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. The type of domain extension (.gov, .org, .com) of the page linking to your site has no baring on anything.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 fomula 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.

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 thatmay 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.

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.

No, I do not confuse PR with SERP ranking.

OK. The formula may be simple. Was this a point of contention?

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.

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.

Actually I never said it was about number of links. It's aboutquality of links. Number and relevance of links are not a factor in calculating PR.

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.

Page count is not a factor in PR because PR is calculated on a per page basis. Distribution of PR is what the formula is all about. Every page starts with the same amount of PR. Then through inbound and outbound links PR is "distributed" to other pages. 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. Unfortunately this just isn't true. You're making something up where nothing exists. The PageRank formula is published and acknowledged by Google. It is out there for the world to see. We may not know Google's algorithm for ranking pages but we do know how PR is calculated and there is no harm in that. Unlike their page ranking algorithm, knowing how PR is calculated doesn't really benefit anyone so having it be public is harmless."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.
They are separate issues. When you are talking about PR in a ranking sense then you are using it in a different context then when you are talking how how PR works. When talking about ranking it i s just one of many factors. And all things are never equal so the PR tie breaker never comes into place. Of course, you can also say that about any factor affecting rankings.

Hello, i have tried everyhting, cept buying links? Is there anyway to tell what is a good price to pay for a good backlink?

I would think the higher the pr or better the site, the more expensive. But i have come across many sites that are basically directories and they wanna charge $50 for a link!

Is that normal? How do you guys decide when you buying links where you are going to buy and how much your going to pay?

Is it just a matter of opinion? I dont know what else I can do to get mt site better ranking...

Our site has been up for about 4 months and nothing....

Thanks!!

Hi, Melissa.

Buing backlinks is not necessary. To answer your question completely, I would have to know more about your website. But, I can offer this with certainty:
1. Be sure that the anchors of your backlinks match your key term or word for your page. In other words, if you sell oranges, and this is your key word, then be sure that the anchor, or title, of your backlinks is "orange" or at least contains that key term.
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.
3. Building up many good back links and a good reputation takes some time and ranking a new website takes some time, also. Just like a new business in real life, to succeed usually takes persistence and hard work. There are no short cuts.
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.

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.

Reciprocal links are bad for SEO and should be avoided. They are a clear attempt to manipulate the search results which is a big no-no. That's why Google specifically outs them in their webmaster guidelines. Additionally, by exchanging links you risk being considered part of a link farm which is another way to find yourself banned from the search engines.

Even without those two problems, reciprocal links have no SEO value. They negate each other or, even worse, you may be on the losing end of one and weaken your SE positioning. Link exchanges should be saved for websites in your niche that are well established and ahead of you in the rankings.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.
Actually that's a myth. Google will only ever punish sites thatsell links, not purchase them. If they punished sites that purchased them, or it seemed like they purchased them, then a competitor could purchase links on your behalf and get your site penalized.

Reciprocal links are bad for SEO and should be avoided. They are a clear attempt to manipulate the search results which is a big no-no. That's why Google specifically outs them in their webmaster guidelines. Additionally, by exchanging links you risk being considered part of a link farm which is another way to find yourself banned from the search engines. Even without those two problems, reciprocal links have no SEO value. They negate each other or, even worse, you may be on the losing end of one and weaken your SE positioning. Link exchanges should be saved for websites in your niche that are well established and ahead of you in the rankings. Actually that's a myth. Google will only ever punish sites that sell links, not purchase them. If they punished sites that purchased them, or it seemed like they purchased them, then a competitor could purchase links on your behalf and get your site penalized.

Is it "Stymiee" because you try to stymie a normal debate? Before this I was being polite, but you seem to have no idea about what Google is all about. First, Google promotes fair, democratic competition on the Web. This comes off as heavy handed sometimes in the application of their policies, but, nevertheless, this is what their after. What this means is that they would consider a company having deep pockets buying text links to be unfair practice. They want to be certain that an advertisement is recognized by both themselves and others as an advertisement.

Exchanging links. Again, you are dead wrong. Google says,"When your site is ready:Have other relevant sites link to yours. ...
Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites ... "
Exchanging links, or, having other sites link to yours and yours to others, is a very natural and democratic process. It can't be easily manipulated and it generally can't be bought (which is totally unecessary anyway). Think of link exchange services as dating services. They're just an intermediary or liason. The good ones serve a very valuable service, including linkmarket and linkalizer.

