SEO Hosting is complete bullshit...

[savvypro]

It was suggested that I start my own thread, to make it easy to find the info that I have posted over a few threads, which burst the SEO Hosting bubble. In doing so, it will save a lot of people: time, money and effort.

I won't be covering any new info, just copying my existing posts as quotes and arranging them in a logical order. Although one thread that I contributed to is no longer available, so I'll have to cover the missing info here.

If you want to see some of the original posts, take a look at the following threads (which are still avaiable):

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...-identifies-class-c-ip-block.html#post2322481

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...g-these-people-they-clueless.html#post2319326

Let's begin...


SEO hosting is sold as the magic bullet for all your SEO issues. The idea is valid, but no one offering SEO Hosting - actually implements what they say (but I'll show you, how to do it yourself).

Lets start off with the basis of the whole SEO hosting sales pitch - Class C IP addresses.

The IP address classes are defined as follows:

Little note for the quote below:

The first set of numbers under the class name is: starting IP address, after the "=" is the binary long form.
The second line is the: ending IP address, followed by the binary long form, after the "=".
The third line shows you how the IP addresses in that class are used.​

The classes are defined as follows:

Class A
0. 0. 0. 0 = 00000000.00000000.00000000.00000000
127.255.255.255 = 01111111.11111111.11111111.11111111
0nnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHH

Class B
128. 0. 0. 0 = 10000000.00000000.00000000.00000000
191.255.255.255 = 10111111.11111111.11111111.11111111
10nnnnnn.nnnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHH

Class C
192. 0. 0. 0 = 11000000.00000000.00000000.00000000
223.255.255.255 = 11011111.11111111.11111111.11111111
110nnnnn.nnnnnnnn.nnnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH

Class D
224. 0. 0. 0 = 11100000.00000000.00000000.00000000
239.255.255.255 = 11101111.11111111.11111111.11111111
1110XXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXX

Class E
240. 0. 0. 0 = 11110000.00000000.00000000.00000000
255.255.255.255 = 11111111.11111111.11111111.11111111
1111XXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXX

key:
n indicates a binary slot used for network ID.
H indicates a binary slot used for host ID.
X indicates a binary slot (without specified purpose)

So the {Class C IP addresses} start at 192.0.0.0 and end at 223.255.255.255 with a /24 subnet mask or 255.255.255.0 . Excluding the 192.168 non-routable private address range.

For those who cant make heads or tails out of the above - the key is the moving: 0 - see below:

Class A
0nnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHH
Class B
10nnnnnn.nnnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHH
Class C
110nnnnn.nnnnnnnn.nnnnnnnn.HHHHHHHH
Class D
1110XXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXX.XXXXXXXX

Below I cover when Classful addressing stopped being used - when they stopped handing out IP addresses based on class. The Important bit is in blue:

Don't want to hijack your thread, but I covered the whole "Class" issue pointing out the errors in the statements that were made as well (I do agree it is a somewhat longish thread)..

For those who havn't read the other thread I cover it from post 53 of the thread that the OP links to.

Another post that I made in a different thread, should also help in why SEO hosting is suspect. The following is a copy of my post in that thread (see here for the full thread):



Basically put, in order for SEO hosting to work they way it's sold, you'd have to host as if you had access to servers in different countries across the world. Once you get to that level of separation then we can really discuss SEO hosting - the way the idea is sold, but not implement.

I've been waiting for someone to bring up a little glaring problem with Class C usage. But as no one has brought it up I might as well put this stupid concept to death. Classful address ranges stopped being used as the means of dividing up the pool of IP address in 1994. Good luck trying to get a real class C address range today let alone 10 years ago.

From 1994 VLSM (Variable Length Subnet Masking) become the standard way of giving out IP address ranges. Now that's not to say that those who were given real class C IP address ranges stopped using them or can still allocate them today it's just very unlikely that any hosting company offering SEO hosting will actual have any real class C address ranges with a real /24 subnet mask (aka: 255.255.255.0) Which is why I wanted access to a test account to run ifconfig as that is the only way to tell.

