It's worth it to have any links whatsoever. If you're paying for it, well, that would obviously change the value of how much you should pay. But don't overlook any possible links. Even if they are PR0, it may be because they are new and on the march. Those sites might have good PR soon.
Yes, there is value in lower-PR links. It just takes more of them to give you the same PR boost.
Remember that "little" links can support you in other ways than just PR: traffic, anchor text, theming support, better variety in your backlinks etc.
Yes, I would still take links from pages PR4 and below. PR should not be the "end all" of your decision to either request a link from a site or exchange a link with them. Use your own "quality" measures when reviewing a site and make a decision based on value and not the green bar ;).
Will accept links from any page that is indexed.
Anchor is the key.
>Yes, there is value in lower-PR links. It just takes more of them to give you the same PR boost.
>Remember that "little" links can support you in other ways than just PR: traffic, anchor text,
>theming support, better variety in your backlinks etc.
Absolutely. Anchor text is vital in Google. PR isn't as big a factor in ranking as it used to be.
As long as the site is on topic, and unless it fails my other various criteria for not linking, I will link with any site regardless of PR or lack thereof.
I do not link to PR0 websites unless they are very new and well designed. I check to see if they are new by looking at Alexa's Way Back Machine. If they are 1 or 2 years old and still have a PR0, then they have been shunned by Google. Google will penalize you for linking to them.
It's of my opinion that there is no such thing as a bad back link, there are simply backlinks, good backlinks, better backlinks and best backlinks.
As for the PR thing, if the site is on topic then a link from it has value, and if it is a PR0 it doesn't matter because it won't be PR0 for long if it's a decent site and gets a few back links of its own.
Besides, a link from a PR3 page with only a few outgoing links is going to be worth a lot more than a link from a PR5 or PR6 page that has a ton a ogl's on it... and again, if it's right on topic then all the better!
Happy Linking... Stretch Dog ;-))~~~~~~~~~~~~
Worth it if you can get your anchor in there. There's still anchor text value in the link if it at least has a white bar.
Get creative, arrange three or more links from them to your other sites in exchange for your one link.
That site that has low PR today may be a monster in a few months. WHy turn it down?
Besides, who knows what the PR is these days? You might be looking at a PR 8 and thinking it's a PR 2 given the lack of PR updates.
"Worth it if you can get your anchor in there. There's still anchor text value in the link if it at least has a white bar.
Get creative, arrange three or more links from them to your other sites in exchange for your one link."
Exactly... appropriate anchor text is a given, always!
I find low, or no PR sites are easy to get good links from index or content pages with few outgoing links on them. I generally request two or three abstracts or summary's on different pages, c/w optimized contextual links, back to related information pages... and provide them with a decent link in return. I'll provide them with a PR hit till the next update (that is when we used to get them... lol) and then move the link to a directory style page containing more outgoing links.
Ditto of WBFs argument (PR shown in toolbar is not accurate)
Additionally, a site which harvests links NATURALLY is not going to harvest only those links that are PR 4+. The webmasters who link to such a site are going to run the gambit and likly there are going to be a plethora of links from the bottom of the PR barrel and a handful from the top.
By inverting this pattern you set your site up to be culled the next Florida type event, with each link you get it becomes increasingly blatently obvious that your site is atypical in its linking patterns, and google seems to eventually handly atypical patterns with the suspicion they merit.
A PR4 or less is ok. Remember Google has not updated PR over the previous six months. Aside from PR not being an important factor for SEO, it's also outdated.
Are you looking for link pop, or traffic? That could make a difference depending on the site and page the link is on.
I think if you are looking for traffic, PR is fairly irrelevant, if the page performs is more important.
I will take 100 links from 100 PR 1 pages (different sites) over a single PR 7 page link any day of the week.
The PR 7 page is not likely to go up to a PR 8, and the odds of 100 sites increasing in PR is pretty high, in most cases (assuming that they are the type of quality sites that you should be looking for when you select link partners).
Anyhow, it is always prudent to draw your links from as wide a base as possible, in my opinion, and pinning all your hopes on a single PR X link is futile.
"Remember that "little" links can support you in other ways than just PR: traffic, anchor text, theming support, better variety in your backlinks etc."
This is the whole point, avoid penalization by using a variety of linking strategies... no identifiable linking patterns for the algo's to recognize.
Most links can count towards PR, anchor text and traffic. It all adds up :)
PatrickDeese - Good point!
We just started linking if google cached the page recently. I know from having penalised domains that G does not cache penalised domains. PR is nearly dead. I would say you get the value of anchor and also ( as someone previously said) that in the future these sites will have pr anyway if they are actively seeking links.