You're not looking at the big picture correctly. Even if you are competing in a competitive field quantity still means nothing as quantity is not judged. It is the quality of the links that still matters. In the cases of competitive fields you just need more quality links. Simply getting more links for the sake of having a higher link count means nothing. If you do link searches you will routinely find that the sites with the most links rarely rank the highest.

Not true. PR is very much a factor. It's just that it is one factor of many. You shouldn't confuse the fact that it doesn't make a big difference with no difference at all.

Completely untrue. Matt Cutts even just confirmed that PR has a huge influence on supplemental results particularly if the pages linking to your pages have low PR. That directly contradicts your statement.

PR is as relevant to Google today as it was 8 years ago. Webmasters think because it isn't as obvious to them as the affect anchor text can have on their rankings that it just has no value. A very bad mistake to make. If you understand the point of PageRank you understand the goal of Google.

PR is just one of many factors. No one factor stands out as the most important although we can all agree on what an ideal link is:

1) It's from an on-topic page
2) Its anchor text contains keywords you wish to rank well for
3) The page it is on ranks well for the terms you want to rank well for
4) The page linking to you has high PR

Now we all know getting links that meet this criteria isn't easy and that we frequently have to accept links that may not meet all of them. But we take what we can get and keep trying to attract those higher quality links (which are usually given only when you are worthy of receiving them. This usually requires publishing high quality unique content).

You should be aware of the PR of the page you are seeking links from but not making decisions based upon it. To ignore PR is a mistake with Google.

Reciprocal links have clearly been devalued by Google especially if they are off topic or with crappy sites (as confirmed by Matt Cutts). Your goal should be to acquire as many one way links a possible. Reciprocal links should be reserved only for sites in the same genre who aren't spammy. In those cases you are hoping more for traffic than from any real SEO value from the links.

I certainly didn't come here to prove anyone wrong or right, but I know what works and what doesn't. I am here solely for the benefit of anyone who cares to listen and try what I know works, while wearing a hat without even a stitch of black thread. Quantity counts a great deal provided that the links are done correctly and you have halfway decent optimizing on your page. I can easily prove this statement to you, although it would have to be by PM or email because of the forum rules. (and mine) I'll be happy to show you. On the other hand, can you prove that quantity is "not" a factor?
Seeing how many links a high ranking competitor's page has pointing to it is a part of good SEO. Most high ranking "competive " terms are on sites that have "lots" of IBLs. I see it every day... intermittently, all day long.

You'll notice that I said "little" and "much" to do with, not "nothing" to do with. "If any" I probably shouldn't have said, particularly after viewing Matt's latest post. If Matt Cutt's posts are "gospel" then there's probably something to it, but having a high PR is certainly not "very much a factor" that you will rank higher. But if PR will help keep you out of the SI, then that's great.
I would venture that an ongoing agressive link building campaign should get your site a decent PR, thereby reducing the worry that you are going to end up in the SI. Webmasters should be doing that anyway. But obsessing about gaining an ever higher PR is not very productive IMO.

As far as I know, other than his last posts, Matt Cutts has not mentioned PR lately in terms of it's relevance to anything. If it's true that PR will help keep you out of the SI, then that does makes sense. It has to do with Googles "Trust Factor", but PR still does not guarantee you great rankings. Those days are gone. I'll have to admit that I don't pay a lot of attention to the SI, as I have had no problems with it. I probably should, however, pay more attention to the workings of the SI. Just because it would be Good SEO, but I see no contradiction with what Matt said to what I said. Those are two seperate situations.

What Matt Cutts said was "this":
Again, I was not talking about the supplemental index. It is true IMO that you need to have "some" good links pointed to your site to even appear in the SERPS. It used to be in the past that if you could beg, borrow, rent or buy a PR7 or PR8 link, that you could outrank most competitors. That is no longer true because of reasons I mentioned earlier. Again I'm not against trading links with good PR sites to improve your PR, but as I said I don't think that it carries anywhere near as much weight as it used to in terms of ranking highly. Still, I believe that you should work dilegently to get both recips and one way links, although as I said I would prefer more one ways.

