The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've had websites hosted on the freeola 1000 and get.dotted systems for a long time now, and I've also found Freeola to be a really great and reliable service - it was recommended to me in the first place, and I have recommended it to many others.
However . .
I'm getting more and more interested in getting spiders to access and index my site(s) as well and as comprehensively as possible. So I get as high up the search rankings as I can. In fact, this is becoming quite important.
I have been told by those that should know that websites and pages on free hosting services like Freeola are significantly downgraded by (say) Google, possibly to the point of invisibility. Because (a) the sites do not have their own individual IP addresses so they're not 'serious' and/or (b) because the IP addresses are shared by many many sites, some of which may be spam sites, and so all sites with that address are also assumed to be spam and therefore they get 'rejected' or downgraded also.
What's the truth?
I am seriously questioning whether I need to move everything to a conventional hosting company. Don't want to, but needs must.
Much appreciate an early response. Thanks.
However . .
I'm getting more and more interested in getting spiders to access and index my site(s) as well and as comprehensively as possible. So I get as high up the search rankings as I can. In fact, this is becoming quite important.
I have been told by those that should know that websites and pages on free hosting services like Freeola are significantly downgraded by (say) Google, possibly to the point of invisibility. Because (a) the sites do not have their own individual IP addresses so they're not 'serious' and/or (b) because the IP addresses are shared by many many sites, some of which may be spam sites, and so all sites with that address are also assumed to be spam and therefore they get 'rejected' or downgraded also.
What's the truth?
I am seriously questioning whether I need to move everything to a conventional hosting company. Don't want to, but needs must.
Much appreciate an early response. Thanks.
I've had websites hosted on the freeola 1000 and get.dotted systems for a long time now, and I've also found Freeola to be a really great and reliable service - it was recommended to me in the first place, and I have recommended it to many others.
However . .
I'm getting more and more interested in getting spiders to access and index my site(s) as well and as comprehensively as possible. So I get as high up the search rankings as I can. In fact, this is becoming quite important.
I have been told by those that should know that websites and pages on free hosting services like Freeola are significantly downgraded by (say) Google, possibly to the point of invisibility. Because (a) the sites do not have their own individual IP addresses so they're not 'serious' and/or (b) because the IP addresses are shared by many many sites, some of which may be spam sites, and so all sites with that address are also assumed to be spam and therefore they get 'rejected' or downgraded also.
What's the truth?
I am seriously questioning whether I need to move everything to a conventional hosting company. Don't want to, but needs must.
Much appreciate an early response. Thanks.
However . .
I'm getting more and more interested in getting spiders to access and index my site(s) as well and as comprehensively as possible. So I get as high up the search rankings as I can. In fact, this is becoming quite important.
I have been told by those that should know that websites and pages on free hosting services like Freeola are significantly downgraded by (say) Google, possibly to the point of invisibility. Because (a) the sites do not have their own individual IP addresses so they're not 'serious' and/or (b) because the IP addresses are shared by many many sites, some of which may be spam sites, and so all sites with that address are also assumed to be spam and therefore they get 'rejected' or downgraded also.
What's the truth?
I am seriously questioning whether I need to move everything to a conventional hosting company. Don't want to, but needs must.
Much appreciate an early response. Thanks.
I've got many sites hosted on freeola (registering a co.uk for example and using their hosting which works out at £18.79 for the first two years)and am very happy with the way they are spidered by the various search engine bots.
Adding some SSI tracking logs visits by googlebot etc. so you can see the frequency.
Obviously the sites need to be optimised and submitted correctly and a decent incoming link is always worthwhile!
I haven't any real experience with the 'free' domain names but looking on google using the command: allinurl:freeola(use freeola or any of the other free 1000 addresses available) and looking for the free subdomains it certainly looks like google is spidering ok.
Adding some SSI tracking logs visits by googlebot etc. so you can see the frequency.
Obviously the sites need to be optimised and submitted correctly and a decent incoming link is always worthwhile!
I haven't any real experience with the 'free' domain names but looking on google using the command: allinurl:freeola(use freeola or any of the other free 1000 addresses available) and looking for the free subdomains it certainly looks like google is spidering ok.
Unless you have a dedicated server (or some virtual servers) then you won't have your own IP address anyway.
Do you use one of Freeola's web address things (Freeola1000 or whatever they're called) or do you have you own domain? If you don't have you own domain, then buying one will help get your site seen more.
Do you use one of Freeola's web address things (Freeola1000 or whatever they're called) or do you have you own domain? If you don't have you own domain, then buying one will help get your site seen more.
ok, thanks for the two replies (could Freeola comment as well, please?).
A couple of sites are freeola 1000 sites - i.e xxxx.ukhq.co.uk / [email protected]. Free to set up and use, apart from the phone call to Freeola (which is of course how they quite rightly make some dough).
and
a couple are hosted 'get.dotted' sites - i.e xxxx.co.uk as searched for and then registered and hosted through Freeola. These are paid-for domains but hosted for free I think (again there's that necessary phone number connection to ftp up to them).
