I have heard many conflicting views of this. Some state that it doesn't make any difference; some say that it is definitely the PR attached to the page where your link actually shows, I just don't know. Enlighten me people, what is the best way to go? Any suggestions for top places to comment wouldn't go amiss either, cheeky I know but hey, you don't ask you don't get! thanks dan
Angela Edwards has waged a serious effort to get sites ranked better in the search engine results pages (SERP). Her premise is that when you place links on sites that are highly ranked, but the page your link is on isn't directly ranked that you can still get a lot of PR juice and rise in the SERP. She does her research and her results are impressive. She charges $5/month for a comprehensive packet that instructs you on where to go and what to do. http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-special-offers-forum/28007-get-onto-googles-first-page-first-packet-30-high-page-rank-backlinks-free.html I know this sounds like an ad for Angela, but I truly feel she is providing a great service. So, the answer to your question is: On-page rank is ideal, but site PR produces real results also.
The PR is given to the page you link to, then it spreads across the links from the page you actually link to.
If a site jumps from 0 Backlinks to 1000 PR6, it better keep gaining Page Rank 6, or google will penalize them... Careful.