Jonathan Leger – SEO And Internet Marketing Blog Internet Marketing Blog


Link IP Diversity – How Important Is It?

Geographic diversity. It's a requirement for getting links to your site, right?

That is, if you want to rank in Google, then you need to make sure that you get links from all over the place, because Google won't rank a site if all of its links come from web sites that are too "close" to each other. Right?

We've all read that. I've believed it for years. I started believing it when I tested the theory, and the results seemed pretty conclusive back then.

The SEO "gold standard" for determining whether or not two web sites are geographically diverse has long been this: does the web site you're getting the link from reside on a different Class-C IP address from the other sites that you already have links from?

What's A Class-C IP?

If you're already familiar with how IP addresses work, and how to determine if two IP addresses have different Class-C addresses, you can skip this section. If not, then read on.

Every web site has a unique "address" its assigned in addition to its domain name. It's a set of 4 numeric values connected by periods. (For instance, the IP address of this blog is Each number in that address is a "Class". The first number (72) is the "A" Class, 34 is the "B" Class, 63 is the "C" and 94 is the "D".

So if you were to get a link from my blog to your web site, and you also got a link from any other site hosted on the same IP address (even though the domain name is different), SEO common knowledge says that Google won't count the additional link from the same IP address very much. At the very least, you want the link to come from a site whose "C" Class IP is different.

That is, you don't want to get a link from a site on and also one whose IP address is (those have different "D" Class numbers, but the "C" class is the same). But a link from a site on and another link from a site whose IP address is is good because it's "C" Class address number is different from the address of this blog.

The Theory: Why IP Diversity Matters

Of course, it's inevitable that you'll get some links from sites on the same IPs or IPs whose "D" Class is different but whose "C" Class is the same. The idea, though, is to get as many geographically diverse links as you can, otherwise Google will figure you're up to no good and not rank your page.

After all, if the sites you're getting links from all have the same or similar IPs, then they're all sitting on the same server (or on servers that are very "close" to each other, since geography plays a big part in what IP address a server or web site is assigned). That's not a "natural" linking pattern, and so it would make sense to discount those links.

Or at least, that's been the theory.

Setting Up The Test

With all of Google's major algorithm changes lately, I thought it was time to retest the IP diversity theory and see if it still holds true. So I took the results from my anchor text optimization case study and did some additional backlink analysis on them.

To keep things focused, I decided only to analyze the sites whose index page was ranking for the keywords (that is, if was ranking, I kept it, but if was ranking, I left it out). I also decided to include in the analysis only those sites that had between 100 and 5,000 different domains linking to them. I did that for two reasons:

1. My customers tend to optimize their sites for low to mid-competition keywords that you can rank for with that number of links.


2. The more unique domains a site has linking to it, the higher the odds are that the IP addresses will have to be duplicated in the links. Consider the English Wikipedia site, for instance ( It has some 1.7 million different domains linking to it. Those 1.7 million sites are hosted on about 557,000 different IP addresses, giving it an IP diversity of about 32%. But in those 557,000 IPs there are only 142,000 or so different Class-C IPs. That's only an 8% diversity. For a site with fewer links, 8% is way below what most people who do SEO would recommend. However, for a site with that many domains linking to it a low overall diversity percentage is inevitable. After all, there are only so many IP addresses allocated to English speaking countries that are likely to be linking to the English Wikipedia.

So that was my rationale, and about 3,500 ranking pages from 35 highly diverse topics met the criteria I used for this test.

What The Data Says

When I ran the data I fully expected to see some high percentages of unique Class-C IPs linking to the top ranking pages, and overall that's what the data shows. Here's a table of the overall results for the 35 keyword topics. The table shows how many sites meeting the criteria were ranking in the top 10 for their keywords within the topic, what the topic is, what percentage of the ranking site's links to its home page came from unique Class-C IPs, and what percentage of the ranking sites links to any of its pages came from unique Class-C IPs:

sites topic Unique IP-Cs (Homepage) Unique IP-Cs (All pages)
381 web hosting 53% 42%
296 ecommerce 59% 48%
258 shopping cart solutions 60% 56%
89 home improvements 60% 50%
221 email hosting 63% 52%
28 b2b ecommerce 63% 47%
283 web design 64% 59%
109 plumbing 65% 60%
176 pharmaceutical 67% 58%
204 virtual server hosting 68% 54%
95 government and trade 68% 46%
110 human resources 68% 57%
250 online stores 68% 60%
253 transportation 68% 62%
114 b2b 69% 57%
158 office supplies 70% 66%
203 agriculture 70% 61%
68 business travel 71% 62%
242 business 71% 53%
209 technology 72% 57%
89 biotechnology 73% 60%
118 business management 73% 57%
18 industrial goods 74% 40%
162 home based business 74% 61%
211 work from home 75% 63%
203 management 75% 59%
108 semiconductors 75% 60%
128 chemicals 75% 61%
297 software 75% 56%
103 aerospace 75% 59%
55 office management 76% 66%
131 internet security 76% 55%
34 food and beverage 77% 64%
19 office backup 79% 72%
125 startup 83% 61%

You can see that the lowest percentage of links coming from sites on unique IPs was 53% to the home page and 40% to the entire site. That's pretty high (certainly higher than the English Wikipedia's 8%). That means there's lots of IP diversity, at least overall.

What surprised me, though, is what I saw as I started to dig into the individual ranking sites. There were 128 examples of sites ranking with less than 40% IP-C diversity -- some with far, far less.

For example, is ranking in the top 10 in Google for "pharmaceutical representative", "pharmaceutical rep" and "pharmaceutical representative jobs." According to (which I used to gather the data for this test), that site's home page has 375 different domains linking to it -- but all 375 are only on 16 different IP addresses (13 different Class-C IPs)! That's barely 3.5% diversity. The entire site only has 377 different domains linking to it from 16 different Class-C IPs as well, so it's not the strength of the entire site's linking pattern that's the cause for the ranking.

Meanwhile, the great majority of the other sites ranking for those keywords have much higher numbers of unique domain backlinks with much greater IP diversity.

That site wasn't alone, either. There were dozens of examples of sites ranking for their keywords with ultra-low IP diversity. Some had a few dozen backlinks, some had hundreds, others had thousands of unique domains linking in. Some of the sites were exact matches for the keywords (which I also explored in my previous case study), but others weren't. I really couldn't find any specific correlation that fit for all (or even most) of the sites who seemed to be "getting away with it."

The Take-Away

So what can you take away from this experiment? My conclusion is that, although there are some exceptions to the rule, they only make up a small percentage of the ranking sites (less than 4%). Most of the ranking sites have a much larger amount of Class-C IP diversity in their backlink profiles.

In fact, out of the 520 sets of keywords that were included in the data set, only 14 keyword sets had less than 40% average Class-C IP diversity in their backlinks, only 39 had less than 50% Class-C IP diversity, and only 124 had less than 60% (that's just over 23% of the results). So for three out of four keywords, the average Class-C IP diversity for the results was at least 60%.

That seems to indicate that the geographic link diversity is still important, even if there are some notable exceptions to the rule.

If you have any questions or insights, please leave a comment below. Your feedback is always welcome!

Oh, and one last note: if you found this post beneficial, please share it using one of the buttons below:

Related Internet Marketing Q&A

Comments (76) Trackbacks (0)
  1. When you say to use geographically different IP, are you just saying to use different IPs or are you stating that the locations of where the IPs are being hosted is important.

    ie, backlinks from NY and CA > backlinks from FL and FL

    • Different IPs coming from different geographic locations. That is, you might have a bunch of different IPs linking to you, but if they all originate from the same data center in New York City, that’s not geographically diverse.

  2. Wow, I had no idea search engines go that far into detail, great post for seo

  3. I don’t know why Google would still put too much emphasis on IP diversity. If 1000 bloggers (from linked to your site isn’t that a diversity? I’m talking about real blogs created by real people.

    One of my country specific blog is ranking well with handful of links from – those links are organic and naturally occurred.

  4. SEO for competitive search phrases is becoming increasingly tough. For new clients its great seeing the rankings increase with proper wording and a few additional incoming links. But when a clients niche needs hundreds of links and you know each link has a risk associated with it… Link diversity is certainly an important part of that equation.

  5. Nice research. I had been wanting to learn more about the C-block and how it was set-up, and now I know. I will also have to look into keywordcanine.