I once came across a seo hosting company once that described Class C IP addresses as being defined as the 3rd octet. In the Class quote at the beginning, you?ll see the numbers are grouped and separated by dots. Each groping is called an octet (it?s to do with the binary bits, as it?s 8 bits that are used). Example:

192. 0. 0. 0 = 11000000.00000000.00000000.00000000
223.255.255.255 = 11011111.11111111.11111111.11111111

[1st octet].[2nd octet].[3rd octet].[4th octet]​

The square brackets used above, are used to make it easier to make out the dots in the example.

The SEO hosting company, claimed right on the front page of their website, that Class C IP addresses were defined by the 3rd octet. Their thinking was as follows:

[Class A].[Class B].[Class C].[Class D]​

As I have shown, all the classes are defined in the first octet.

More still to come, so please refrain from posting until I have finished. If you need to know how to do it properly - take a look at the links I provided at the top of this post.

 

[savvypro]

If you already spent your money, how do you tell if you have wasted it.

The way to do that is to get on the command line of where your sites are hosted, and run the following commands:

For *nix (including mac) it's:

ifconfig

For windows it's:

ip config /all

What your looking for is the IP address, but more importantly - the subnet mask.

If you see:

255.255.255.0

or

/24

or

netmask 0xffffff00 <- the mac version in Hexadecimal form

If the IP address is in the Class C range, which is:

192. 0. 0. 0 to 223.255.255.255
Excluding the: 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255 range, as it's for non internet use.​

If you have a Class C IP address coupled with one of the sub net masks as shown above. Then you have a real class C IP address. Anything else and you have been miss sold.

 

[savvypro]

So how do you do real SEO Hosting - the bits to read are in blue:

Don't want to hijack your thread, but I covered the whole "Class" issue pointing out the errors in the statements that were made as well (I do agree it is a somewhat longish thread)..

For those who havn't read the other thread I cover it from post 53 of the thread that the OP links to.

Another post that I made in a different thread, should also help in why SEO hosting is suspect. The following is a copy of my post in that thread (see here for the full thread):

Originally Posted by savvypro
On the whole Class C issue, read the "BHW Hosting - Increase Your SEO Abilities Now" thread.

In post 52 I detail what the class?s are according the the RFC's.

And why the addresses used by BHW Hosting are not Class C but are from the Class A range.

When it comes to Google, not only do they build their own custom servers, they also have an in house company which builds custom network gear - its custom because they can hook into the operation of the equipment. With that capability, BGP route selection becomes really, really easy.

Tracking by BGP domains as well as AS domains wouldn't be a stretch too far for a company which runs their own custom operating system as well as a custom web server. Then you have their from the ground up distributed file system, as well as their distributed database.

The validity of the "SEO hosting" concept, the way it offered/sold and described is suspect. For it to be valid, one would have to have real Class C addresses (see post 52 link above), and not some random /24 address range. Each Class C would ideally be in its own BGP domain but random groupings would also work (would also look more natural) and possibly in different AS domains as well. Then you'd have to make it look like their not all connected to the same pop (Google runs its own network (dark fibre included) as close as it can to the last mile as possible - where the end consumer is).

You get the picture.

Basically put, in order for SEO hosting to work they way it's sold, you'd have to host as if you had access to servers in different countries across the world. Once you get to that level of separation then we can really discuss SEO hosting - the way the idea is sold, but not implement.

I've been waiting for someone to bring up a little glaring problem with Class C usage. But as no one has brought it up I might as well put this stupid concept to death. Classful address ranges stopped being used as the means of dividing up the pool of IP address in 1994. Good luck trying to get a real class C address range today let alone 10 years ago.

From 1994 VLSM (Variable Length Subnet Masking) become the standard way of giving out IP address ranges. Now that's not to say that those who were given real class C IP address ranges stopped using them or can still allocate them today it's just very unlikely that any hosting company offering SEO hosting will actual have any real class C address ranges with a real /24 subnet mask (aka: 255.255.255.0) Which is why I wanted access to a test account to run ifconfig as that is the only way to tell.

Originally Posted by J1218
Wow some of those IT guys are some arrogant f*ckers. You weren't kidding Velcom. Before I found the thread that I linked to in my original post, I started my own thread asking people which SEO hosting they recommend, and look at some of these replies:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1003295

Since when is it such a crime to go to a hosting forum and ask a hosting question?

