key words here are "nearly" & "most" It seems that what you're saying is let's just ignore the rest. (I bet now you want to respond with the old percentage argument right)
Most search engines ban by domain name rather than IP There is that "most" word again. Another way of saying that is....some SEs ban by IP! If you don't think that AV also bans by IP ask someone there... I have!
The HTTP/1.1 protocol helps to reduce the cost by allowing multiple sites hosted on a single IP Ok ...so it's a money issue. That's fine I'll pay extra. How much do you want ? Most hosting companies, that don't offer a unique IP as standard, charge $1 or $2 more a month. That's OK with me :)
By the way, the term "static" is used improperly You are quite right. But I was quoting someone.[nbsp][nbsp]If I had changed it, it wouldn't have been a quote....right:) You don't have to split hairs to show you are knowledgeable. I am *VERY* confident you know your "stuff"
Will you tell me how many domains hosted by FutureQuest have a unique IP. ( If you answer that honestly......you know what the next question is;)[nbsp][nbsp])
Also please feel free to respond to my claims that you will have problems[nbsp][nbsp]with the Safe Surf blocking services[nbsp][nbsp]just banning everything in sight (many many times by IP) just so they won't have to actually do the work. And I hope you don't actually think that only porn sites get banned by these companies . There are many examples of[nbsp][nbsp]sites getting spidered and mistakenly banned because of an innocent[nbsp][nbsp]typo or an adult banner in the rotation.
Where do you stand on my claim that Excite places sites with individual IP addresses higher than those without.
Again let me state that I think that FutureQuest is a top notch hosting company and if I didn't I wouldn't waste my time with these posts or trying to get you to issue me a unique IP. I would just go elsewhere.
I WANT TO STAY but I truly think that you and I both know that not having a unique IP *can* end up costing you traffic ....and traffic is our internet businesses life blood, isn't it?
03-30-2000, 10:10 PM
OK, this can't wait:
Since I don't work at FQ, I don't have to be quite as kind... Frankly, unless you care to explain who your "experts" are, I'd say your little diatribe is just nonsense and since your site, at www.b45.com (http://www.b45.com), is a hosting company, I think it's pretty suspect to start making such outrageous claims on FQ.
Of course, you're not a "primary" host either, are you? You have w/4ua.com/sitehost4u.com for hosting b45.com, don't you? How's 4ua.com doing with the spamming? (http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=487472986.3&CONTEXT=954466936.2004353030&hitnum=0)
Care to point me to the article on www.searchenginewatch.com (http://www.searchenginewatch.com) that proves your points? Care to name the "experts" so they can be confirmed as such? (I.e., names with e-mail addresses, and with the expectation that if they don't reply, you're gonna look pretty bad...)
Lastly: if you did so much homework, how did you miss the reference to Virtual Domain Packages on the http://www.futurequest.net/Packages.php page, the reference to "virtual hosting services" on http://www.futurequest.net/Developers.php, and, for crying out loud, the Future Quest Title Graphic, on EVERY PAGE, that says "Future Quest virtual hosting"?
I don't LIKE being rude, but this just takes the cake. All opinions expressed by me are mine, not my employer's.
03-30-2000, 10:11 PM
Yes, I did pay for the year as that was FutureQuest's requirement in order to also be a reseller.[nbsp][nbsp]Believe me, I questioned my sanity about that one but I constantly have people asking me to recommend a good host and/or set their site up for them somewhere, so I usually do the reseller thing wherever I am hosting my own sites.
Please feel free to hit me with the pile of text and the PG-13 verbiage; I'm a big boy and I'm *always* willing to listen to others.[nbsp][nbsp]Feel free to elaborate on your "ignorance more than malice" remark.