  6. Awesome case study. I def. never thought about IP diversity before. Keep the great case studies coming!

  7. Johnathan..

    With all due respect – and while this is a great post about link IP diversity – I am just amazed at the all the advice I have been reading in various forums about new ways to bow in front of the Google Gods post “smelly bird” – lol..

    It is sort of like telling people to immediately start building their house in the exact spot where it was just destroyed by an earthquake. Penguin aftershocks are still being felt by copious amounts of people who played nice in Google’s sandbox for a number of years. Websites and individuals with links from “good neighborhoods” as well as diversity of links, in addition to superb content were tossed aside like yesterdays newspaper.

    For instance, Adsense case darlings like’s Tim Carter was just one of the good guys thrown asunder. He made his thoughts pretty clear over at the Google Web Master Forum – which oddly enough – is entitled “another step to reward high quality”.

    Panda was supposed to “reward creators of original content.” If that’s the intention of Panda, why have I lost 80% of my traffic at
    You can’t get any more original content than what I have.

    And he wrote this post as well..

    With just a wave of G’s algorithmic hand – they have the power to destroy the fate and livelihood of the very people who abided by their “value to the user” mantra. One of my websites has been totally destroyed by this flightless bird. I have no idea when, or if, it will come back in the next go round.

    I thought maybe my site was being penalized for something that I had done wrong, but when I saw that a “page not found” was ranking in their top ten index ahead of my nine year old exact domain match – I knew that I was not the culprit.

    I guess if I had employed negative SEO tatics I might still be in the top ten. I have no idea, why Google is ranking the very types of sites (spam – thin sites) they say that Penguin was designed to sniff out and destroy. You would think that the wizards of smart over in Google Land would develop bots that could do the job correctly. Obviously not.

    I guess my overall point here is – why would anyone want to start climbing up the Google ladder again only to have your fingers stomped on as you make it to the top rung. I didn’t get into this business to work for a search engine. And, I know the topic Dejour after an update eruption is to expound on how you can make your web work more amendable to Matt Cutts and crew.

    But, I think there should be “more musings” and strategies to minimize their influence and create branded web properties that do rely solely on pleasing the Google Gods. I know you cannot completely eliminate Google from the SE equation, but they have over 70 percent of the search market.

    That is too much power in the hands of one search engine. They have the power to scorch the Internet earth at will. Why would you want to continually get burned?

    Sorry for the rant Johnathan – nothin personal…….

    Robert C – The Wholesale Products Guy

    • The reason people will climb back is because Google can deliver large amounts of traffic. When that stops being true people will no longer bother with Google. I certainly believe you should diversify your traffic sources though. Don’t want all your eggs in one basket.

  8. Hey John,

    What I like about you is that you don’t just tell people what you want them to know – you show them what you are basing your suggestions on. This makes it very hard for people to contradict you.

    Obviously, there are sometimes things that can be interpreted differently, but your advice has been pretty spot-on for 99.9% of the time – good enough for me!

    Thanks for sharing your research.

    • Thanks Barry. There is room for interpretation with most things SEO, since nobody but Google knows for sure how their algo works, but some things (like the IP diversity) are hard to argue with when you look at the data. :)

      • I am not always so sure that even Google knows exactly how their algo works :-)

        This could explain why some sites rank when they supposedly should not, and vica versa.

        • lol. True. My understanding is that no one person understands it. It’s too big now. There are “chunks” of the algorithm that are handled by different people. In that case you’re correct: NOBODY can claim to understand Google’s algorithm. Which explains why their results have been so sub-par lately…

  9. Thank you! Jonathan. As always, your articles are so helpful. Thank you again for sharing what you know. I am a Newbie and struggling to make it. I look forward to the time when I can help others as you do.

  10. According to Matt Cutts, on several occasions, Geographic IP diversity isn’t a factor in any of Google’s algorithms. It knows that websites, in bulk, can be hosted on static IP Addresses. If you have good relevant content, what IP Address your own does not matter until that certain IP has been blocked due to spamming. If so, request another IP Address from your web hosting provider.

    • This post isn’t about what the IP address of your site is. It’s discussing the IP address diversity of the sites that link to you. Yes, Matt Cutts has said it doesn’t matter what the IP of your own site is, but the data makes it pretty clear that you need diversity when it comes to where your links are coming from.