I'm sure I'll be banned after the last response I left them, but whatever, I don't plan on going back to that place.

Just read you're opening post at what, what you're currently doing is the way I would do it - just find more hosting company's. Be careful as many hosts are just front end brands. For example Hostgator owns SEOhosting.com.

Bluehost.com, hostmonster.com and Fastdomain.com, are exactly the same company - just different front end brands.

Also find out where the next potential host locate their servers. Do they run their own BGP/AS domains. Because if they do, but happen to colocate their equipment for example at the planet (where hostgator has their servers) then you should be ok. But if they use the planet's network then their may be an issue if hostgator also used ?the planets? network (BGP and AS domains)

For many what I have just posted is going to be somewhat over their heads but, your hosts should be able to answer the questions (if they can't find a new one as they don't know anything about network/routing).

If anyone needs help - just let me know. Be warned: I may charge you if the reques is too complex, if it just requires a simple answer I'll wave my fee of a 1 oz .999 silver bullion/"round" coin - preferably a Canadian silver maple leaf.

What follows should get you going (it's also most of the hard work, that you would have to do). Note that information was correct at the time of posting.

Originally Posted by J1218
Alright I'll probably do that then - just spread my domains across multiple accounts like I've been doing.

So who else is a good hosting provider if I just want a basic shared hosting account? I currently use HostGator and BlueHost so it would need to be one that's not owned by them.

Hope you can waive your fee of the Canadian silver maple leaf for that one

No fee for this one.

Off the top of my head:
Dreamhost
powweb
site5 (hosted at The Planet, from a network lookup they don't run their own network e.g.: own IP address ranges, BGP and AS domains - they use The Planet's, just like hostgator)
1and1 (hosting on both sides of the pond)
certifiedhosting (I have an account with them, got it cheap on blackfriday - just $10 for the year - haven't used it yet, so can't say if their any good)
lunarpages
fatcow
hostwinds
westhost
netfirms in Canada
mediatemple - I used them for 2 years, for what they offer (the $20 a month gridserver) they are really go. *

In europe:
uk2.net
fasthosts.co.uk
ovh.co.uk/ovh.ie (French company with Datacenters in France, but can only buy if you live in the offering country - I think those in the US can buy through the Irish site. However I'm not 100% sure, so don't quote me on it).

Find some more in Canada and the rest of Europe as there are a lot more hosts out there, the ones listed above should give you basic coverage across North America and Europe.


* Only issue that I really had with mediatemple was database access on wordpress sites. When I visited a blog of mine for the first time (after the cache had been cleared) there would be a quite noticeable delay. With google now docking sites based on load time, one would need to keep an eye on it at mediatemple. Personally I don't like wordpress it's just too bloated, poorly designed. But what really gets me is the use of a database. It's a fu*king blog - a database like mysql or any database is overkill. The lightpress guys had the right idea, shame they stopped releasing the code. As their rewritten version of wordpress, could operate like wordpress mu out of the box and handle millions of users across 30 blogs on cheap old hardware - something wordpress can?t do (unless it?s rewritten).

 

[savvypro]

The google angle:

On the whole Class C issue, read the "BHW Hosting - Increase Your SEO Abilities Now" thread.

In post 52 I detail what the class?s are according the the RFC's.

And why the addresses used by BHW Hosting are not Class C but are from the Class A range.

When it comes to Google, not only do they build their own custom servers, they also have an in house company which builds custom network gear - its custom because they can hook into the operation of the equipment. With that capability, BGP route selection becomes really, really easy.

Tracking by BGP domains as well as AS domains wouldn't be a stretch too far for a company which runs their own custom operating system as well as a custom web server. Then you have their from the ground up distributed file system, as well as their distributed database.

The validity of the "SEO hosting" concept, the way it offered/sold and described is suspect. For it to be valid, one would have to have real Class C addresses (see post 52 link above), and not some random /24 address range. Each Class C would ideally be in its own BGP domain but random groupings would also work (would also look more natural) and possibly in different AS domains as well. Then you'd have to make it look like their not all connected to the same pop (Google runs its own network (dark fibre included) as close as it can to the last mile as possible - where the end consumer is).

