Kindly share your ideas, thoughts and experience on the issue. A link from the hompeage is more healthy or a sitewide link adds more weight.
I don't think so. I have seen sites that are only linked by one pr 4 blog sitewide on 500 pages or so recieve a PR 4 themselves. Meanwhile, if that were a one page link I don't think it would have passed a PR 4. Many here disagree. But that's my opinion on it.
To play it safe, I would always have different kinds of links. Some static, some on blogs and forums. Some sidewide, some home page. Mix it up to "keep it appearing natural". That IMO is the best way to go.
In general, a sitewide link suggests some sort of affiliation between 2 sites. When algorithms were less sophisicated, more links meant better. Sitewides gave you lots of links. As time went on, sitewide links were valued less. In general, a natural "vote" from a site to another comes in the form of a hyperlink in rich copy. A sitewide with few exceptions is one link included by a repeated element (navigation, usually). If I were designing algorithms, I would count such a link as 1 link, but that's just me. I'd limit the number of sitewides, but having a few is probably a good thing -- and like the other guy said -- natural looking.
I tend to see them as spamming. I have been removing them, inbound and outbound from my sites. haven't seen any changes yet, but it's worth a try
Theoretically, site wide links could lower the "trust" factor placed in a site and could actually be what folks refer to as "PR Bleed". A lot has to do whether or not they point to an internal page or an external page/site. Also, if it points to an internal page, where does that page point (ie link page/directory) if it's not a destination page. Dave
I personally believe its better to get a homepage link then a sitewide link, after all homepage is the most important and weighted page of a site. suppose you have a PR6 site and you somehow need to exchange links with a PR4 site, i think its better to ask the Pr4 site to place your link on his homepage, instead of sitewide, you ofcourse will be placing his link on your links page only
Sites giving out sitewide links are likely to suffer penalties. Sites buying sitewide links will be OK I expect.
Why exactly do you think the PR4 site would agree to do this? It's like asking someone... "Hey, you got a hundred dollars change for a twenty?" Ummmmmm... no. Dave
If all links from a single site pass ranking credit (I don't believe they do) and it's not obvious that they're paid, otherwise, you'd be buying only the traffic produced by the links themselves. Dave
PR4 site will agree to do this since, i have a PR6 page, my link will be providing more value to his site. But if he place my link on his PR6 page then the benefit will be equal.
You think so? Only if they're stupid. What's the PR of the page you're going to put the link on? I have a PR4 link page. I will place your link on that page, AFTER you place my link on your PR6 page AND that page gets indexed and my link followed. I don't care what PR your site is. All I care about is the PR of the page you put my link on. Deal? Dave
Why exactly do you think the PR4 site would agree to do this? It's like asking someone... "Hey, you got a hundred dollars change for a twenty?" The above is not always true, I would take a PR2 link for a PR6 link if the PR2 link would give me traffic. Traffic > PR (anytime) I guess I should answer the topic of the thread too, my feelings are that both are probably equal. There are always rumors and experiments going on to get better rankings but I have not heard anything solid on either being better than the other.
Exactly. My point was in reference to expecting a homepage link in return for a "links page" link. The "links page" link is not going to generate any kind of meaningful traffic. Granted, I'm in the camp of folks who ignore PR, but coudn't resist the thread. Dave