  11. Hmmm, essentially then, IP-Diversity across C-classes matter but only up to a certain point in the algorithm. Knowing that percentage will be impossible, but it is certaintly good to know that it does still matter. Proper link building will get this for you anyways. If you aren’t getting separate C-classes, you are doing it wrong, bottom line. Good research!

  12. Allways good to read, thanks Jon

  13. Another great post Jon. The thing I like about your posts is that you always back up your message with real data. So many SEO “experts” just repeat the same platitudes that they hear from other “experts”. I’m a numbers guy. I have a 50 site test bed (yes, all different class C’s) and I test things constantly. I stay off forums, rarely comment, and do quite well. Show me the numbers and I’ll look into it. Great job.


  14. Jonathan – your blogs provide excellent information. Keep them coming, the information is invaluable. Never really understood the different Class-C Ip’s until now.


  15. Thanks for continuing my education!!

    I had always wondered what C-class meant LOL

  16. So, what about this scenario – suppose I keep reading this blog and posting comments. Each time I post a comment I link out to one of my sites. Let’s just say all of my sites are in the same hosting account.

    Are we pushing the envelope a bit if 50 (or whatever) links come from your blog to the same class C (my hosting account)? Do you think Google is tracking outbound links the same way?

    • I haven’t actually run numbers on that to know what the outcome would be. I personally don’t put sites on the same hosting that I will be getting the same kinds of links to from the same places.

  17. Ip diversity has always been fairly important but no more so than before panda/penguin from what i can see.

    I have seen an increase in how important it is to get links from relevant sites rather than relevant articles. Meaning that links from article directories seem to push less authority now and sites entirely in your niche seem to push even more.

    So i would focus on building separate class C niche relevant links specifically.

  18. That’s good stuff Jonathan. Just one more thing to consider in the ongoing battle to get to the top of the heap.

  19. Great inforamtion. However, I am totally lost. How do I find the information on the ISP? I would really like to do this action on my sites, but am confused on how to get the information that would really help me out! Thanks a ton!

  20. Jonathan,
    Excellent case study!
    I recently had an experience with google which lead me to believe that: the IP geographic locations of the sites linking to your site, will also be a huge determining factor for Google to decide where to rank you.

    In other words, if the majority of your Backlinks come from Canadian based IP addresses, your site will rank a lot higher in then it would in or any other English based google engine. Any experience or findings of your own in this regard? If this is not the case (somewhat) already, could you see them heading in that direction in the future?

    Again, awesome case study. Keep it real,


  21. Very interesting Jon.

    So sites with (a) diverse linking, (b) exact matches for the keywords in the domain name, and of course, (c) great content, ought to do very well.

  22. IP diversity has been important for many years. It will be important for many years to come. Google is big on natural linking and that logic dictates you must have IP diversity to rank for most keywords. I’ve used IP diversity to good advantage since the year 2000. I love the fact that some people don’t believe it as it sure makes them a lot easier to beat. ;)

  23. Hi Jonathan,

    As always, your blog posts provide much ‘food for thought’.

    Keep up the good work.

    Best regards,

  24. Your analysis is true. That’s why I’m afraid to link all my site each other. Link diversity is the key from higher PR site is better and also from active site. I always use your research and analysis for SEO knowledge.
    Thanks a lot for your useful sharing.

  25. Thanks for the interesting experiment, but I wasn’t sure what to conclude from your test.

    I think that G will apply a weighting factor to each link depending on their perceived value of the link, so it may not matter where your links come from (unless most are mostly from a large number of spammed sites).

    With shared hosting, your sites may get lost in the noise of all the other sites on the same server, and you may not be subject to deeper analysis such as your registration details, because you are so insignificant, maybe?

  26. Thank you for this information, it has been helpful, since the last google update (penguin) I have been very nervous about getting any back links at all.

  27. Very Good, I agree, I have noticed this as well, though I still hope to do some testing to confirm my somewhat different theories, about diversity, period. I believe that the other end of the spectrum is also a resultant factor, I.E. too many IP addresses of the same type can have the opposite effect.

    I have seen that as well, so it would only make sense that IP uniqueness, can and will play a role in how your website is valued.

  28. So, how do you get links from different IP addresses? Is there an automated system you can use that won’t get your site de-indexed?

