Well, if I'm not mistaken, the original purpose of a nofollow was to prevent blog comments spamming. So a nofollow says, "Hey, this is a link I have no control over, so I can't vouch for it." Unfortunately, some dishonest people use nofollows in link exchange to simply not give link popularity credit to the other partner. So you put a link to me, I put a link to you, but use nofollow. Whether Google then starts seeing your link to my site as a one-way is questionable, though. Again, some bad guys even use rel=nofollows in their directories. This kinda gets me, to be frank. If you do place a link to someone, you sure should be able to vouch for it, right? Either don't place the link, or give full credit. It's the principle of the thing. What do you guys think? And finally, as mopacfan has mentioned, sites do not leak PR. There's no evidence of that. If I remember correctly, the original PR formula states a page does distribute PR between all the outbound links it has, but this does not affect the PR of the page itself. Warkot
Yes, that's right. This is the original purpose of nofollows. I didn't get to page 2 in this thread until I posted, so I repeated some of the things you mentioned. Warkot
I can't see why you would purposefully link to a site who may be "doing some unethical things or is banned". I just wouldn't do it, that's it. Warkot
You should just use the multi-quote button from now on, lol... Anyway, just for all those other people, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PR LEAKING (MYTH)......