I've always got 60 days to call it quits.:)
03-30-2000, 10:34 PM
Just to clear things up, b45.com is not a hosting company.[nbsp][nbsp]As I said in my last post I always seem to do the reseller thing wherever I'm currently hosting my sites.[nbsp][nbsp]The b45 site was simply another domain that I owned and I threw that stuff together to have a place to steer my clients to when they were looking for hosting services.[nbsp][nbsp]It was much easier just to set up that website than it was constantly replying to the same questions.[nbsp][nbsp]Nothing sneaky and no mystery here, I resold hosting accounts for SiteHost4U.[nbsp][nbsp]They got bought out and service went down the tubes; that's how I ended up here.[nbsp][nbsp]Oh yeah, a brief stopover at BurstNet where I had prolonged downtimes every day the first five days and then finally, two days ago, they lost their backbone connection to Quest and my sites were down for 18 hours straight.[nbsp][nbsp]
Since you bring up searchenginewatch, feel free to ask Danny Sullivan what his views on this are.[nbsp][nbsp]That question just happened to come up at the last searchengineconference he was at on the west coast.[nbsp][nbsp]As for the other quotes, most came from some of the many threads on this subject over at search engine forums and I chose not to quote their names over in this forum where they wouldn't have chance to personally defend their position.[nbsp][nbsp]I will say that the quote about the "safe site" people banning indiscriminately came from Jim, the administrator of search engine forums and the founder of Virtual Promote.[nbsp][nbsp]As for your "for crying out loud, the Future Quest Title Graphic, on EVERY PAGE, that says "Future Quest virtual hosting" remark, the term virtual hosting is a very broad term as it's used on the internet.[nbsp][nbsp]As an example, the host I just came from, BurstNet, is referred to as a virtual host, but every domain there has a unique IP.[nbsp][nbsp]This has been the same with many of the hosts I've been with.[nbsp][nbsp]In most all cases companies use the term virtual hosting to mean that you are sharing space on a server with many others but whether you have your own unique IP address or you're sharing IP addresses is completely a different matter.[nbsp][nbsp]Do a little research. . .
If you truly don't mean to be rude, then exactly why are you?
OctoberSky's concerns are valid to a certain extent.[nbsp][nbsp]Older browsers are unable to view sites on shared IPs.[nbsp][nbsp]The percentage is extremely low and in most cases non-existent.[nbsp][nbsp]The question the site owner needs to ask themselves, when deciding if this percentage will affect them or not, is "What type of content will we be delivering and to what type of market?"
As far as search engine banning, again this is up to the site owner to evaluate ... If I obtain a web site with a dedicated IP number and I then spam enough to get the IP banned from a search engine, I have most likely also gotten myself banned from my host.[nbsp][nbsp]This means my host is now giving that IP number to another domain.[nbsp][nbsp]I find it difficult (can't say impossible) to understand why search engines would ban by IP unless the problem was serious enough to choose to affect the entire host and not just a single domain name owner.[nbsp][nbsp]It has been my experience that search engines will ban IPs and IP Blocks because of continued abuse by the IP owner.[nbsp][nbsp]The IP owner is usually *not* the domain owner but rather the host.[nbsp][nbsp]There are thousands of web sites on a FutureQuest and outside of the normal issues with getting listed in the search engines I've never seen the problem where it was caused because the site was on a shared IP or worse yet, a banned IP.
As I stated above, this is not a financial issue.[nbsp][nbsp]FutureQuest is, and always has been, willing to pump funds into anything and everything we can if it will improve service.[nbsp][nbsp]IPs are something I would have no problem whatsoever paying for.[nbsp][nbsp]The issue is availability and performance.[nbsp][nbsp]HTTP/1.1 is an upgrade from the older HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0..[nbsp][nbsp]Those who started obtaining IPs in the g'ol days were able to obtain thousands of them w/o question.[nbsp][nbsp]Today there is a lot more involved and it is becoming more and more difficult to obtain them.[nbsp][nbsp]
If shared IPs is not an option... then yes, you need to find a host that is willing to hand them out to anyone who signs on.[nbsp][nbsp]There are plenty of them out there (unfortunately) who will give up an IP for anything and everything -- thus the problem.[nbsp][nbsp]Others who will offer them for a price and/or request.[nbsp][nbsp]FutureQuest on the other hand is conservative with the IPs and will only use them when and where needed.[nbsp][nbsp]We will not sell the IPs for any price at this time as they are a precious resource for us.[nbsp][nbsp]We give the dedicated's to those who have shown a serious requirement for them only.
I can find arguments on the net in both directions to say why shared is better than dedicated and why dedicated is better than shared.... it is much the same as an NT vs. Unix war.[nbsp][nbsp]The bottom line is what is best for your web site and what will satisfy your specific requirements.[nbsp][nbsp]
HTTP/1.1 fixes *many* of the problems that HTTP/1.0 has, yet because it's newer it presents other issues such as backwards compatibility.[nbsp][nbsp]For those with web sites that use any of the features that have developed in the last few years HTTP/1.0 isn't going to help your visitors to see your web sites.[nbsp][nbsp]I haven't seen any of the problems with search engines... but have seen the arguments... so that area is up to each site owner to judge individually.