  29. Hi Jonathan,

    Thanks for the info, from my point of view are very useful your posts.
    However, I have a doubt. What about the relationship between links where your website links to, that is, if your backlinks come from domains with similar or different business or categories. So that I think that oneself must consider as the geographic diversity as the link similitude regarding his business category, really?

    I mean, Penguin allows geographic diversity although it be of differents business categories? (I thought with the new changes of the Google Penguin only it would be right the backlinks of the same categories…)


    • That’s simply not the case. Google is still counting links from all over the map. I know this through experience. On-Theme links might help more, but links from unrelated sites still work.

  30. Thanks for providing this data Jon. Playing the SEO game has become so frustrating for me, so I’ve decided to focus totally on content marketing to drive direct traffic to my sites. The quality of this traffic is much higher quality anyway. I’ll be fine even if my sites don’t rank very well in Google. However, if they do, that’s just an added bonus.

  31. Great indepth post as normal. Here’s the thing for me though, even if your test had come back saying that that IP Diversity no longer seemed important, it wouldn’t effect what I do on a day to day basis.

    The simple reason for that is more and more I am trying to ignore some of the data out there and just think logically. And logically, as you indicated, it is natural for a website to have a fairly diverse link profile. By ignoring a lot of the data that people are saying they are testing (for example someone else might do a similar test to yours and come up with conflicting results to yours) and just using common sense and thinking about what would appear most natural? I think I have the best chance for my sites to remain strong through most algo’ updates.

    Thanks again for the detailed study.


  32. Absolutely agree with you,I came from the email you sent to me,and I thought you mean it is not good that the links or friend links from other sites linking to our sites are too close. So,what I thought is wrong,is it?

  33. Thanks Jonathan! Very valueable information, indeed, once again. As others, I also rush to read your posts because you clearly are one of the few who really have tools and wisdom to study your theories before you preach.
    …Unfortunately, there are, in this field, so many noisy preachers who do really not have the seo knowledge needed to preach of.

  34. Hi Jon,
    Thanks for making such investigations on topics where we may not all have the tools and knowledge to do the same.
    And much more thanks to take the time to share the results.
    I want to run a blog with different languages (French and English): it may help cet some diversity in IP classes!
    Best regards,
    Sophie, aka NetDame

  35. Hy Jonathan! I’ve read your article but I also found on wikipedia that class C IP actually refers to something else. Here is the link . Class C are the range of IPs that start with …

  36. One thing I thought was missing was a link to the relevance of these results in relation to your link networks. Did you to any testing for sites that use your 1waylinks and their IP diversity?

    Or am I missing something and this was implicit in your article?


  37. Hi Jonothan
    You never cease to amaze me. This info is very interesting. I won’t even pretend I will remember all about how to identify IP addresses so I will have to take pot luck. Thanks for your wisdom.

  38. As always Jon, you take your time to look into things many people overlook. I have been for years thinking about IP diversity and also anchor text diversity which seems to be one of the cores of the latest Penguin update. It does make sense to diversify IP addresses. I can host eg. 50 domains on one hosting account and link them together which is may not be seen as natural in Google’s eyes.

    Again, we may probably never know the real thing ‘cos Google does not disclose their algorithms so test, test, test as you have done may be the way to find out.


  39. Most helpful, thank you. A great deal has been discussed regarding this lately but I incline toward your informed perspective.

  40. But what about SOA?
    At the root of the IP address is an email address that is going to refer to the org that set up the IP address in the first place. If that email address refers to, for example, Hostgator, then does that not rather give the game away? After all, even Google knows that HG serve out of Texas so no matter where the IP address may claim to show a link as coming from, analysis of the SOA will show that the link comes from a server in Texas, along with many of its brothers.

    So, very often, even an apparent link location diversity is, at root, shown to come from a single place. Have SE’s been letting this stuff through on a bye?

  41. Thanks for sharing your data Jon. Its easy for people to criticize what you post. I am just glad you take the time to share, and for that, I say thanks :-)


  42. Jon,

    As you know, I know ‘Diddle’ about SEO, and depend on you and jlforum for all of my information…

    I am looking forward to ‘Keyword Canine’ opening to new client in the near future. In addition, I am optimistic of being able to purchase it as soon as it is available.

