Server Location and SEO

[Gydian]

So, I know this is a hugely debated topic, but I've read so many damn things about this I want to see what other people's opinions are on the subject.

Ultimately from what I've read I've gotten this outta it all:

1. Server located in the same country as the domain TLD is really good for LOCAL searches.
2. The above doesn't really hold a whole lot of value to the whole SERP equation.
3. Load Speed and Up-time are MORE IMPORTANT than server location and hold more value to SERP equation.

So, as long as a server provides the targeted userbase a quicker load speed and maximum up-time that is better than simply picking a host in the country that matches your TLD. (This is what I get outta those points above, not stating fact here)


Now, as an aside, I've gotten damn good results using pretty much any domain extension and hosting it with my US-based data centers. And this includes great results for global traffic, not just north american traffic with decent SE positions in global search engines.

So yeah, I know there's a few SEO gurus out there. Please offer your insight on this.

[pokeraussie]

I think the first thing to ask yourself is how competitive are the SERPs you are targeting? Are your competitors using local hosting? Even if they are do they have huge backlink profiles? I've experienced the same as you, fantastic local/global SERP's simply using ccTLD and US hosting. If you have no real competition I would say with certainty that getting local hosting would be a huge waste of money because I know it's not cheap comparatively speaking when you are first starting a new site. In terms of weight/relevance, if I was to guess, I would say ccTLD > local hosting > specifying location in GWT. With a ccTLD, local links, and some localized on-page SEO you'd be well on your way to dominating local searches in your niche.

[parttimepoker]

So, as long as a server provides the targeted userbase a quicker load speed and maximum up-time that is better than simply picking a host in the country that matches your TLD. (This is what I get outta those points above, not stating fact here).

You are stating a fact, as far as I am concerned. Slow load / downtime massively trumps any advantage of having a local host when it comes to SERPS (and, more importantly, user satisfaction).

But it's a false either-or. You can have a local host, good uptime and quick loads - you don't have to choose. You can also have a .com hosted on, say, a UK server and be very competitive for UK traffic with .co.uk domains. Dot com is universal. I don't think there's a ccTLD advantage over .com except for some very particular search sub-sets.

Note that no matter how fast your host is, if you're serving content to, say, AU visitors from a US server, there's going to be some lag. Takes a while to get through all the tubes.

One last question - how do you know you've gotten good results if you haven't tried it any other way than .coms on US data centers? Wouldn't you need a point of comparison?

......

There have been a lot of threads like this lately; these sorts of detail questions are just a few pixels of the picture. I think people really waste a lot of time - I know I sure have - trying to read the Google tea leaves and digging through the stinking pile of SEO advice in an effort to achieve maximum optimization. I really feel like people would be better off in general focusing on content, keyword R&D and establishing high-veracity data models for determining exactly what all your visitors types from various sources are actually worth in hard $$$ terms.

At the point where being "good" at SEO diverges from a direct connection to "making money", you're falling down the rabbit hole.

[Gydian]

One last question - how do you know you've gotten good results if you haven't tried it any other way than .coms on US data centers? Wouldn't you need a point of comparison?

I've gotten good results using multiple domain extensions (co.uk, ca, etc) with those sites being hosted on US-based servers. That's what I meant by that. What I haven't tried is hosting a .co.uk on a UK-based server and seeing if the results are better, which is what you're getting at. But that's my question. Has any found any large benefits between server location and the domain extension? If I'm ranking well in the UK market with a co.uk domain that's actually hosted with a US-based server, would my results be better if I moved that site to a UK-based server? Or is the benefit of doing so so miniscule that it's not worth it?

[parttimepoker]

I've gotten good results using multiple domain extensions (co.uk, ca, etc) with those sites being hosted on US-based servers. That's what I meant by that. What I haven't tried is hosting a .co.uk on a UK-based server and seeing if the results are better, which is what you're getting at. But that's my question. Has any found any large benefits between server location and the domain extension? If I'm ranking well in the UK market with a co.uk domain that's actually hosted with a US-based server, would my results be better if I moved that site to a UK-based server? Or is the benefit of doing so so miniscule that it's not worth it?

I would definitely try a UK host for content on a .co.uk domain targeting UK traffic, if for no other reason than it will load quicker (assuming a host of equal quality). I would do this with a .com as well. I think it's best practice to host where you're targeting (unless some other concern prevents you from doing so).

I don't think it should be at the top of your to-do list, but if you have extra time and a smallish potential SERP bump would pay dividends I would put it somewhere near the middle-bottom.

[pokeraussie]

I would definitely try a UK host for content on a .co.uk domain targeting UK traffic, if for no other reason than it will load quicker (assuming a host of equal quality). I would do this with a .com as well. I think it's best practice to host where you're targeting (unless some other concern prevents you from doing so).

I don't think it should be at the top of your to-do list, but if you have extra time and a smallish potential SERP bump would pay dividends I would put it somewhere near the middle-bottom.

I think you need to check the prices of local hosting it ain't cheap and quite often the customer service is terrible because they're one man shows. I've used US hosting on resource intensive local forums and the lag is not that bad. Put it this way, it was faster then PAL and I still use PAL Maybe if I pay the local guys with VB's they'll be happy chappies. faststeady where are ya?

[Hazo]

I asked this question on SEObook - and as a result moved from an Aussie server to an international VPS.

The overwhelming response from the big guys like Aaron Wall - was that as long as you have the local TLD and content, server location plays zero role in rankings.

So far I believe that is absolutely true.

[parttimepoker]

I think you need to check the prices of local hosting it ain't cheap and quite often the customer service is terrible because they're one man shows. I've used US hosting on resource intensive local forums and the lag is not that bad. Put it this way, it was faster then PAL and I still use PAL Maybe if I pay the local guys with VB's they'll be happy chappies. faststeady where are ya?

I use local hosting in the UK for a few projects, so I'm familiar with the costs. I've also hosted massive forums on US and UK servers and recorded significant lag for visitors who have to "cross the ocean" to load a page.

You might not use PAL if there was a competitor that suffered 0 lag and downtime (I personally don't have any lag issues with PAL), so I'm not sure that's the best argument for not caring about lag, as most sites in our genre have functionally infinite competition.

----

As for Hazo's comments, not everyone has the local TLD and not everyone can write "local" content - nor is it always clear exactly what local content is. I have definitely seen sites improve performance in a region when we moved to a server in that region (Google also now considers those sites to be "from" that region; I'm talking here about a .com site with content written in American English that now does very well for UK search traffic).

Like I said above, I don't think it's essential to move to a local server, and I don't think it should be at the top of your list. All things being equal between hosts, however, I would always choose a local host over an int'l one. There's just no downside and the potential performance increase for users / SERP boost makes it an easy choice if you've got the time and have the rest of your house in order.

[flogger]

I don't think server location matters here. It's on how you get your site high up in the rankings.