| 7:50 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The Yahoo directory uses this kind of linking format and their links do show up as backlinks. A reasonable inference would be that these links pass PR as well.
| 8:16 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thank you JoMaxx. That's a very good argument that goes against what I thought I had been reading elsewhere in WebmasterWorld. Anybody else care to weigh in?
| 8:22 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can confirm that links as described can contribute PR.
I have some new inbound links, all like that, bringing one of my sites up recently.
But I said "can" contribute. I don't know about other factors like PR of linking site - in my case they are PR 7 and 6.
<added>... keywords in anchor text is very important</added>
| 8:37 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What about this format?
Is PR passed on?
| 9:32 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Also relevant to this discussion is that the link I described brings up my site framed in their site. Does this interfere with the PR transfer?
ciml, would you mind responding too? :)
| 10:12 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This framing also happens in the case of the link I posted above.
| 10:20 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google finds. [Google spiders dynamic sites]
Google smells link roast. [Google follows my?whatever links]
Google follows link. [Why be picky?]
Google sees redirect, e.g. 302. [As it should be done]
Google follows redirect. [Google follows 302 redirects between static URLs on my site]
Google gets to target site. [As we know it does]
Google passes PR. [Google passes PR through 302]
Hence Google works out www.theirdomain.org is linked to [mysite.com,...] and results in PR.
It doesn't matter what the parameters after? are... (so long as it's no more than absolute max 3)... it could be an internal index of domains.
And thus it is prooven and the matter is laid to rest. There is no reason whatsoever that Google WOULDN'T follow properly done redirects, dynamic, or static, and not pass on PR.
This proof was brought to you by vincevincevince.
| 10:29 pm on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for that.
| 12:20 am on Apr 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|