    Not sure that I will as your other products (and the new Google stuff), have blew content/article writing out of the water.

    This article only makes me want it more, as I see it would be of great value to anyone promoting on the internet!

    Thanks for posting, very good info,


  43. John,

    Thanks for sharing the data John. You advised that it is very important to gain links from different ip addresses, although the data you have shared points to only an average of 50% link diversity. So on that basis, how much weighting is actually being put on link diversity?

    Considering the google algorithm should also be aware that hosting companies are more than likely to also host sites owned by different web masters. Would google not be taking into account the owner of the domain, from the ‘Who Is’ information?

    Regards Pari.

  44. Hi Jon,

    This is old news. Google has never valued the links from sites linking together from the same IP address or within the same IP range.

    That is the fault with the 3WayLinks and 1Waylink networks. Many domains within these networks use the same hosting providers, e.g. Hostgator, Netfirms, etc. So they have the same IP addresses or are within the same IP address range. So links from sites that are hosted on the same hosting provider have absolutely no value.

    So if you want to set up your 3WayLinks network properly so the links have value, you must check the domain IPs to see that they are not within the same IP address range.

    This is why I’ve pulled out of the 3WayLinks Network because 1) I noticed that 3WayLinks had selected my own domains and linked them back to my other domains. And all my domains are hosted on the same hosting provider – which is pointless. 2) The new Penguin Algorithm does not like over optimized links which they are in the 3WayLinks network and I can’t be bothered going through all these links to change them and wait for Google to re-index them – as I don’t think this will work either. 3) Google can see that 3Waylinks is a kind of Link farm because all the links leave from the same page name on the site.

    I don’t believe that 3WayLinks or 1WayLinks works anymore.



    • Actually requires each blog you submit to be on a different Class-C IP, and the diversity of 3WayLinks is also very high. In addition, 3WayLinks allows you to spin the anchor text to get as much link text diversity as you want.

      Like any tool, you have to use the link networks properly in order for them to work. You can’t just flatly state that “they don’t work” — many users can vouch otherwise. The vast majority of my sites weren’t affected by Penguin because I use my own tools (including my link networks) the way they should be used.

      You must be on some sort of vendetta, Peter. Seems like you’re bound and determined to badmouth 1WL and 3WL, both here on the forums. I’m sorry you got hit so hard by Penguin, but it’s not the tools that are the problem. It’s all about how you use them.

      • I’m not bad mouthing this tool. This tool did work at the beginning and I was happy with it. but that was a long time ago and Google is a completely different monster now and this product has not evolved with it.

        And there is no control over the 3WayLink network otherwise my own domains would not have been linked back to me. It doesn’t matter if you spin the keyword text for the links, if the domains are within the same IP range and linked together, Google will ignore these links!

        Yes my pages retained their PageRanks of 2 and 3 etc. but this doesn’t mean anything anymore. PageRank does not decide how high you are in the listings unless you have a very popular PageRank of 5 or more.

        There was an article on that questioned the importance of PageRank these days.

        For example I have sites that are PageRanked only 1 and they are above PageRank 3 and 4 sites in the search results for the competing keywords.

        Not all my sites were hit that bad – actually my traffic has come back on many of them – but I found that it didn’t matter if my sites were in the 3WayLink network or not – so why pay for something that I feel in my personal opinion no longer works.

        If you want an instant PageRank of 1 for a new domain – do a YouTube video and link back this video to your site. Your PageRank will climb to 1 within a few days of opening a new domain once the link has been indexed by Google. And once you have a few thousand views it climbs to 2.

        • Look at it like this: if what isn’t working for you IS working for others, then what’s the logical conclusion? Is the tool flawed, or is it the way you are using it — your methodology?

  45. I really love all your test but I still think that geographic link diversity is not important. I guess just me.

  46. Hi Jonathan,

    I always thinking that logically IP diversity is what G want to see on our site but I don’t have enough tools or knowledge to confirm by conducting in-depth research. Thank you for providing valuable article on IP diversity.

    There’s exception though. If we have a local business site with non-English language on it and the site owner is not “game” or outsource the backlinking, hence the links will coming from his visitor/readers, naturally. Not much IP diversity can be found there.

    What do you think?