You get the picture.

In it's simplest form: if you stand out from the crowd, it can be easily spotted by google.

To me, running unique name servers will cause you to stand out from the crowd. If you run small sites: use name servers that are used by thousands of other normal sites. If you run a popular site: then using your own name servers, dns servers etc. would be normal, as that's what most popular sites do.


Below is a good example of how easy it is, to be caught out.

On cclassiphosting.com

Domain registered: 12-nov-2009

IP address info:

cclassiphosting.com A 174.122.224.68
ns1.ariyes.org A 174.122.224.66
ns2.ariyes.org A 174.122.224.67

Hosted at The Planet, using their network/ip addresses etc.

If you go to ns2.ariyes.org/contact.php - their contact details are listed as:

B 10 12
Flora Damansara
Petaling Jaya 47820
KL, Malaysia.
Mobile : 066 0166903078
email : support (at) gogetspace.com

gogetspace.com Creation Date: 03-jan-2008

Network trace leads right back to the The Planet.

If I can do this in less than 5 minutes by hand, just think what google can do with 1 million servers, teams of engineers (who can automate what I did by hand - so can I but I'l laz...err efficient with my brain power) their own global network built on top of custom network gear. That allows their software engineers to hook straight into their operations.

Anyone used any of the uptime services, which ping your machines/ip addresses from multiple servers in multiple locations. Now give it the google twist I described (previous paragraph). Then you'll start to see why I think the "SEO hosting" concept the way it's sold is suspect.

 

[savvypro]

I think that should do it.

If I have missed anything, or you have questions - feel free to post them...

 

[keinehabe]

someone starting first year uni there that's was on my first year uni courses ( networking ) . Well most of those tech things will be really hard to understand for most of peoples . IM peoples / marketers usually aren't give most of the time a damn thing about tech aspects ! What is important for them is '' to work '' . There in hosting industry it's huge huge fight , for market share ; of course advertising makes a big difference lol like in any industry .

 

[savvypro]

someone starting first year uni there that's was on my first year uni courses ( networking ) . Well most of those tech things will be really hard to understand for most of peoples . IM peoples / marketers usually aren't give most of the time a damn thing about tech aspects ! What is important for them is '' to work '' . There in hosting industry it's huge huge fight , for market share ; of course advertising makes a big difference lol like in any industry .

It may be covered in uni (never went). I built and managed networks for a living. Which is why I can call SEO hosting - bull sh*t.

 

[Rushdie]

great article man, kudos and rep given

 

[cherub]

I had a feeling this was the case, after doing some digging on a couple of blog networks hosted on supposed seo hosting packages, and witnessing their subsequent deindexings.

 

[madoctopus]

SEO hosting is shit and not just because of the stuff you explained. Most SEO hosts will give you what they call C-classes but all of them will be in same B-class. In other words all IPs start with 123.456.*.* which is obviously not that natural.

Even worse they have horrible uptime and peformance. I have withnesed 700% overload on a regular basis on seo-host.com servers and from what I have talked with others pretty much all SEO hosts have this problem of oversold/overused servers.

I have abandoned the idea of using SEO hosting and now I am simply buying cheap shared hosting. Obviously it is the best approach even though it is significantly more expensive.

 

[savvypro]

great article man, kudos and rep given

Thank you and to everyone else...

Hopefully this thread will be of use to a lot of people.

Although the sales basis for SEO hosting may change from Class C IP address, to your own IPV6 range per site or to setup your own BGP domain* per site (good luck with that one) or a unique AS number per site. When that happens, there will be no denying that it's bull sh*t that's being sold - as the cost to do BGP by it's self (let alone an AS number which will be on top of the BGP domain), is no joke.

Oh, and you?ll stick out like Ayers rock to google.

For those of you without a networking background, you can?t go to your favourite domain register and register your own BGP domain or an AS number. They are in no way shape or form anywhere like normal domain names. But if you come across someone claiming they are, you can call them out on their bull sh*t.

 

[asiriusthoth]

IMHO... if you are thinking about "SEO Hosting" your probably not killing it. I have never seen any proof that SEO Hosting works at all. It's only been dis-proven time after time and Google itself has said it makes no difference.