[This message has been edited by Deb (edited 03-30-00@11:47 pm)]
03-31-2000, 12:35 AM
Well I'll just say this about that...
None of my sites were on search engines before I got to FQ, and they were previously hosted on fixed IPs for over seven months.[nbsp][nbsp]Now even one of my subdomains (http://citrusheights.weatherforyou.com) is indexed on Yahoo in a number of places which I was told would never happen (subdomain + shared IP = absolutely, positively no listing... NOT!) :P[nbsp][nbsp]And I keep seeing various sites I work with hosted on FQ showing up, some without even being submitted (links from other sites I guess).
As far as browsers, most of the content being designed for a competitive web site these days requires a newer browser which will certainly be 1.1 compliant.
By the way... I just did a search on Excite for "Sacramento weather" and my subdomain site on a shared IP was there, too... even came in sixth!
[This message has been edited by JoeRT (edited 03-31-00@01:01 am)]
03-31-2000, 01:07 AM
My subdomains are also quite indexed...[nbsp][nbsp]By Altavista, Google, Excite, Lycos/Hotbot, and most other engines...[nbsp][nbsp]I can show you the (unusual and bizarre) referring stats if you'd like.[nbsp][nbsp](My forums cover a... wide range of topics)
Search engines that ban by IP aren't worth the trouble of trying to submit your URL to.[nbsp][nbsp]Apps that don't get HTTP 1.1 (which has been in widespread use for how many years now?) are rare, VERY rare.[nbsp][nbsp]It's for all intents and purposes, a non-issue.
In fact, it's such a non-issue that it doesn't warrant me arguing it further...[nbsp][nbsp];)
03-31-2000, 01:24 AM
Older browsers are unable to view sites on shared IPs.[nbsp][nbsp]The percentage is extremely low and in most cases non-existent. What qualifies as an older browser?[nbsp][nbsp]I get the occasional visit from people with Netscape 1 and 2, and following them through the access logs, it sure looks like they're viewing the site!
To second Joe and Charles' most eloquent points, my SE rankings seem consistently better than they ever were while on dedicated IP's.
03-31-2000, 03:41 AM
Let me first say that you and the FutureQuest staff have my sincere apology if I have angered or offend any of you with any of my remarks. As I have said before, I think that you are top notch. That's why I'm here and that's why I agreed to a year up front so that I could resell you services to those that come to me asking about hosting. I also take my hat off to you for building a community around FutureQuest that has people like PaulKroll who want to jump up and somehow defend FutureQuest.[nbsp][nbsp]It does seem that in PaulKrolls case he didn't really have anything knowledgeable to say about this topic and just tried to resort some sort of weird misguided character assignation, but I do applaud customers feeling so strongly about ones chosen hosting service.
>Deb< I ask how many domains on FutureQuest have their own unique IP because I was under the impression that you have provided them to some clients. You stated elsewhere in this forum: We are currently in the process of purchasing more IP numbers so that we may offer a dedicated IP to those that need one.
When we do begin to offer dedicated IPs we will still utilize the HTTP/1.1 protocol for all of the sites that do not require their own IP.
*May I ask how many domains on FutureQuest do have a unique IP?
I'd say your little diatribe is just nonsense What exactly do you base that opinion? Does it have any basis in fact? How much do actually know about this subject?
since your site, at www.b45.com (http://www.b45.com), is a hosting company, I think it's pretty suspect to start making such outrageous claims on FQ. I have already explained that the b45 domain is pretty much just an extra domain that I own and have setup for hosting resells to clients who ask. I have moved b45 here to FutureQuest to test this hosting service out before I commit more domains to the move! So what exactly do find "suspect" and why are these claims "outrageous"?
How's 4ua.com doing with the spamming? This is quite the rude statement! How would I know about others who host there?[nbsp][nbsp]Is this statement meant to somehow portray me as a spammer? Am I a spammer simply because other people who host were I did have spammed? Besides I left that hosting company and moved b45 here....remember! Why in the would I care so much about this sort of thing if I were the spamming type?? Your just trying to find any thing you can, aren't you Paul.
