As a "Quality" Indicator - PR is way Over-Hyped

I've been paying a lot of attention to all this perception that PR is THE quality indicator of a link. We all see people saying they are not going to exchange with a site below a certain PR. For those of us that have been on the side that this PR talk was nonsense, I viewed an interesting video today on Web Pro News.

http://videos.webpronews.com/2006/12/06/vanessa-fox-clarifies-the-role-of-google-sitemaps/

It's long, but when you get about half way through, the interviewer asks Vanessa Fox of Google about the importance of PR when acquiring links. She says there's way too much attention on PR. She adds that RELEVANCE and increasing your site visitor's experience is where your attention should be focused.

Amen!

 

Hey DomainDrivers, I just read your post in REW's forum. You get around.

 

I completely agree with you. So many low quality sites focus almost solely on SEO and PR, they never actually have any great content to be filled with. Its rather unfortunate

 

I'd prefer a PR0 backlink from a site related to mine than some random PR5 link, some people agree but others don't

 

I agree...I honestly don't see PR helping me in the search engines either. I think $$$ really help. My arcade had PR5 and was 9 pages deep....I started an aggressive adwords campaign...BOOM page 1 and 2 at times.

On the flip side...I have a content specific search engine that has great search placement and PR0...go figure.

 

Obviously, since it updates every few months whereas backlinks are indexed daily

 

By the looks of your web site you know a great deal about reciprocal linking. I have a basic question: What good is reciprocal linking with products or services that are totaly unrelated to the content of you site?

 

I want high PR link to hype up my own PR so i can get more money from N00bs

 

Well said