That's not true. PR has nothing to do with traffic. It has to do with link popularity and only link popularity. Most .edu and .gov pages do not have high PR. And the ones that do have high PR because they have great content and thus have a lot of links pointing to them.

Not quite accurate. Link popularity does influence PR; however, it certainly isn't the only or greatest influence on Google PageRank (PR).

My experience tells me that all incoming links are good for PR and SERP (all search engines) ranking. However, some icoming links are better than others.

Did you read that link I posted? Obviously you didn't. PR is only about link popularity. That's it. It is a published formula so you cannot argue or speculate about how it works. There is no debating it.


No duh some links are better then others. That is built right into the PR formula and is a cornerstone of how PR works. But you are wrong that all incoming links are good for PR. Some intentionally block PR from being transfered (either by using nofollow or blind redirects) and Google blocks others themselves internally for trying to manipulate the SERPs (usually by selling links for PR). In those cases the links will not transfer any PR.

Yes, I read your post. I'm familiar with the formulas from Brinn and Page and their white papers on the matter. Superficially, PR is only about link popularity, but, more importantly, and this is what 99.9% of self-appointed experts don't get, it's about page count and linking, internally and externally.

"No duh"? If this is "no duh," then why do you waste time discussing it? You point out examples of bad links, such as those with nofollow. These are exceptions that I would call "no duh." Of course a link with nofollow will not be followed. I don't think that talking about these obvious exceptions merit much discussion. What merits discussion, I think, are search engine algorithms, theories, their practical applications and their baring on the work of webmasters and marketers. Right?

Incidentally, that "published formula" is not a formula used by Google and it sure isn't a complete formula that ever was implemented. I think that most people who follow this stuff realize that Google has moved a long way from its idealistic and democratic-type formula developed at Stanford. Todays Google is a monster trying to dictate and monopolize the rules of the Internet. It's a big business that lost its altruistic nature back at the IPO.

You're mixing PR with page ranking which are two different things. They are very separate and distinct issues. How pages are ranked is constantly changing (actually it isn't, how they ween out spam is actually what is changing) but PR is exactly as it always has been. The only thing that may have changed in the PR formula that we see is the dampening factor for external links. But otherwise that formula is unchanged. It looks complex but it's so simple there isn't much to change anyway.

It seems to me that you took issue with the practical meaning of PageRank and how to achieve this for a Web page. You said something to the effect of it's all about number of back links.

I said that it is to a point, but that it is actually, or more acurately, about page count and distribution of PR. If a webmaster goes forth in the world and accumulates millions of readable links, then yes, all things else being ok, that page will gain considerable page rank. But, that is only part of the story.

I think that very few people inside or outside of Google know the formulas that they use, but I would not hesitate to say that dampening is part of that formula and that there is much more to it than what you're asserting.

"These are very separate and distinct issues."

To a point. They are very related issues when dealing with Google search engines. Simply, where all things else are equal, the page with the higher PR will have a higher SERP rank.

2. There are two reputable sites that offer link exchange services. I recommend both of them. They are: linkalizer[dot]com and linkexchange[dot]com.

Regarding buying links, I strongly advise against doing this, because Google considers this unfair and may consequently penalize your site, and it is just not necessary.