  47. Great post and definitely an insight to look for when link building

  48. Jonathan, great post.. as usual. I simply amazed by all the research you conduct and share with your audience. And for such a long post, it’s very easy to read and understand. Thanks for this tidbit of knowledge.

  49. Hi Jon

    I think one thing you could have a look at is how the IP-Diversity and other important ranking faktors look like for the competing sites of the low diversity sites you found.
    It could be one explaination that a site does not need a lot of diversity if all the competitors don’t have it, too, or if the competitors are week in a couple of other metrics…


  50. Great post Jon. As a former participant in homepage backlinks networks – I can definetely vouch for the effectiveness of a broad range of IP’s. Even better if they differ by A or B class. I’d like to also see research on different CMS’s also. I pretty much subscribe to “wherever you can get an in-context link” is best these days, post penguin. :-) Thanks again!

  51. Hi Jon,

    great post and some excellent insight there. Your email came in just as I was doing some work on my seo hosting ip arrangement, and having to double up on some C classes I have been allocated, (just experimenting with 10 C’s right now), it also comes with 5 ups to each C class.

    So pretty much I feel better about this strategy.



  52. Hey Johnathan

    On the topic of IP diversity, one grey / black hat technique is building up multiple domains on different C-class IPs. I’ve looked into different hosting (eg – part of hostgator) but the hosting costs still become quite expensive. From your seo experience, do you have any good hosting companies that work out relatively cheap and effective for this type of SEO method (multiple class-c ips)?

    • Dave – this is not the be all and end all in relation to what you have said, but with the basic all you can eat hosting at DreamHost (its not your standard Cpanel hosting), each time you add a new domain to host (you can host unlimited domains), they seem to give you a new IP Address from a very different IP Class. Using an external DNS from Dreamhost would probably give you this kind of result. Alternatively, you using Dreamhost, Bluehost, Host Gator and a few other “all you can eat or unlimited addon domains” to build your own little mini network of themed sites that link into your money site – then build Web2.0 mininet pages around those sites, and only slowly build links to your money site from external sources, so it looks more natural.

      Personally, I can’t see Peter’s point on his comments about 1WayLinks. The IP diversity always seemed very strong on that system (to me anyway), and when they introduced categorization, I think it made the system even better.

      Just saying… :-)


      • Sometimes, but not always! I’d noticed this automatic IP diversity at Dreamhost when my domains were new, but after a few years they did a server upgrade and all of my sites ended up on the same IP. So be careful with that. Then again, they’ll sell ya a dedicated IP for your domain for just a few extra bucks a month.

  53. Thanks Jonathan. I’ve been wondering about I.P diversity for a while and this test was right on time. I use to test a mass site for IP’s. It does a great job but missing one thing. what I’m looking for is a similar service that also strips the D class from the IP list and lists all the Unique Subnets (bulk IP Checker will only list unique IP and duplicate c-classes, so if there’s a big list of duplicate c classes IP’s that you still want to work with, you need to manually extract those IP’s from that list)
    Do you know of such service?

  54. Jonathan, thanks for sharing how class “C” ip addresses help with google ranking, I found this article interesting as google keeps changing their programs.
    Scott Sylvan Bell

  55. Hey,
    That’s a great overview on IP diversity, your case studies are converting guesses to factual information.

    I personally don’t think IP diversity is a factor.


  56. I wonder if the broad range of results here moreso indicates Google’s clean up and targeting of backlinking SEO. It’s a no-brainer for them, almost as though backlinking has been an itch they just haven’t cared to address until recently, and now they’re nailing down the coffin.
    I’m glad, backlinking SEO strategies is why I get so much crap appear in my searches. User experience, that’s what it comes down to I think.
    Anyway, thanks a lot for the time and effort, appreciate it.

  57. Thanks Jonathan, I appreciate all of the research and insight you bring to the table for the rest of us to benefit from.

    Every time you post something, I rush to read it.

  58. Thanks for sharing this data. It’s more useful to read articles that have hard data to back up the conclusions. Sometimes I question whether the search engines algorithms match what they say they are aiming for, so it’s somewhat reassuring that experiments like this appear to back them up.

  59. Your definition of IP address classes is incorrect.

    IP Address classes work on ranges.

    I realise what you mean, but technically it isn’t correct.

    Just me being pendantic. :-)



Trackbacks are disabled.