[Halfdeck]

btw to test all the talk about different ips and host i have now myself 5 hosting companies, like i said, i have to find out myself because i dont know what to follow all, one say this is best ...the other say that is best...i will find out myself

Dudette, imo that's the best policy. (no stu, not dudine)

in all those years i had all my domains (200+) on one ip, same niches, and i always linked them together, never see a problem with that, if site had a pr4, i would linked that site with site f on the same ip and that one got then a pr3 or pr4 in a month with traffic

What worked last year isn't necessarily going to work this year or next year, and TBPR isn't the metric I'd use to gauge the success of an optimization tactic. Also, how many of those domains are one pagers with stuff in frames? But if those domains are kicking bootay on Google, let me know cuz then I'd suck your boobies (nah, that's your hubby's job).

Bill, what interests me about that Matt Cutts transcript are the concepts of "continuum" and "range." (warning: MY INTERPRETATION)

BTW, not taking Matt Cutts at face value is a given. I've already pointed out on a different thread where he misreported how Google treats <STRONG> as opposed to <BOLD>. I also questioned him on his blog when he said invalid markup doesn't cause problems for Google. That's not his department. He wasn't even aware of the recent TBPR update till he read about it on the Web. In this thread, I qualified his transcript by adding "use this info at your own risk." I do NOT blindly trust polls, consensus, popular opinions, rumors, forum posts, people working at wikipedia or cnn (though cnn.com ranks #1 on Google for "news" - it doesn't make them seo experts a.k.a snake oil salesmen), or statements made by so-called "authorities."

During the spaces.live.com migration, according to Matt Cutts, a flag was tripped to due to millions of pages suddenly added to live.com. Trust "rating" of each page took a serious enough hit that Google refused to index the new pages without a handjob. He explained this is usually not a problem unless you're talking about hundreds of thousands of new pages. That's an example of a "range", where publishing 100 new pages a day goes under the radar, but publishing million of pages a day trips a flag.

As for the concept of a continuum... What if there's a threshold value (say 5 million new pages in the span of a day). That would mean adding 5 million new pages a day will trip a filter, but adding 4.9 million pages or 2.5 million pages a day for three days won't?

That makes no sense.

On the other hand, a continuum would gauge one factor on a scale. So, for example, having 100 sites on the same IP with the same whois may be better than having 200 sites on the same IP, and having 1000 sites on the same IP may be better than having 2000 sites on the same IP - assuming Google algorithmically runs whois on domains (there are cases where thousands of domains belonging to different people sit on the same IP on a virtual host) instead of only when other flags are tripped, and assumming there's at least a weak connection between what Matt Cutts says and reality.

Add to this the concept of co-dependent factors (quote from caveman, a mod at wmw):

the reason some did not believe it for a long time is that — as is true with so many of G’s algo elements — things are co-dependent. So the addition of x 1,000 pages for site A will not have the same effect as the addition of 1,000 pages for site B, and the difference is not just limted to the pre-existing number of pages on each site. Many other factors involved.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3070792-6-10.htm

There is no simple yes or no answer. What worked for me isn't necessarily going to work for you.