Care to point me to the article on www.searchenginewatch.com (http://www.searchenginewatch.com) that proves your points? You say this as if, if Danny hasn't stated it on his site it somehow isn't true. As I said earlier this question was posed to Danny and others at the Search Engine Conference not long ago. The general consciences was there was if you can get a unique IP your better off. It seems by your statement that your on that fringe that only knows enough about search engine placement to think the searchengine watch is the "bible" of placement information. Don't get me wrong if I had just one or two places to steer a newbie Danny's site would be one of them. Mr. Sullivan has become somewhat of an icon when it comes to search engine placement but he is by no means the only voice of knowledge.
if you did so much homework, how did you miss the reference to Virtual Domain Packages on the http://www.futurequest.net/Packages.php page, the reference to "virtual hosting services" on http://www.futurequest.net/Developers.php, and, for crying out loud, the Future Quest Title Graphic, on EVERY PAGE, that says "Future Quest virtual hosting"? Boy do sound like an idiot. I already explained that the words[nbsp][nbsp]"virtual hosting" don't have a thing to do with shared IP or not but to better explain... Deb (yes Debbie from here) wrote this article on guest ions to ask a hosting company. http://hosthelp.com/questions.php[nbsp][nbsp]Have you read it? Notice the first line where she says "virtual web hosting" now notice where she says "Will I have my own IP number or is it shared?" Why do think see would ask that if "virtual hosting" meant only a shared IP.......Hello! .....As you so eloquently put it "this just takes the cake"! :)
By the way Deb...why would suggest that someone ask this from their host if one is as good as the other? Don't get mad ...just wondering;)[nbsp][nbsp]
>To JoeRT, Charles Capps & Dan Kaplan<
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that you have to have a unigue IP to get good search engine placement. That is *certainly not the case* I've got many clients top positions for their sites that were placed on hosting companies with shared IPs. What I am saying is that there are potential problems with shared IPs and that they can come as a result of nothing that you personally have done, but instead as a result of what others sharing your IP do. I personally just don't like the idea that a search engine or" safe surfing" type company can end up banning my site as a result of something that some other webmaster does.[nbsp][nbsp]Simply put, the odds are that something negative will ever come to any of us as a result of shared a IP is small, but the possibility is there. It's kind of like wearing a seat belt....most people never find them self's in a serious situation but those few who do are either *VERY* happy that they toke the precaution or *VERY* sad that they didn't.
But hey as a wise man once said...this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Hey Deb.. I really would like to know how many:)
[This message has been edited by octobersky (edited 03-31-00@03:43 am)]
May I ask how many domains on FutureQuest do have a unique IP? I'm not willing to give exact numbers as that's a bit more information than I care to provide on the forums, however I will say there are quite a few with the majority owning their own secure certificates and running e-commerce while others have them due to specific individual requirements... By the way Deb...why would suggest that someone ask this from their host if one is as good as the other? It's something that can lead you into asking more questions concerning your needs.[nbsp][nbsp]If you require multiple pop accounts with individual usernames and the host is using a shared IP system you'll want to ask how the username situation works... many hosts using shared IPs are unable to allow two POP accounts to use the same username such as "Sales" or "Support" even though both POPs are on separate domains... FutureQuest does not have this limitation because of the VMIP- scheme Andrew developed but other hosts can catch you off-guard if you are not aware.[nbsp][nbsp]If you have strong e-commerce needs or anon FTP needs you'll want to assure the host can service them.[nbsp][nbsp]And last but not least, those with concerns such as yours should ask before signing up so they can avoid being surprised later.
I'm a firm believer that everyone should obtain all of the information they can about a product or service they are purchasing prior to purchasing it.[nbsp][nbsp]Knowledge is everything, especially in this business.[nbsp][nbsp]My articles on HostHelp were put there in hopes of encouraging people to seek out these types of things before signing up as I believe it would save an enormous amount of hassles for the client's and the hosts if everything was clear beforehand rather than after the fact.
Concerning some of the other issues in this thread.... I too (obviously) appreciate those that will speak out in favor of the host they chose! It's something that keeps us going on this end, especially on the long days that turn into late nights :)[nbsp][nbsp]I am going to ask the personal questioning/attacks move to dev/null or private email as I don't see how they will help the general public in any way whatsoever.[nbsp][nbsp]The question was about Dedicated IPs and Shared and I feel it has been addressed in previous threads as well as this one... if there are specific issues concerning that by all means ask away...otherwise let's keep it friendly and not drag things on and on and on... Each person has a right to their views.
[nbsp]- But your honor, how was I supposed to know the contract said that? It's not like anyone reads that stuff!
[This message has been edited by Deb (edited 03-31-00@04:08 am)]
03-31-2000, 04:54 AM
I think you were implying that I should have contacted you and ask about the IP issue before signing up....and I totally agree.[nbsp][nbsp]you are absolutely right! As far as the personal attacks go I fully apologize for my part (of course I only see it as defense :) )
Does your post mean that you will issue them if you personally see a distinct need?
