Buying hosting

Now please bear in mind the only reason I ask this question is because my company has a number of servers itself, so web hosting has never been a problem to get hold of. The only reason I've never thought of *buying* hosting, is because I have it on tap!

However...

I've been looking at migrating 4-5 PR 4 sites to paid hosting. The simple reason being, each site will be hosted from a unique IP.

So say for $5-$10 a month. Will it, in your opinion, be worth paying to have these sites externally, in terms of the goodness I'll get out of having different IP, pages created, tailored and linked towards my main business site?

Thanks.

If the ONLY reason for buying external hosting is to get static IP addresses, you would probably be better off just renting the IP addresses. That way, you retain control of your sites. If IPv6 ever gets implimented, there will be so many available addresses the whole issue will pretty much go away.

If you are considering hosting because there are things you'd rather have a 3rd party do for you, then it might well be worth doing.

I'm not sure you can get a reasonable answer without posting more detail about exactly what you are after.

Hi

Please let me explain in more detail, and a little simpler.

My site, and my other sub sites x, y and z are hosted on our own servers.

Sites x, y and z currently link back (relatively - very similar content, not just a link there for the sake of it).


Because the sites are currently hosted on the same server, Google I am guessing isn't giving us any browny points for sites x,y and z linking to my main site.

However, if x,y and z are moved onto other servers (i.e. we buy hosting elsewhere), are we likely to see a return on the investment for doing so?

I.e. is linking from seperate c classes, really worth the effort?

Thanks!

I disagree. Actually, the best reason to outsource your servers is connectivity. Unless you work for AT&T or NTT/Verio, for instance, your company servers are only as good as their corporate phone lines.

If you don't have multiple/redundant fiber-optic connections or bomb-proof generator power backup to the building that houses your servers or data backup in different locations around the nation, etc., you're going to go down.

IP blocks aren't a factor. Virtual Hosting defeats the whole issue anyway and there's no advantage in the SEs at all to having a "static" IP address anymore. Corporate servers are only good for internal networks and not very reliable for those sometimes.

Yes but surely is site X links to main site (sharing the same IP), Google is not going to give that link any where as near a large a pat on the back, as in if site X was hosted on a different ip range..?

I am not slightly interested in the 'outsourcing debate', neither the 'connectivity' of the site.

I just want to do the right thing in terms of the search engines.

From what I heard, Google is aware of sites being on the same IP address and it would be better to have them in completely different IP blocks.

Now Google is a member of ICANN, it wouldn't surprise me if they use whois details to check if the domains are owned by the same people.

Even if you do move them to separate IPs, Google already knows that they are related right now, and I would guess that you you still would not get any benefit from it.

In fact, by so moving, they would now know that you were really trying to cheat the system. Leave this alone. Focus all of your energies on something more worthwhile.

Google already knows that they are related right now

That's very true. Google is also a registrar, so they also have access to your whois data--and the whois history, as well.