Link Blocks
-
Sorry, perhaps a noob question.
In relation to site explorer, have also searched and unable to find any information, wondered if anyone could advise as to what "Linking C Blocks" are? Found under the "Compare Link Metrics" tab.
Thanks in advance.
Lee
-
Ok, better now
Well, it seems a good link profile:
you have 240 linking root domain and 192 of them are from different c-blocks and of those 240 root domains 205 are followed.
-
no problem, tbh I struggled a bit writing the question :)) See attached though, much appreciated.
-
I doubt it, there are 254 ips in a c-block, but there is 65,000 in a B and 16,000,000 in a A.
Now considereing that 1 ip number can have thousonds of websites, such as discountASP hosting. the chance of gettiing a link from the same B or A are very high, exspecialy in teh same city.
I believe that the whole c-block thnk is over blown for these reasons
discountASP is a huge hosting company, yet they run all website on one IP number.
You can in theroy have 14 billion ip numbers on your network using nat translations with only one external ip number, using host headers the number is infinate.So while I beleve that SE's take c-blocks into account, i dont think its too much of a problem unless you have a high percentage.
I have this problem because i build and host sites myself. so its of limited use my putting my link on each one, infact it could be harmfull.
I wonder if google takes this in to account, that many like me that develop websites and host them have this problem.
-
On a SEO perspective, right now they do not seems correlated to better rankings. Honestly the best person to answer your question should be Rand himself, as he is surely more expert than me on this "correlation" thing
-
I would not think to blocks as a discriminant in passing more or less link juice, simply I will take them into account as an ever better way for Google to understand if a site is really "popular" or not.
- No links = site totally ignored by the users
- Links but poor unique root domains diversification = poor popularity and maybe spam based links
- Links and great number of unique root domains but por C-Blocks diversification = good popularity, but maybe based on sites's network
- Links and great number of unique root domains and good diversification of C-Block = good popularity and more probably based on natural link building (even though manipulative actions cannot be excluded)
There's then the case of a site that has few links from a not too big unique domains names on different C-Blocks. I saw cases that this kind of sites can compete well against the third case I've listed above.
About your last question, just with your words i cannot understand it well. May you add a snapshot of what are you seeing?
-
What a well presented, excellent answer. Are the A blocks and B blocks ever relevant in a way similar to that of the C block being same host?
Thanks Gianluca
-
Ah, many thanks to you both
would I be right in assuming links from the same C Block would pass less juice or would none be passed?
Also just to clarify, the figure in site explorer shows 192 what is this telling me? Not sure if this is what it is describing but the figure for "Total Linking Root Domains" is 240.
lol sorry, so many questions
-
Gian is pretty much right. Linking C blocks is a useful metric to know. Websites on the same C-block IP address are likely owned by the same person/company and will give less weight.
For best results your linking c-blocks should be as close to your linking root domains as possible. Diversity is the key. Otherwise you could just buy 1000 root domains, host them on the same server space for very little cost and dominate the search results.
-
There's an old great answer to your question in the Search Engine Forum. I copy it here:
A "C" Block address is based on your IP. In general, webhosts are given a different class C, so if you have a different C block, you are usually talking about two different webhosts.
I'm talking about the actual hardware owners here, of course. If two resellers of the same host sell you two hosting accounts, there is a good chance they are both on the same Class C.
Google assumes that sites hosted by two different hosts are probably separate, and therefore links between sites hosted on them are more likely to be from different people. There are problems with that assumption, but it's one of the things they look at anyway (gotta look at something).
Let's say you had an account with a shared IP address. So, for example, you had two sites that both used 192.168.5.1 as an IP. Google would tend to assume that these two sites are related, since they are on the same IP. This can be an issue with free or cheap hosts, which may have thousands of websites hosted on the same shared IP. You would normally try to avoid this if you had multiple sites that were likely to link to each other.
Now let's say that you got yourself 2 different (static) IP - your host would probably give you 192.168.5.2 and 192.168.5.3, in this example. Well these are two different IP's all right, but they are right next to each other, aren't they? Google would also likely consider these to be related.
But what if you hosted with another site across town? Perhaps they would be assigned a group of IP's to hand out that look like 192.168.122.XXX. Well, that 122 now indicates a different ISP, and therefore two sites hosted at this level are more likely to be considered unrelated.