As for your denial that the quantity of correctly done links has any relevance to rankings: I have several pretty competive terms that rank high on the first page of Google out of almost fifty million returns. That page has been showing a PR1. How is that possible? Again, I can prove that anchor text links in moderate quantity has great value. Can you prove that it doesn't?

I can't agree that "no one factor stands out", but your list contains good advice.

You bet, and those links will actually do you more good if your keyword phrase is the anchor text.

As do I. I never mentioned so much as a black or gray hat technique. Not in this thread. Not in this forum. Not anywhere.

You've missed the point. It's not the quantity that makes the difference. It's the quality of the links. If you've targeted your links, and you've indicated that you do, then obviously they will be effective. And the more you have the more of those quality links you have the more successful you will be. But it's not the number of links that does it. It's the quality of the links that does it.

Here's an easy scenario to work with. I used big numbers to emphasize the point (and this is still true even with such large numbers). Someone throws a link in the footer of their website. It has 100,000 pages. That site receiving that link (Site A) now has 100,000 backlinks. Now let's say the site giving the link is about dancing. Let's say the site receiving the link is about football.

Site B has 10 links from 10 different sites. Their site is about football. The 10 sites linking to them rank #1 - #10 for the search term 'football'.

Assuming Site A and Site B are identical in every other way, who will rank higher for the search term 'football'? Site A or Site B? Site B will. Why? Because their inbound links are from similar sites that are considered to be extremely relevant for the search term 'football'. It's also from ten different sources and isn't a site wide footer link from an off-topic site. In this case 10 links beats 100,000 links. Because quantity doesn't matter. Quality does.

(Also quantity is easy to manipulate. Quality is not).

It's easy to prove quantity is not a factor. Why does PageRank exist? It quantifies link popularity. Quantity indicates nothing. Everything is already quantified by PageRank. There's no need for an arbitrary bonus.

That's like saying just because a car is red it must go fast. Naturally a website that ranks highly is going to have a lot of links. It most likely is going to be seen as a quality source of whatever it covers and will naturally receive links. But it didn't get to be number one because of the quantity of links. It is the quality of the links they have. (Naturally many smaller related sites will link to them as a good source for information). And, like I said before, if you really analyze search results 9 out of 10 times at least one site in the top ten will have more links then the first results. Usually more then one do.

You're right. It's not. That's why I never implied it. The webmasters who chase PR like a pot of gold are actually chasing their own tail. They're the ones who we see wondering why their sites never rank well despite all of their "hard work". They've missed the point which is a shame.

That's what people who don't understand PR say. Those days never left. Please read that link I made. Hopefully it clarifies PR for you.

You just proved my point. You speak of having a good number quality links right there. That's the key. Without the anchor text the quantity means nothing. (Actually ideally those links are from related sites. Otherwise their weight drops off significantly despite the anchor text).

BTW, kudos to you for making the extended reply.

Sorry for the delay in responding to your last post stymiee. I've spent the last week experiencing a nasty version of this years "flu" bug.

I read Chris Beasley's article over a few times. He certainly is enamoured with the concept of Page Rank. Most of what he says is true enough. I do have issue with some of the certainties he puts forth, but that's just my interpetation. There are a lot of gray areas that come into play. I believe that one of our points of non-agreement simply lies with the semantics. I was referring to the google tool bar, which is not really a pin point accurate representation of you're "actual" PR, while it seems that you are referring to the whole concept of how Google works. A point we both agree on is that it's really not a good thing to obsess over the tool bar. What "is" productive is to work within the framework we have to get the best results that you can in terms of rankings. Now for the point that we apparently do not agree on.

First let me state what it is that determines a "quality" backlink. From my point of view that would be a link coming from a page that is relevant to the topic of the page the link will be pointing to. In addition, there would be no script or "nofollow" tag that would prevent the link from being spidered. You will get more weighting from a link coming from a page that's about the same subject as your page. In other words a link coming from a page about dog training is not going to carry as much weight as if it came from a page about building a snowman, if your page was about building snowmen. If, however, the anchor text was "building a snowman, it "will" still give you credit, though not as much. That is the type of link that I don't go looking for. If someone gives me one from an off theme site because they like my site, that's fine.

