Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
What has more power for PR:
A. 100 sites with one link each to my site.
B. 1 site with 100 links to my site.
There may be some small advantage - perhaps a chance of benefitting on a wider variety of key words ... but I believe in general that the benefit wil be likely to be the 'best link from the best page'
Not, by the wildest stretch of imagination "100 links = 100 x one link"
But I've heard widely varying views on this ...
[edited by: Quadrille at 10:30 am (utc) on Feb. 18, 2007]
However, I would add that "having tons of links from a single site" sounds spammy.. In what real world situation does this occur and why does it benefit the end user or better the web? I don't see how "tons of links from a single site" could benefit the web so I would avoid it unless you can explain why this scenario would benefit your end users.
Instead of focucing on PR, focus your energies on obtaining relevant links from a multitude of sites. Thats not my opinion - that's what the search engines state in their own published guidelines.
Forget about pagerank. Ignore it complete when making linking decisions. If a quality site (highly relevant to your own) with low PR is willing to give you a link, first check to make sure that site is in G's index (not penalized), and then GET THE LINK.
joined:Dec 9, 2001
Having 1 link from each of 100 sites would be harder to get, but far more stable.
I tried the same thing from another site that I control, but it not related to me in any other way (different IP, different whois), and I have not seen any benefit from this at all.
IMHO, there is no question - one hundred links from one hundred sites is one hundred times better than one hundred links from one site. Given of course, that the relevance and pagerank of each of the linking sites is the same in each case.