To make a long story short:
192.168.006.001
is a standard, fully qualified IP address. The blocks in this case are:
AAA.BBB.CCC.001-254
That's not a Typo - Class D and E look totally different. The last 3 digits are actually called the Rest Field
So these are within the same class
192.168.222.111
192.168.222.230And these are different Class C IP's:
192.167.111.233
192.168.222.233I quote just part of the post, as part of is related to a specific issue. You can read it here: http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=14838
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Inbound link cleanup and management
Hey guys this is my first time asking a question here but I have been lurking for a while now and have learned a lot here. I have to come up with a plan to go through, analyze, and clean up the existing backlinks for 37 root domains. That to me makes manually looking through the stack one at a time impossible. Obviously there are some great tools and I currently have Moz tools and Raven available to me but am open to acquire something different as well if it makes sense. My questions are: 1. Do I need to worry about nofollow links at all? Should I just separate them out right off the top and be done with that? 2. What ways have you all accomplished this task? Are there any time sucking pitfalls to avoid? Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance this site truly has been a blessing to me!
Moz Pro | | RossM0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
Not able to find Do follow Link as shown in Seomoz Toolbar
SEO Moz Toolbar showing 1 do follow link in every forum question page Have checked source twice thoroughly - not able to trace that do follow link - to which site is that do follow link going to Some sample links - http://www.mycarhelpline.com/index.php?option=com_easydiscuss&view=post&id=426&Itemid=78 - http://www.mycarhelpline.com/index.php?option=com_easydiscuss&view=post&id=63&Itemid=78 Facebook & Google plus - both are no follow can some one help please so as to know this mysterious do follow link as shown in as letted know by SEOMOZ Toolbar
Moz Pro | | Modi0 -
Is anybody else having great difficulty in finding good link opportunities on Open Site Explorer?
I've been using OSE for a while now, and I'm struggling to see any value in it. When I search my competitors link profiles, I find just hundreds and hundreds of crappy reciprocal links, splogs or the like. I have to go through days and days (thousands of links) before I find anything worth using. Is anybody having this sort of problem? Thanks
Moz Pro | | kevinmorley0 -
Tons of Crappy links in new OSE (Open Site Explorer)
I am starting to miss the old OSE. I've found that for a lot of the pages on our site, the new OSE is showing WAY more links and most of them are garbage nonsense links from China, Russia, and the rest of the internet Wild West. For instance, in the old OSE, this page used to show 9 linking domains: http://www.uncommongoods.com/gifts/by-recipient/gifts-for-him It now shows 454 links. Some of the new links (about 5 of them) are legitimate. The other 400+ are garbage. Some are porn sites, most of them don't even open a web page, they just initiate some shady download. I've seen this for other sites as well (like Urban Outfitters) This is making it much harder for me to do backlink analysis on bc I have no clue how many "Normal" links they have. Is anyone else having this problem ? Any way to filter all this crap out ? See attached screenshot of the list of links I'm getting from OSE. NHXnn
Moz Pro | | znotes1 -
What is the difference between the link count on OSE and Linkscape?
We notice a huge difference in the number of inbound links . Site explore shows 1,200 as an example and linkscape shows over 100,000 for the same site.
Moz Pro | | JamesBarry0 -
Why would PA be 1 (0 links from 0 root domains) if it's linked to internally?
Question just about said it all: I've seen a number of pages on sites that have a PA of 1 (with the metrics being 0 links from 0 root domains) when I can see on the site that it is linked to internally - from the main nav (which is CSS, not Javascript) and also from the footer, if not other places. Why would this be? Update: upon looking further at the site, it appears that there's some kind of redirect going on, where the page linked to from the nav actually redirects to the real page. Would that eliminate PA, even if it's a 301? And additionally, is whatever is causing this lack of PA a reflection of how Google would relate to the page? Thanks, Aviva
Moz Pro | | debi_zyx0 -
SEOMoz Campaign shows Warnings for pages with >200 and <300 links
We currently use SEOMoz's campaign tool to review the SEO progress of our site. One thing we are unsure of is that SEOMoz gives us a warning for over 1000 of our pages because we have around 200 links on those pages (all in the Menu Drop Downs). I read the post and watched the video, Whiteboard Friday Flat Site Architecture a while ago and Rand mentioned there is no issue with having a web page with 200 to 300 links and he even encouraged it. So why would these show up as warnings in our Campaign?
Moz Pro | | PBCLinear0