The thing about directories is that, provided the directory is set up correctly by category, you can be assured that the information on that page is related to the theme of your site. Hence the link fills the "quality" part on that point. If the page the link is from has a PR of 4, 5 or 6, obviously the link is going to carry transfer more PR to your page. Another thing that I watch for when exchanging links, is how many links are there on the page linking to me. In doing a trade, if there's more than 40 or 50 I usually pass. The PR becomes too diluted. If it's a one way link from a directory I'm not as concerned. In short I use exchanges to build the PR of my page and directories to achieve the numbers of links pointed to my site that have the correct anchor text. This brings us to your statement:
Semantics again. I can't comment on the numbers you put forth in your example as I have never tested for those kinds of numbers, but I can tell you that I have seen many sites using college online newspapers where every day the pages march off into the archives, which are still spidered. I assume that they "are" using a mix of anchor text because those sites usually show high in the SERPS for an assortment of phrases. I don't agree with that type of practice and I find it irritating. The downside to that practice for the average bear is that it's VERY espensive, and I also believe that it will be one of the practices that Google and the other search engines will put a stop to sooner or later. I never said that just sheer quantity of links all with the same link text in someone's footer was a good thing to do. It's not. What I will say that a hundred links from a hundred quality directories all with the same link text, is going to make a noticable diference in your rankings. It's as simple as that. If you do this type of link building I would stronly suggest that you vary the anchor text for links pointing to a particular page. For instance: 100 of one, 100 of another and 100 of yet another anchor text. So I guess that what I mean to say is that quantity "is" very much a factor, provided that the links are "quality" and the anchor text is used correctly. Most directories will show PR0 for the page that your link is on, but I have found that it makes little diference. Besides, as SEO Cat says, a PR0 may someday be a PR 5. Now it may or may not be true that one way links from a higher PR site will move you up in the rankings farther, but one way links from a high PR site are few and far between. I need to focus on what's realistic and relevant to what I need to accomplish for my clients. 20 directory links done correctly will move you up in the rankings. 20 more will move you up a little farther. 50 more will move you up noticably. This information does not come from someones article, but from years of actual experience. I have tested this many times. So given all else being equal this shows that quantity "does" count a lot. I also notice that I get traffic from the directories that I am in. Naturally I see that as important also. Most of the folks who frequent this forum are interested in how to improve their positions in the search engines, particularly Google. All I am talking about here is a way for the average webmaster to realistically achieve that end. Also when I said "moderate quantity", I was referring to the fact that even including niche directories, you will probably only find 1500 or so to submit to. But those 1500 can make a big diference. Of course it takes time to sit there and submit to directories, but "no pain no gain" as they say. Lastly a point about sheer numbers of targeted link text links. Do a search in Google for "failure" or "miserable failure". The results that you see are accomplished with nothing but sheer volume of targeted links. Hmmmm.... Would those be considered "democratic" links? :mrgreen:

And what about outcoming links?
I've a website that have about 20 outcoming links per page!
And in these days my PR goes down from 6 to 5 :-(
Could be for this reason?

If by "outcoming links" you mean links from your site to other sites, then IMO no. the only thing that has any effect on the PR of your pages is the PR of the pages linking to your site. Also if you have a link pointed towards your site, and the page that holds that link has 100 links on it, then substansially less PR will be passed to your page than if the link to your site was on a page that had only 30 links. So, if the person who linked to you from a PR5 page added many more links to his page over the months, your PR could possibly go down, as not as much PR would be passed to your page. It's also possible that your "actual" PR (not the one shown by the little green bar) was just barely enough to show a PR6, and some links fell off or were diluted by someone adding many more links to a page that linked to you, so that now you don't have quite enough to show a PR6. Get some more good inbound links and it will probably go back up on the next update. This article might help explain. http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html