Hosting 1 site, or hosting 200 sites on the same IP... as long as you are not cross-linking sites back and forth... you should be just fine. "SEO Hosting" hell, everyone has to sell their niche Doesn't mean it's true...

 

[seoguru13]

SEO hosting is shit and not just because of the stuff you explained. Most SEO hosts will give you what they call C-classes but all of them will be in same B-class. In other words all IPs start with 123.456.*.* which is obviously not that natural.

Even worse they have horrible uptime and peformance. I have withnesed 700% overload on a regular basis on seo-host.com servers and from what I have talked with others pretty much all SEO hosts have this problem of oversold/overused servers.

I have abandoned the idea of using SEO hosting and now I am simply buying cheap shared hosting. Obviously it is the best approach even though it is significantly more expensive.

I'd concur with you on this. The middle path I have found is in buying a shared account and get 5-10 Ip's on that account, and then move on to another host. I have about 25 domains as a part of my network of blogs, and they are spread over 4 A classes currently.

Looks more natural, and your risk is diversified, cause even if google daddy realizes this is a blog farm, some domains still remain indexed.

 

[SuperNoobInc]

Sorry for bumping this 1-month old thread, i find this info extremely useful. Thank you very much.

Just wondering, would it makes more sense going for a few different 'shared hosting' account from different hosting companies (different locations), rather than white-labeled 'seohosting'.

I think they might come out a little more expensive, but I believe the IP range should be completely different, and nameservers and all those crap will be different too?

 

[savvypro]

Sorry for bumping this 1-month old thread, i find this info extremely useful. Thank you very much.

Just wondering, would it makes more sense going for a few different 'shared hosting' account from different hosting companies (different locations), rather than white-labeled 'seohosting'.

I think they might come out a little more expensive, but I believe the IP range should be completely different, and nameservers and all those crap will be different too?

That's the way I covered it above.

On a different note, I think this thread should be made sticky, so there isn't any need to bump it. If any mods happen to read this can you make it so as this thread will save a lot of people, a lot of hassle.

 

[TheMatrix]

I'm not really a tech guy, but what you are saying is that we should aim for different 1st octet? Is that right? Or am I missing something?

 

[Joeblack99]

So lets say you want to build a small network of 10 sites, and you did this:

1/ Register 10 accounts with 10 different hosts, one site with each.
2/ Use whois protection on each.
3/ Build the PR of each site.
4/ Link to your target site from each of them.

Bulletproof? Or amateur hour?

 

[savvypro]

I'm not really a tech guy, but what you are saying is that we should aim for different 1st octet? Is that right? Or am I missing something?

No, the 1st octet is how the classes *were* defined .

To do it in the way I have describe: is to basically just get hosting from different providers, which are in different networks. I've listed a starting point of providers.

 

[savvypro]

So lets say you want to build a small network of 10 sites, and you did this:

1/ Register 10 accounts with 10 different hosts, one site with each.
2/ Use whois protection on each.
3/ Build the PR of each site.
4/ Link to your target site from each of them.

Bulletproof? Or amateur hour?

Steps 1, 3 and 4 are towards "bulletproof" (your definition). And the way I would do it.

Step 2 = Amateur hour.

I say this because I have had whois protection provided by a number of registers (including godaddy, netfirms etc) and none of them, have ever been enabled by default. So there is a short time window in which your details, show up in the whois database - until you or the provider turn the whois protection on.

The way to really do it, is to have the domains registered by a number of different people/companies. Which would make the whole thing look natural.

 

[TheMatrix]

No, the 1st octet is how the classes *were* defined .

To do it in the way I have describe: is to basically just get hosting from different providers, which are in different networks. I've listed a starting point of providers.

Oh..

And I just forum an article with much better (no offense to OP) and illustrative explanation:

http://www.tech-faq.com/ip-address-classes.html

Class C IP addresses were used in small LAN configurations. They allow for approximately 2 million networks by using the first three octets of the address for the network identification. In a Class C address, the first three bits are fixed to 1 1 0. In the following three octets, 21 bits make up the network identification. The last octet then represents the host identification. This allows for 254 hosts per network. A Class C network number value starts at 192 and ends at 223.