Does Whois entry matter?

[ozsubasi]

Earlier today I was looking at the Whois entry for a competitor's site. The "Registrant type" is given as "UK individual" and the "Registrant's address" says:
"The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service."
Now this is clearly incorrect because this is a real estate website.
The same competitor has another site which is very similar in appearance which does have the correct Whois information.
That they are run by the same company is apparent because the company name is used on both sites. The second site has a number of one way links pointing to the first.

Is there any significance to this? I mean is there a possible advantage in registering the first site as being non-trading then setting up links to it from the second?

[weegillis]

Since Registrant is an individual, they can protect their privacy. Seems sloppy they would do it on one site, and not the other. Unless it was an SEO who created the site with protected Registrant information. What are the creation dates for the two sites? Do they have the same name server?

[deepsand]

Earlier today I was looking at the Whois entry for a competitor's site. The "Registrant type" is given as "UK individual" and the "Registrant's address" says:
"The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service."
Now this is clearly incorrect because this is a real estate website.

The nature of the site is is irrelevant to the type of registering entity.

The same competitor has another site which is very similar in appearance which does have the correct Whois information.
That they are run by the same company is apparent because the company name is used on both sites. The second site has a number of one way links pointing to the first.

Does not require that both DNs be registered to the same party.

Is there any significance to this? I mean is there a possible advantage in registering the first site as being non-trading then setting up links to it from the second?

While the nature of the Registrant(s) is immaterial, the identities can be used to detect collusion.

This appears to be a simplistic attempt at link manipulation, with the owner/operator of the site registered in the clear using the one privately registered as a source for IBLs. However, as Google is a Registrar, and thus has access to data not publicly available, and as the Registrar of the privately registered DN has the identity of the real Registrant on file, Google may be able to detect such collusion.

[ozsubasi]

Since Registrant is an individual, they can protect their privacy. Seems sloppy they would do it on one site, and not the other. Unless it was an SEO who created the site with protected Registrant information. What are the creation dates for the two sites? Do they have the same name server?

Although they are registered as an individual, the registrant name is a place name followed by "Property" (which is different to the company name given on the website). I believe that it has been amended and that previously it did show the correct information, but I can't be 100% sure of that. The site with the incorrect entry was registered May 2009, the other in Feb 2009.Yes they both have the same name server.

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

I've had to edit this part as the post was duplicated during upload (again!!!)

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

The nature of the site is is irrelevant to the type of registering entity.

How can that be the case when the registrant has been able to opt out of stating their address because they claim to be non-trading when this is a commercial site?

Does not require that both DNs be registered to the same party.

I understand that, but my point is that here we have two sites operated by the same company, one is sating that they are a company and are trading, the other that they are a non-trading individual.

While the nature of the Registrant(s) is immaterial, the identities can be used to detect collusion.

This appears to be a simplistic attempt at link manipulation, with the owner/operator of the site registered in the clear using the one privately registered as a source for IBLs. However, as Google is a Registrar, and thus has access to data not publicly available, and as the Registrar of the privately registered DN has the identity of the real Registrant on file, Google may be able to detect such collusion.

Link manipulation is in line with my suspicions, and although I haven't had time yet to look further into them, the company has other sites which may be involved. These sites have been around for some years, and if Google has detected anything yet it is not reflected in the rankings. I did look at reporting my suspicions, but Google seems only interested in receiving reports of paid links, I couldn't find anywhere to flag this up.

[deepsand]

How can that be the case when the registrant has been able to opt out of stating their address because they claim to be non-trading when this is a commercial site?

Private and proxy registration are intended to provide anonymity. And, the nature of the site is wholly unrelated to that of the Registrant. See next paragraph.

I understand that, but my point is that here we have two sites operated by the same company, one is sating that they are a company and are trading, the other that they are a non-trading individual.

You are conflating the nature and identity of the Registrant with the site; they are two distinctly different things. In fact, the Registrant need not even be the owner of the site. The Registrant can be anyone.

Link manipulation is in line with my suspicions, and although I haven't had time yet to look further into them, the company has other sites which may be involved. These sites have been around for some years, and if Google has detected anything yet it is not reflected in the rankings. I did look at reporting my suspicions, but Google seems only interested in receiving reports of paid links, I couldn't find anywhere to flag this up.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Google may very well have simply discounted such links, for which there is no externally observable evidence.
And, Google is not interested solely in paid links, but in any and all link manipulation.

[ozsubasi]

It all seems rather vague to me - not your answers, but the registration system. If anyone can use any name, and say they are a non trading individual when they are actually a company, what is the point of it all?
If Google is interested in all link manipulation, where is the reporting mechanism? I can see where to report a site for having paid links, but nothing for anything else related to links.
Of course I do not have access to all the sites link information, but OSE only reports 8 linking domains, and the second site is one of those 8 (there are also links from a sub-domain of that site). Yes Google may have discounted them, but then it doesn't apparently leave much else.

[jhannawin]

Registration on many TLDs is very vague. It is mainly done on a first come first served basis and anything is OK provided that it doesn't breach any other law (IP, trademark etc.) Unlike security certs and trust relationships where proof is sought and verification made, the domain registration process is like the wild west. If you looked I suspect you might find that Mr. D. Duck has registered quite a few domains

Because of this, I find it difficult to believe that Google would use whois data in determining SERPs.

[ozsubasi]

I don't think that they would use it for SERPs either, at least not directly. But if links are apparently coming from a highly relevant independent site, wouldn't they have more value than those coming from a site that is owned by the same company offering virtually the same products? In which case that could affect SERP?

[deepsand]

The term "non trading" has no legal definition; and, appears to be unique to the UK with respect to DN registrations.

As for WHOIS data being used vis-a-vis SERPs, such data can affect SERP rank if said data reveals link manipulation, with the result that such links are discounted, which will perforce reduce the PageRank of the target pages(s), and possibly the outright banishment of the target Domain for the SERPs.

[ozsubasi]

The term "non trading" has no legal definition; and, appears to be unique to the UK with respect to DN registrations.

Thank you for that information, I didn't know that.

As for WHOIS data being used vis-a-vis SERPs, such data can affect SERP rank if said data reveals link manipulation, with the result that such links are discounted, which will perforce reduce the PageRank of the target pages(s), and possibly the outright banishment of the target Domain for the SERPs.

Any ideas then please on how to report it to Google?