If we take the original PR formula as evidence -- and that's the best evidence we can get -- I believe it absolutely will not. Warkot
No, it absolutely will not leak any PR. The PageRank value will indeed be shared between all the links, so each of the links will get a certain share, so if you have a link on some webpage, it's best for you when there's as few outbounds on the page as possible. BUT, it will not affect the PR of the original site. No way. There's a fundamental difference. Warkot
It does have an effect. SEs look at who you link to, and use it as a means to determine the theme of your own site. But, PR is not affected. Warkot
Exactly. If outbound links had any negative effect, what would become of DMOZ and Wikipedia?! they would not rank too well, would they, but we see the exact opposite. Warkot
outbound links do affect PR - indirectly, by giving the sites you link to a lot of pr. Since PR is a relative thing - giving it to other sites, means you get relatively less. I don't see a reason why a serious site should have 100 something links to competitors on every page. That's just asking for trouble, IMO. An old domain, with good inbound links (like that ski france site) may be able to risk it - but for most sites it cannot be a good idea. As for Wikipedia: 1) most pages don't have more than 10 links (though there are exceptions) 2) Wikipedia gets massive inbound links, more than a normal site can ever hope to have 3) Wikipedia has people policing it's pages to make sure the links are relevant to that specific page. The outbound links on wikipedia are very much NOT sitewide.
And how should one build inbound links without having an outbound link. Now you may say buying links which may seem reasonable. But someone like me who is stingy with my money. I'm willing to take risks. Good day!
Can I ask what is the rationale of you saying a site with lots of outbonds "leaks PR"? According to the original PR formula, it doesn't work this way. But obviously you didn't do your homework. Do a Google search on "Adaptive computation of ranking", find the Google patent, read the PR formula, and please pinpoint the exact place to backup your claim that sites "leak PR" through outbounds. You won't find it. A site can have as many outbounds as the owner wants, you just need inbounds also, so that it doesn't become a link farm. Warkot
Good content. Or simple link-pages. Even in link-swapping there don't have to be sitewide links. A few quality links can go a long way. You are clearly willing to take too much risk. Every simulation of pr calculations I've seen shows that too many outbound links affects the pr of the page itself. Not because there is a direct pr loss (or leak), but because of an indirect pr-loss.
Warkot, Are you actually interested in the answer or do you just want to talk over people to sound smart? If you want the actual answer, it's real easy to test. Set up a Google Sitemaps account. It will tell you the highest PR of any page on your website. Then link to certain pages using 1 link and 150 links. You'll see the difference. Google themselves recommend no more that 99 pages on a SITEMAP, let alone on EVERY page of your website. No one builds sites like that.
I'm not trying to sound smart, I'm just a bit fed up with the old myth of outbound links leaking PR, of which there's no evidence -- as I'm sure you know if you're familiar with how the PageRank formula works. I know all that. My point was not to advocate 10,000 outbounds on every page of the site. Someone above mentioned that outbound links somehow leak PR, so if you have lots of outbounds, you'll drain your PR. This is absolute nonsense. But once again, this is not to say that you should put a million outbounds on every page. This is not easy on the eyes of the visitors, and if you don't have enough inbounds, this looks like a link farm. BUT, the site's PR is NOT affected by its outbounds, only by its INBOUNDS. That was my point. Hope I managed to get my message across. Warkot