Hey on a personal note: I lived in Melbourne Fla. for many many years before moving to the west coast, and used to spend a *lot* of time over in Kissimmee, even long before the mouse moved into the area. (Why don't you move the biz to Melbourne as I have some great commercial & residential property over there for sale. It's right next to the Strawberry Mansion. I'll make you a good deal!.. and yes I expect a free hosting & a unique IP as part of it :) )
[This message has been edited by octobersky (edited 03-31-00@04:56 am)]
Welcome to FQ, Octobersky, as you can see we are a friendly and helpful bunch. :)
I can understand your concerns, especially after reading through the quotes from the SE *choke* experts. Personally, I take most of those "warnings" with a grain of salt and rely primarily on experience. Before even getting to the end of this thread I was running searches on Excite and AV to see if I could verify what was said. One of the domains I host on FQ is smartasses.org (SAO), so I ran a search for "smartasses." My site pretty much owns Excite, it came up in 8 of the top 10 slots, including the top six listings. Of the two remaining slots, one was for a site that sells SAO t-shirts and is also hosted on FQ. So Excite certainly doesn't seem to be having a problem with domains using a shared IP, at least not in this case. Incidentally, I've never resorted to any of the experts' trickery to achieve these rankings, just simple meta tags and a single submission over a year ago.
Same test run on AV resulted in just plain weird results (part of the reason I rarely use AV anymore). The number one slot belonged not to the SAO, but to a page in my personal domain (also on FQ, naturally) that has nothing more than a link to the SAO. The actual site is listed 6th and 10th, but what's really bizarre is that five of the top ten spots are links to message forum posts (maybe that's the secret to getting listed on AV :) ). Despite the weirdness, AV is clearly picking up and spidering my FQ hosted sites.
I realize you already stated that shared IPs do not necessarily prevent a domain from obtaining a high ranking, and that you have done as much for some of your own clients. But if you know that's the case, why were you quoting experts "who make their living worrying about this sort of thing?" To be perfectly blunt, when I hear the words "search engine expert" I usually think "snake oil salesman." Justin already pointed out the dubious validity of the so-called "sniffer" that refreshes sites, and Deb made some good points regarding (IMHO insignificant) number of people using non-HTTP/1.1 compliant user agents. To me, that further casts a shadow of doubt on the experts' quotes.
IP banning may continue to be a minor issue, but as IPs become an increasingly rare commodity, more sites will be hosted with shared IPs... and the search engine admins are going to have to deal with this fact of life. Plus I have a strong hunch that if a problem involving a banned IP owned by FQ were to ever become a problem for you (or any of us), we could expect Andrew, Deb and Justin to do everything in their power to see the situation resolved. Until such a problem occurs, I would rate it very low on my list of concerns about hosting with FQ.
My advice is to stop putting so much weight on the opinions of the snake oil... er... SE experts and make some friends in this forum, where you'll probably get much more accurate information. Again, welcome to FQ... may one day find yourself among the ranks of the defenders of what may well be the best host on the net.
--Tom aka DiamondBack
I don't think you'll find too much herd mentality around here, just ask "what's the best forum software" or "what HTML editor do you use" and you'll find a wealth of diversity. The one area we all tend to agree on is FQ's value as a host, but that's to be expected since we're all delighted to be here. Those who have seen how much effort and integrity goes into this service could be expected to take some offense at statements that imply FQ is "misinformed" or "trying to con you" because of their use of shared IPs. In particular, suggesting to "ignore them and move on" because they use shared IPs is just plain bad advice. While I'm sure most of us would like to have a dedicated IP, the important issues are reliability and trust, two "features" that are far more valuable than an IP.
Another statement that stood out was there being "a *lot* of those older browsers out there." I checked my access stats and found "a lot" to be 0.09%... less than a tenth of one percent. It makes me wonder if the "experts'" information is up-to-date. For that matter, the search engines themselves are in a constant state of change, often attempting to defeat the latest gimmick for artificially inflating a domain's ranking. My point is, what may have been true a year ago, or even six months ago, could be totally false today. Based on empirical data, I feel that shared IPs is becoming a dead issue, perhaps it's time the experts updated their mental database, least they be accused of being "misinformed" or "trying to con you." :)
--Tom aka DiamondBack
04-01-2000, 12:26 AM
Thank You for the welcome. I was feeling like I was in hostile territory (he says as he ducks again).
