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
-
Unsolved Rogerbot blocked by cloudflare and not display full user agent string.
Hi, We're trying to get MOZ to crawl our site, but when we Create Your Campaign we get the error:
Moz Pro | | BB_NPG
Ooops. Our crawlers are unable to access that URL - please check to make sure it is correct. If the issue persists, check out this article for further help. robot.txt is fine and we actually see cloudflare is blocking it with block fight mode. We've added in some rules to allow rogerbot but these seem to be getting ignored. If we use a robot.txt test tool (https://technicalseo.com/tools/robots-txt/) with rogerbot as the user agent this get through fine and we can see our rule has allowed it. When viewing the cloudflare activity log (attached) it seems the Create Your Campaign is trying to crawl the site with the user agent as simply set as rogerbot 1.2 but the robot.txt testing tool uses the full user agent string rogerbot/1.0 (http://moz.com/help/pro/what-is-rogerbot-, rogerbot-crawler+shiny@moz.com) albeit it's version 1.0. So seems as if cloudflare doesn't like the simple user agent. So is it correct the when MOZ is trying to crawl the site it uses the simple string of just rogerbot 1.2 now ? Thanks
Ben Cloudflare activity log, showing differences in user agent strings
2022-07-01_13-05-59.png0 -
Spammy inbound links: Don't Fix It If It's Not Broken?
Hi Moz community, Our website is nearing the end of a big redesign to be mobile-responsive. We decided to delay any major changes to text content so that if we do suffer a rankings drop upon launch, we'll have some ability to isolate the cause. In the meantime I'm analyzing our current SEO strengths and weaknesses. There is a huge discrepancy between our rankings and our inbound link profile. Specifically, we do great on most of our targeted keywords and in fact had a decent surge in recent months. But Link Profiler turned up hundreds of pages of inbound links from spammy domains, many of which don't even display a webpage when I click there. (shown in uploaded image) "Don't fix it if it's not broken" is conflicting with my natural repulsion to these sorts of referrals. Assuming we don't suffer a rankings drop from the redesign, how much of a priority should this be? There are too many and most are too spammy to contact the webmasters, so we'll need to do it through a Disavow. I couldn't even open the one at the top of the list because our business web proxy identified it as adult content. It seems like a common conception is that if Google hasn't penalized us for it yet, they will eventually. Are we talking about the algorithm just stumbling upon these links and hurting us or would this be something we would find in Manual Actions? (or both?) How long after the launch should we wait before attacking these bad links? Is there a certain spam score that you'd say is a threshold for "Yes, definitely get rid of it"? And when we do, should we Disavow domains one domain at a time to monitor any potential drops or all at once? (this seems kind of obvious but if the spam score and domain authority alone is enough of a signal that it won't hurt us, we'd rather get it done asap) How important is this compared to creating fresh new content on all the product pages? Each one will have new images as well as product reviews, but the product descriptions will be the same ones we've had up for years. I have new content written but it's delayed pending any fallout from the redesign. Thanks for any help with this! d1SB2JP.jpg
Moz Pro | | jcorbo0 -
Spam links with high DA
I'm running through the spam analysis and noticed a few links that are considered to be 9+ on the spam score (high spam level), but some of them have DA of 60 -75. How can this be possible? When I view the sites they appear to be be pretty low quality. If i'm considering disavowing a site should I focus on spam score or DA? A DA of 75 is a pretty reputable standing.
Moz Pro | | STP_SEO0 -
Links not appearing in Moz tool
Hey Guys I am finding that my Moz tool isn't showing links that are definitely there like from social media etc. Also links that are there about 4-5 months are not showing either! am i doing something wrong?
Moz Pro | | Johnny_AppleSeed0 -
Losing links
my blog/website is at ocpatentlawyer.com. My reports are showing that I'm losing links. Is there a way to find out which links I've been losing to see if it is something that I should be concerned about?
Moz Pro | | jamesjd710 -
Why does google not recognize inbound links from bbb.org?
After using site explorer I noticed my companys links for bbb.org are not included. They are for our competitors but not us. Anyone know why? Thanks, Cole
Moz Pro | | coleda0 -
How can I download all the inbound links to my Site?
Hi, From Site Explorer, I want to download all the inbound links linking to my site: www.comm100.com/livechat/. But it seems that there is a limitation. I can only download a part of the inbound links? What should I do? Or is it because my account is free trial? Do I have to pay for it? Please help. Thanks,
Moz Pro | | Sophia_M0 -
Find pages containing broken links.
hi everyone, for each internal broken links I need to find all the pages that contain it. In the Seomoz report there is only a refferer link for each broken link, but google webmaster tools indicates that the dead link is present in many pages of the site. there is a way to have these data with SEOmoz or other software, in a csv report ? thanks
Moz Pro | | wwmind0