Quality or Quantity, Which one is important for PR?

So relevance pertains to your rankings and is not that important for PR? Learn something new everyday.

 

Finally someone who understands... Geez this has been boring...

 

Teaching can be very fulfilling

 

Do you have some evidence that relevance doesn't affect PR? I'm not sure either way. I think it would make sense.

 

Why don't you post some evidence PR is based on relevance and so called quality?

How many links does Google have from other search engines like Yahoo and MSN to get their PR10? How many links does Adobe have from other publishing tool websites to get their PR10? How many links does NASA have from other space agencies like the Russian Programme to get their PR10? How many links does Digital Point Forums have from other webmaster forums to deserve its PR8? Etc.

 

I don't post any evidence because I don't have any and nor did I claim to. NASA may not have links from other "space agencies" but it has a lot of links from sites containing similar content. The same is true for the rest of the sites. I wasn't suggesting anything, just looking for more information. No need to get so defensive.

 

I go for both quality and quantity - cover all your bases.

 

"Why don't you post some evidence PR is based on relevance and so called quality?"

Hey T0PS3O, I just found out the hard way. Yeah you're right with your
quantity example, however for smaller sites there is NOTHING as important
as relevance and "quality". Proove for me was to link from a pr6 page to
a new site. The new site wasn't exactly top relevant AND would have possibly raised a few 'quality concerns' because of the number of outgoing links....

Result? Downgraded to pr4. Never happened before in 5 years. It's a top consistent pr6 site, no exceptions. For incoming links the same applies, and I won't do it again. I promise. I will repeat it now 115 times as a gesture of good will: Relevance and Quality. Relevance and Quality. Relevance and Quality.....