A couple of sites are freeola 1000 sites - i.e xxxx.ukhq.co.uk / [email protected]. Free to set up and use, apart from the phone call to Freeola (which is of course how they quite rightly make some dough).
and
a couple are hosted 'get.dotted' sites - i.e xxxx.co.uk as searched for and then registered and hosted through Freeola. These are paid-for domains but hosted for free I think (again there's that necessary phone number connection to ftp up to them).
Right, some more. Thanks GWD and I've done a Google on allinurl:ukhq.co.uk and it does indeed list loads of these Freeola free sites. So they're getting indexed.
But are they penalised in any way - i.e would appear much lower down the search ranking/listing - e.g on page 20 . . - when compared to a (dare I say, pukkah) paid-domain site on a like for like basis?
But are they penalised in any way - i.e would appear much lower down the search ranking/listing - e.g on page 20 . . - when compared to a (dare I say, pukkah) paid-domain site on a like for like basis?
grehan wrote:
> But are they penalised in any way - i.e would appear much lower down
> the search ranking/listing - e.g on page 20 . . - when compared to a
> (dare I say, pukkah) paid-domain site on a like for like basis?
"...Obviously the sites need to be optimised and submitted correctly and a decent incoming link is always worthwhile!"
SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) and SEP(SE Placement) is a complicated business. Most of the free sites you're looking at have not been designed with search enigines in mind!
So I would say no they are not been penalised due to being free domains - just not doing very well on search engines because of poor or no SEO.
> But are they penalised in any way - i.e would appear much lower down
> the search ranking/listing - e.g on page 20 . . - when compared to a
> (dare I say, pukkah) paid-domain site on a like for like basis?
"...Obviously the sites need to be optimised and submitted correctly and a decent incoming link is always worthwhile!"
SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) and SEP(SE Placement) is a complicated business. Most of the free sites you're looking at have not been designed with search enigines in mind!
So I would say no they are not been penalised due to being free domains - just not doing very well on search engines because of poor or no SEO.
ok thanks GWD. Obliged. This SEO aspect I understand - or at least I am rapidly coming to understand! Not just a matter of a few thingies, is it!
Want to make sure that after I've spring cleaned and sorted out everything properly and uploaded it again, I'm not just wasting my time 'cos its in a (Freeola) place wot the liddle bots don't visit . . .
Want to make sure that after I've spring cleaned and sorted out everything properly and uploaded it again, I'm not just wasting my time 'cos its in a (Freeola) place wot the liddle bots don't visit . . .
Just a stab in the dark but are you into yachting?
If you are then I've found your site!
If this is you, the best thing you can do is move away from frames.
In google issue site:www.yoursitename.co.uk which will show you which pages are indexed - not good...
This isn't down to freeola, just a site that's not been built for SE's.
So I think your answer has been answered - there's nothing wrong with the hosts.
If you want to learn more then a good starting point is: [URL]http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/[/URL]
I know a good SEO :)
If you are then I've found your site!
If this is you, the best thing you can do is move away from frames.
In google issue site:www.yoursitename.co.uk which will show you which pages are indexed - not good...
This isn't down to freeola, just a site that's not been built for SE's.
So I think your answer has been answered - there's nothing wrong with the hosts.
If you want to learn more then a good starting point is: [URL]http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/[/URL]
I know a good SEO :)
Yes indeed, although that yottie site was purely for friends and family and consciously directed refer-ees and actually has noindex, nofollow in a lot of the pages' coding to stop it being indexed. So that's why it don't score and that was just fine. Like so many things, that site carries the legacy of having created two and half years ago out of a previous site from about five years ago. Things change, and we all learn. (well, some).
But I'm now doing a re-vamp, with different objectives, and some things will have to change, although that particular site will retain its frames. I know, I know . . but life's to short, I like frames (the effect of them, and I know I can use CSS to achieve similar/better results and that's what I'll maybe move to in time) and I understand that although not perfect from a CEO p.o.v Google and the others do now follow them (and one can use the noframes content, too. All of which I'll be doing. What is good, I think, is that the site's got lots of content because that was its only purpose.
Buena fortuna
[from Andalucia, Spain] :-)
But I'm now doing a re-vamp, with different objectives, and some things will have to change, although that particular site will retain its frames. I know, I know . . but life's to short, I like frames (the effect of them, and I know I can use CSS to achieve similar/better results and that's what I'll maybe move to in time) and I understand that although not perfect from a CEO p.o.v Google and the others do now follow them (and one can use the noframes content, too. All of which I'll be doing. What is good, I think, is that the site's got lots of content because that was its only purpose.
Buena fortuna
[from Andalucia, Spain] :-)