But, again, where you are fundamentally wrong is that SERP with Google comes from PR and PR comes from page count. Believe this or not, but don't try to misguide someone who is new to web publishing and looking for straight answers.

"Additionally, by exchanging links you risk being considered part of a link farm which is another way to find yourself banned from the search engines.

Even without those two problems, reciprocal links have no SEO value. They negate each other or, even worse, you may be on the losing end of one and weaken your SE positioning."

Both of these statements are absolutely false!

Backlinks are incoming links.The links to your site.
Page rank depends upon Backlinks.
check the Backlinks for a site:
Link: www.answer.com
We can increase our backlinks for your site by following tips:
Directory Submission
Forums Submission
Blog commenting
Article marketing
Press Release
Link Exchange

Is it "Stymiee" because you try to stymie a normal debate? Before this I was being polite, but you seem to have no idea about what Google is all about. First, Google promotes fair, democratic competition on the Web. This comes off as heavy handed sometimes in the application of their policies, but, nevertheless, this is what their after. What this means is that they would consider a company having deep pockets buying text links to be unfair practice. They want to be certain that an advertisement is recognized by both themselves and others as an advertisement. Exchanging links. Again, you are dead wrong. Google says, "When your site is ready:

• Have other relevant sites link to yours. ...
• Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites ... "

Exchanging links, or, having other sites link to yours and yours to others, is a very natural and democratic process. It can't be easily manipulated and it generally can't be bought (which is totally unecessary anyway). Think of link exchange services as dating services. They're just an intermediary or liason. The good ones serve a very valuable service, including linkmarket and linkalizer. But, again, where you are fundamentally wrong is that SERP with Google comes from PR and PR comes from page count. Believe this or not, but don't try to misguide someone who is new to web publishing and looking for straight answers.

"Additionally, by exchanging links you risk being considered part of a link farm which is another way to find yourself banned from the search engines.

Even without those two problems, reciprocal links have no SEO value. They negate each other or, even worse, you may be on the losing end of one and weaken your SE positioning." Both of these statements are absolutely false!

You're clueless and that's ok. That's why I am here to help.

1) Seek links to your site. This meansget links to your site. Notice how it doesn't mention make links to other sites? Now why might this be? Let me explain for you and I'll try to use small words. Incoming links are good for a site when they are unilateral. That means one way In other words you don't link back. Links are votes (in Google's eyes) and if a site links to you in is a vote. When you link back to a site that links to you that is basically seen as vote swapping. It is a manipulation of the SERPs and it disregarded.

2) You need to learn about PR. Do you know how PR works? What happens when a page links to yours? The PR for that page increases. That's a good thing. But what happens when you link to a page on another site? You "send" PR to that page thus leaving less for your site. Most of the time this equals itself out meaning there is no gain for either site. But what happens if your page "sends out" more PR then it gets back? You hurt your site.

3) You need to know what a link farm is. Link farms are a one way ticket to getting banned. Everyone knows that. But a site cannot be considered part of a link farm unless it links to other sites in the link farm. When you exchange links you run the risk of being in a link farm because you are linking to sites that are interconnected in a way to manipulate the SERPs. That's a link farm.

4) You mention link exchange services. Ever hear of the DigitalPoint coop? It was a big link exchange network. What happened to it? Once Google was able to figure that out every website in it suffered in the SERPs. In other words they got screwed for exchanging links and being in a link farm. It's happened to other link exchange sites as well. That's why most link exchange sites go out of their way to try to hide how it all works from Google. Once Google is able to sort out their details their members' sites will feel Google's wrath.

5) Reiteration: link exchanges are a manipulation of the SERPs. You talk about fair and democratic. Well, then you clearly don't understand pagerank as it handles fair and democratic. It calculates the effects of incoming links and outgoing links and it is no surprise that incoming links have a positive effect on PR and outgoing links do not. That's why one way links are so important and reciprocal links are useless.

6) Your google information is outdated. Read their current guidelines and see they don't mention link exchanges anymore. It's old news that they don't like them anymore. Time to get caught up with the latest SEO news. http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769 . Make sure you read the section "Quality guidelines - basic principles", too.

Hopefully you are up to speed now on why link exchanges are bad for SEO.