It tells you that google does not make thinks 100% clear for webmasters, whihc is understandable. There are some facts though: 1. Google does index dynamic pages. I have websites with dynamic pages indexed to prove this. 2. Links from dynamic pages can be indexed by google. I have links from dynamic pages that prove this. 3. No one can tell you with certainty the % benefit of a dynamic page link to a static page link. But applying some logic, taking account of other webmaster feedback, and some emprical research, together suggests that links on static pages are better for you.
Yeah, gordano, I really think this sums it up. Nevertheless, we should not forget the account of uca from further above, ... ..., which refers to the use of mod rewrite - a means to transform dynamically formulated URLs into static-looking ones. Thanks, guys, for your participation so far. I have learned quite a lot in this thread!
I disagree with everyone. Those urls have less PR simply because they are further down the hierarchy from the top page. Secondly google indexes them and your benefit from a link is the same as from a static page. The only difference is that its a poorly optimized site if it has such pages (no keywords in url, but thats not your problem since you are just getting a link). The main problem with those is uniqueness. Often there are many of those urls for a single page (depending on where the user came from). In that case all of you are right, but if the url is unique the benefit is the same as a link from a .html
Thanks for your disagreement, andre75! Well, no keywords in URL would mean that YOUR OWN site is poorly optimized: since the URL of a backlink refers to your own site, it's up to you to to provide the donator of a backlink with an address which fulfills SEO requirements as far as possible. And if the backlink donator does not use mod rewrite, the keyword in your URL would not show up anyway. So, in any case you are right if you rate all this as poor SEOing. As regards uniqueness, I do not really agree: a backlink usually IS unique for the site giving it (or do you get several backlinks from your benefactors?), so that cannot be the reason for any possible poor PR. On the other hand, it is true that backlinks usually are more or less hidden deep inside a particular website, which gives them less weight for PR.