"search engine expert" I usually think "snake oil salesman." I certainly believe that the vast majority of those in that line of work are snake oil salesmen.[nbsp][nbsp]I seemed to get spammed by the so-called experts every other day.[nbsp][nbsp]Please believe me when I say I was talking about a few individuals in that field that I know to be knowledgeable and honest.[nbsp][nbsp]But on that note, I'm gonna shut up about that subject around here because it seems somewhat akin to discussing religion (people get kind of weird).
BTW, smartasses.org. . .I love it!
make some friends in this forum, where you'll probably get much more accurate information.[nbsp][nbsp]I don't really think my information is inaccurate.....oops, here we go again (I'll shut up).[nbsp][nbsp]Make some friends.....I would truly love to as long as I don't have to believe what the herd does to do so. :) But hey, that's my ongoing problem in life in general so why should it be any different here?[nbsp][nbsp]
Anyway, thanks again for the welcome.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll probably end up staying as the cost/benefit analysis seems to greatly favor doing so and I promise the FQ staff and the rest of the community that I'll just go over and sit quietly in the corner.:(
BTW, I've been reading Search Engine World (http://www.searchengineworld.com) lately, found some interesting stuff there, particularly about SE spiders. No dire warnings about shared IPs, just a comment that some search engines limit the number of submissions from a single IP. The site's author seems to enjoy crushing rumors and "experts' opinions"... my kinda guy. :)
--Tom aka DiamondBack
04-01-2000, 09:19 PM
Well, since everyone else has... here's my two cents.... I have several sites on FQ, including ones with their own IP addresses.[nbsp][nbsp]As I lie in bed at night I pray that the sites with their own IPs would show up as highly as the sites I have on the shared IPs.
The bottom line is that IF you did lose some traffic due to the IP issue I am sure that loss would be made up by the quality of the service and support at FQ.
Just a quick comment on this issue. I'm also fairly new to futurequest and think it's excellent, but I'm also a bit (really just a bit) perturbed the the issue. I, too have also read those same "experts" including Danny Sullivan, and while I have no way of verifying their advice, I can at least verify that octobersky is reiterating what they ARE saying.
That said I've had no obvious problems getting listed in search engines (although it's really hard to tell these days), or at least a number of them. Excite...no luck, though. Alta vista is fine, as is google and a few others.
04-03-2000, 04:50 AM
This has been a great discussion - I've learned quite a bit about things I never even realized were relevant.
One thing struck me as odd - Oktobersky sed:
I personally just don't like the idea that a search engine or" safe surfing" type company can end up banning my site as a result of something that some other webmaster does.[nbsp][nbsp]Simply put, the odds are that something negative will ever come to any of us as a result of shared a IP is small, but the possibility is there. It's kind of like wearing a seat belt
Ummm -- welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika -- I've been banned forever by these "filters" despite the fact that I feel like my site contains intellectual fodder for all ages.
The totalitarian antics of the government, or filtering companies doesn't fall under the domain of ANY hosting company's jurisdiction.[nbsp][nbsp]
Lots of folks are making lots of money on the Internet, therefore there are a million people trying to get in the middle, "re-distribute" the wealth and regulate it.[nbsp][nbsp]
If its not the morons at Mattel, or whatever -- its going to be someone or something else.
People CAN'T stand the free will and unadultered CAPITALISM of the Internet - it makes them nervous.
In any event, ramble on about shared and virtual ips, etc - this is better than reading slashdot.
Thanks for listening
04-04-2000, 05:34 AM
this is better than reading slashdot LOL!!!
--Can sense the winds of change coming soon--
04-04-2000, 11:08 AM
Gee, Terra's in a great mood this morning - he said LOL! in two threads in the span of minutes...[nbsp][nbsp]and those are 2 of about 3 or 4 I can recall seeing ever since I joined FQ!
I presume the X10 is up and running ok?
Ted (Chief Do-It-All)
Got2Bet.com - The Net's Winner's Circle
04-09-2000, 12:18 AM
Thanks for raising this issue - it is one which I kept meaning to post about myself, but never seemed to get the time to start an in-depth discussion about! :)
I discovered that we didn't have our own IP after transferring www.titan.uk.com (http://www.titan.uk.com) across.[nbsp][nbsp]I plan on moving four or five more sites soon, so I guess you could say that i'm happy with the service!
10 Tenths Motorsport (http://www.ten-tenths.com)
Boring worky type site...! (http://www.titan.uk.com)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.