There's an old saying ...
"Fast, good or cheap. Pick any two."
This applies to most anything, but it often rings true in the web hosting game. Some recent banter in the hosting and SEO universe brings this point to light. It appears that Google is reserving the right to ban entire servers if those servers are hosting "spammy" sites. That means that if Google decides that server X is hosting spam sites, no sites hosted on server X will be ranked. Google will not only punish the offending site(s), but its neighbors as well. From a search perspective, this is basically a death penalty for any given server. In theory, there's nothing to stop Google from expanding this policy to include multiple servers within a given IP subnet or AS number. There's no evidence at this point that they will or do, but it would be trivial to do so from an operational standpoint.
What does this have to do with choosing between good and cheap when it comes to hosting? Simple. As volume on a given network rises, it becomes more difficult for that network operator to monitor and control what's going on. If you're in the business of providing free hosting (there are free hosting companies out there), odds are you're going to attract spammers and you'll have lots of sites to deal with. If you're in the business of providing REALLY cheap hosting to hundreds of thousands of sites, you're going to be in a similar boat. This is not to say that you should spend $50/month to host your little web site, but if you're choosing a host based purely on low price, that strategy can come back to bite you when your site disappears from Google because your $4.95 host is harboring spammers and other miscreants and can't deal with the problem because they're overwhelmed.
When choosing a host, you'll want to consider (among other things), the general reputation of that host's network. Are they known for hosting spam sites? How aggressive are they in enforcing an anti-spam policy? Do they actually have a staffed abuse desk, or do abuse reports just go into auto-reply trouble ticket land where no human will ever see them until after the next Presidential election? Obviously the larger the host, the harder it is for them to actually read and respond to every abuse report, but that can't be your problem. Volume driven by low price is not an excuse, nor a defense against what Google is trying to do here.
This kind of action is nothing new in the anti-spam war. Email blocklists designed to stop the flow of email spam have relied on "collateral damage" for years. The theory is that if a network operator won't take action, punishing its innocent customers should rattle enough cages to overcome that inertia. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. One thing that is certain is that the collateral damange strategy is here to stay. Don't bother crying "foul". Nobody is listening. If you're caught in the crossfire, change providers. If enough people change, the offending provider should be compelled to act. That's how it works, at least in theory.
We're curious to see exactly what criteria Google will be using to judge a host as "spammy". Are they talking about email spam? Are they talking about hosting "spamvertised" sites? Is hosting malware and/or phishing sites grounds for execution? Those all seem reasonable, but will Google take the next step and punish hosts for harboring webmasters that Google thinks are trying to "game" its system. We've already seen Google lay the smackdown on content and link farms over the last few months. Will hosting purely pay-per-click sites get a host banned? We'll keep an eye on how this starts to play out.
--------
Founded in November 2000, Gotham Bus provide high reliability, high value server co-location, dedicated servers and web/email hosting in our Long Island, NY datacenter. Visit us at http://www.gothambus.com