+1 My experience and belief is outbound links will suck away PR, I also lost PR in this last update from what i believe was from outbound links.
But you can't really measure or proof how much inbound PR juice have you lost at the same time can you ? BTW, I have seen pages with 200 outbound links on them , they still remain PR8 or even PR9.
Pages do not bleed PageRank or lose it for outbound links. You lost PageRank because your links were crap and lost their score in the search engine. Go remove all your outbound links and watch what happens to your PageRank Answer - Nothing!!!!!!!! .. .
No I can't it is just a speculation from the elements I can see. Anyone that claims measure or proof of the PR algorithm beside Matt Cutts is probably full of shit, How do you know my my links are crap ? You don't.. you don't even know what they are. just like you don't know the PR algorithm. !!!!!!!! lol
I know your links were crap by what you wrote, and knowing the PR algorithm..... Doesn't take any more than that and your childish reply to know I was right.
Just a lot of uneducated speculations like you are throwing around in this thread. No use trying to make a a decent discussion out of that.
Must have done your research and determined you did not want to call my SEO skills into this because then you would really look uneducated. You should spend more time learning about PageRank, Spend much less time in forums spreading misinformation, and spend even less time trying to battle someone who knows it, better than you ever will.... Peace we're done here!! .
Probably wrong of me to tell someone to go learn without a source..... http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf There is where you can learn about PageRank from the creators....instead of trying to continue to "guess" or make posts without merit.....
Another PR "expert" I won't waste my time on this,I have websites to make have fun spending your days paying with a green bar. lol
Of course you won't / don't have time to learn what you think you know..... You go make websites..... The only green I play with is the dead presidents type....that's what I make!!! $$$$$
I posted my speculation.. you came up with your speculations and you obviously will defend them and fight about them until the end of the year. Probably part of your "forum advertising" methods. I don't have time for a drawn out debate.. I have work to do. Just because your speculations have a couple links and all day to spend on DP doesn't make them solid. I have my speculations you have yours. I don't have the time or interest to argue about mine i have work to do and hanging out on DP trying to hustle money on DP wont pay my rent.
My blog is promoted to PR 1 I was expecting PR 2 but can manage PR1 only check this page for more info about this November 2011 Page Rank Update
Pagerank is far more elaborate now. Some links or pages can be discounted and fail to pass pagerank, or pass it at a discounted rate. It can be a little easier to understand when you are dealing with high pagerank pages, as there power is more easily seen.
My 6 years old directory got penalized 4 years ago (PR0, subdomain), today i checked it and has PR4, welcome back on PR bar to one of the top 5 oldest directories on the web!
One of the top 5 oldest directories on the web is only 6 years old? You got me curious. According to a few minutes of research of web history articles, wikipedia and whois... The Virtual Web Directory - 1991 (one article listed this as 'first web directory') EINet Galaxy web directory - 1994 (think this one is gone) Yahoo! Directory - 1994 Starting Point - 1995 Librarian's Internet Index - 1995 Best of the Web - 1996 BUBL LINK Catalogue of Internet Resources - 1996 (no longer updated as of April 2011) DMOZ - 1998 JoAnt - 2001 A few niche ones... Internet Scout Report - 1994 (article identified as oldest academic directory) Business.com - 1998 Boating Links - 1997/1998 Craft Site Directory - 2000
Top, Best, Old, Quality etc., - These words are just used in a loose fashion without any proof. I see this as a TV advertisements that says "Best tooth paste in the world". Who determines it to be best? May be the owner. Simply old school marketing tactics and nothing else.
It might be considered "old school" but it still is fraud. Good copywriters know how to use top, best, oldest etc without stepping over the line into untruths.