Posted by TerryKyle
on 11 September 2014 - 01:37 PM
So you're saying if a good link benefits a site, and link is removed, it appears the benefit is remembered (at least for a certain amount of time)?
And so we probably also conclude, that the same happens in reverse? That a bad link (from site deemed bad and de-indexed) is probably also remembered, and could carry a negative impact for months after link is removed?
On your Point 1 J: yes but it's not necessarily something you want to bank on in your SEO campaigns. There's a lot of random variation in what Google does, I wrote about it here:
i.e. some/many sites sink like rocks when the links are removed. Others don't and it doesn't appear to depend on how the links were lost e.g. removed from an article or whole blogs deindexed.
Point 2 is pretty muddy between Google saying they try to block negative SEO attacks and the power (or not) of the link disavowal tool. If you have done all you can to get rid of bad links (isn't that exactly what you got into Internet Marketing for?!), not much else you can do for the affected site if you think toxic links are poisoning those rankings. A lot also probably depends on your overall backlink profile in terms of good links ratios to awful links.
Posted by TerryKyle
on 01 February 2014 - 10:28 AM
Surprised to see the load time consistent as more users are thrown at the server, especially w/o a caching plugin installed.
- Are you using Litespeed / Nginx? Or have you optimized Apache itself?
- Are you using memcache / APC? (I'm asking b/c it effects the type of caching plugin that's best to use - W3TC / WP Super Cache).
- SSD-cached drives is a good start. Why not go all in on SSD drives?
From our technical director:
We do use optimized Apache (not NginX) as we want to be as close as possible to expected web standards as mod_rewrite, controlled options via .htaccess etc.
Our tests show that NginX and Litespeed are generally faster in very few specific setups (serving large amounts of static files) which can be achieved with Apache fine tuning too and does not necessarily justify the sacrifice of not having .htaccess etc..
Static files are much better served through CDN which we will provide as an additional service very soon.
We use APC for the opcode caching. For page and object caching, it is recommended the the filesystem be used as it will all go in the SSD cache and provide unlimited space and more advanced tagging and hierarchy (depends on the caching plugin, but W3TC provides it). Tests show the same speed as the memcached configuration + the benefit of unlimited space.
Our SSD caching is done on the hardware level and works much faster than the software one. It also works in both ways - read and write. Tests show that almost all file operations are completed with close to SSD speed. Using only SSDs would also limit the total space available and/or increase the total cost of the service.
Using SSDs for storing emails archived long ago and old backups is not needed.
Thanks a lot for the detailed case study Terry .. this looks very promising. I currently have an account on WPEngine apart from numerous other hosting accounts (for clients sites) and would surely make the move purely because I put a lot of trust in you and would love to consolidate sites under one good service that I can rely on.
To be fair to WPEngine ... I am happy with their service and speed. They also do allow me more than a single install of Wordpress on their personal account. For e.g. I have a the personal account with them and already have 3 wordpress installs working just fine. My understanding is that they will bump me to the the next plan ONLY when I cross 10 installs. However, I have a major issue with their migration process and the fact that I still have to use some other host for hosting client emails.
I am a fan of backupbuddy and would like to know if your hosting will support the use of backupbuddy.
Please also let me know about the (free) migration service and any other discounts for Traffic Planet members.
Thanks again for sharing and congrats for starting TPH
Thanks Saumil, appreciated.
We are presently working on our own cloning plugin to help speed up the migration process.
While that is in development, we do the migration for you (free) and usually complete the process within 24 hours (either with you changing the nameservers at your domain registrar or us doing it - either way is fine).
Do you think its even legal for evil G to arbitrarily penalize a hosting company and particular IP address ranges? I've heard in the past, they have targeted SEO hosting but why is that any of there business? The reason I ask - they are only hosting the sites and not responsible for what someone actually does with the site.
Given you are high profile member in the IM community, do you think Matty and his team are so vendictive little turds - that they would find out your IP ranges and just hit the big Red ban button on his computer?
I do have a concern about that because I'm looking down the road to host a couple bigger sites on traffic planet hosting and really don't feel like poor little Matty getting all bent out of shape and essentially ruining legit businesses just because he thinks he can.
Side Note: I would imagine if G tried to penalize a range of IP addresses owned by the bigger companies - they would have their hands full because someone like Endurance International Group - which according to a recent document own about 49 plus large hosting companies. If they can buy Hostgator for approx $225 million, I would imagine they would have the budget to challenge even the mighty and evil G if they tried to hit them. Gawd, I wish G would go after a large company that has clout and deep pockets. It would be interesting to see it battle out in an anti competitive environment.
Thanks for the detailed thoughts above.
Though Traffic Planet Hosting is not an SEO hosting company and hosts completely normal business websites, the possibility of a spiteful IP range deindexing by Google does exist and the risk is difficult to quantify.
However, from what I've seen with SEO hosting companies hurt by an IP range deindexing, they moved all those affected sites to other IP ranges pretty quickly and I didn't hear of followup 'IP-chasing' deindexing by Google. I don't know whether they pursued legal action or not. Probably not.
In our favor:
1. Our tech partners in the hosting business wouldn't take too kindly to it and could mount their own legal action (though Google is completely used to that and obviously has massive legal resources)
2. The San Diego law firm that has been protecting me (very well) online for years has offered to take on Google on my behalf in such an event and they specialize in class actions
3. Our small size (so far) as a non-SEO normal hosting company may make us too insignificant to bother with.
Obviously I hope that Google don't act against TPH but not just because it's my company but also because hosting is generally done so badly and TPH is trying to innovate on every level and genuinely build a great service currently unavailable anywhere else - sort of the LeadPages of the hosting business.