Are site-wide links much more powerful than one link on the homepage if only consider PR passing? Is it dangerous to link to other website on every pages? Thanks!
I'd rather have just a homepage link personally. I think google is dismissing site wide links, unless both sites are really really related to each other. IE - if you have an ad on a well known PR 8 ad seller that is about "open source" don't buy a link to your "snoopy" products there LOL
In not-terribly-scientific testing, it seems that a site-wide link is only a wee-bit better than a home page link.
I think the way that Internet.com runs their "randomized" network-wide links is pretty effective. You do not automatically show up on every page and show up on mulitple sites. I would prefer a straight home-page link over a site-wide one. Somehow (my gut feeling is) that site-wide links are spammy. If not that, they will not be counted as multiple links but considered to be one from the originating site.
I've done a lot of site wide linking. I know they don't hurt, but can't say for certain that they do much more than a sinlge home page link would. Site wide links are very beneficial in terms of traffic - assuming your link is placed on sites that your target audience is interested in.
My guess is... it doesn't hurt to have site wide links. They might not count as multiple links but they do not pass any less PR than a single link.
I think that google puts more weight on a link that looks like this: buy your super cool <a href="site.com">widgets</a> at this super cool widget site. than a link that is just <a href="site.com">widgets</a> and I think that is the fallacy of site wide links.
So you think Google gives more importance to links surrounded by text? Possible, won't argue that. Your could easily surround a sitewide link in text though...
why wouldn't they count as multiple links? they show up as backlinks so there is no reason to believe that google 'dislikes' sitewide links and punishes them.
Links in the body of a post, article, tutorial, etc. could be more 'valuable' than ROS links. No duplication or repetiveness. Interesting thought on embedding that link inside of some textual content. I guess we could look at some samples of footer links that is along the lines of "Website design by My Design Company - Copyright Far Out Designs Inc" People keep discussing this "duplicate filter" that Google is using. It figures out which is the original (sometimes incorrectly) and the duplicates take a backseat in the SERPS. They are effectively discounted. Why is it not a stretch of the imagination that repetitive ROS links could effectively be discounted after Google sees 50 or more originating from the same site? Who said "punish" or "dislikes"? They just cease to be counted after a certain point or provide any more value pass the intial 'x' amount. And also remember, the less outbound links you share amongst these pages (in total) the better. You are only sharing that passed PR with, you guessed it, yourself. PR is fluid. Your campaign rules do not change however. You will still want to vie for the Home Page or one click away from it if possible. Not all ROS links are true ROS. They can be buried on low ranked pages. Your goal is still to get your link on the highest PR valued page possible.
Its always possible to fool anything; but most of the sites selling links only allow 30 characters or less. I dont think many high pr sites are going to offer up 200-400 character strings on all their pages as easily as a 30 character link. IMHO of course.