Forum Moderators: open
Depending on how I categorize myself, I can be on either. Any educated wild guesses?
as with every link, the one who drives more traffic to your site ;).
if it's a crowded site with pr8, then this must be a real strong site, so it's very good to be listed there. anyway pr7 isn't a bad start, too.
The one which crowds you with most visitors ;) <<added: too late again>>
Can you do any educated wild guess if the PR8 is a low or high PR8 (same for the PR7). Chris's tables might help if the pages are DMOZ listed [searchnerd.com]
I assume the pages are on the same site. Looking at the internal and back-linking structure you might be able to establish the above.
Depending on who you want to believe, a mid PR 8 might be 5-10 times better than a mid PR7, dilute that with the number of links..
vitaplease, do you mean that the number of links per page count? (of the linking page)
do you mean that the number of links per page count? (of the linking page)
They certainly do, and I assume that was the point of jcoronella's original question. The PageRank that each page can distribute through its outgoing links is divided among those links. For PageRank purposes, therefore, if two pages have an identical PR but a different number of outgoing links, a link from the one that has fewer links would be better than a link from the one with more. The question here is complicated by the fact that the two pages have different PageRanks, so what jcoronella is getting at is at which point the higher number of links outweighs the higher PR.
As the other answers point out, which link is "better" isn't determined simply by determining which would contribute most to the PageRank of the page linked to, but that's apparently the context of the question: which would be better for PageRank-building purposes.
Also I would prefer a page with 99 or less links over a page with 101 links or more; as the PR reduction is much more striking than expected for pages with more than some number of links. I know that the threshold is between 50 and 300; Google suggest 100 so that seems like a good number to work with.
The above comments refer to PageRank, not search ranking which is more complex.
ciml, I saw you mention this with great certainty a few days ago as well. What's your basis for saying this effect exists and that the cutoff is in the 50-300 range? Did someone from Google acknowledge this?
So, having link exchange is solely for a better search engine ranking, more targeted visitors from search engine. So I really don't mind even the page send me 0 visitors.
Forget about a link page with PR8, I never encounter one before so far. PR6 are also rarely seen. (even DMOZ directory for my site is only PR6). For a link page, most are PR5/4 or even lower. So I think we should concentrate our discussion on a page with PR5/4.
So, a PR5 page with 50-100 external links, how is the weight? Worth it?
James, As far as I can tell you can treat the 'PR5 page with nn links and PR4 page with mm links' question just as you would the 'PR8 page with nn links and PR7 page with mm links' question (this is as you'd expect with a log scale, and I don't see deviations).
I have one site that gets over one hundred unique visitors a day from being listed high up in a site's "links" page. This is true for more than one site.
I'm sure this isn't the case for most people but I still think you can get good traffic from links pages if you choose the right site.
(for jamesyap replace PR8/7 with a PR5/4 ;)
If the base is 6 (which I vaguely remember reading somewhere here) then you would need 6 times as many links on the higher PR site to bring its effect down to the lower PR site. ( that is having 1 of 100 links on the PR8 page would affect my PR the same as having 1 of 16 links on the PR 8)
Back to my origional post the PR8 page has 100 and the PR7 has 20, the PR 8 page would be the better choice if the base is anywhere greater than 5 (which vitaplese's post implies).
IF I can find a PR 7 page with fewer than 10 links, it would be better than the PR 8 (unless the base is > 10).
It is complicated by the possibility that it is a PR8.01 and a PR7.99. Or it could be an 8.99 and a 7.01.
As gmoney pointed out here a while ago, the log scale works with the normalisation constant, so you can pick an arbitrary Toolbar scale log base and adjust the normalisation to fit.
OK, so I'm being pedantic and we all know what you mean:). Yes, you've got how it works, the question is what is the value? I guess the jury's out; vitaplease (and others) say six, one member recently suggested that it is lower than that, and I arrive at a figure higher than 20.
As BigDave points out, the difference between a high PRn and a low PRn is significant (usuallly moreso than how many links are on the page IMO). It's one thing to come up with accurate figures from highly restricted circumstances, it's another to apply those lessons to two pages in the ODP or wherever (where probably you can't work out the PR of the pages to anything better than half a notch on the Toolbar scale).
jamesyap, sometimes I hate mathematics too. It took me four months to get my experiment to high enough resolution, and another four months to work out what the numbers meant.
Different pages have different dilution factors or link ignoration inclusions, leading to all these varied log basis' being quoted here and there.
All intentionally orchestrated by Google to add to the general confusion.
(as much as the orginal Pagerank documents helped Google in their start-up, IMO they would pay good money now to have them removed from everywhere).
