Are backlinks from PR0 worth it? (like scuttle and phpdug)

[TheInternetViking]

BHW,

I'd like your input and experience on this subject. Do backlinks from PR0 sites help you at all. I've been looking at like BMD and some other software (social bookmark submitter) and they do a lot of scuttle and phpdug bookmarking. When i started looking at scuttle and phpdug sites, I saw that alot of them are PR0. So, I ask, is it worth it? Does a link of any value (if its oneway) help you? Or is only worth going after the high PR links?

Does that make it a question of quality or quantity then? (I am sure you need both), but I know there are some serious spammers (my black hat off to you) here, so let's here it!

Thanks for your insight!

~The Internet Viking~

 

[KingCrab]

Erm...i have been using pligg sites to get backlinks. So far there are pr0 and some are pr7. A link is still a link. You just got to have mix of both.

 

[Italian Hawk]

I don't pay attention to the Page Rank of sites when I go about building on my own. When I purchase them or follow others guides I pay attention to page rank. I mean, if the sites anything active, it's safe to assume the next update will be good to them and get them a PR1 at minimum.

 

[Micallef]

If you believe in link-juice theory, then you must concede that PR is all important when building backlinks. PR is a measure of this link juice, and if a page has PR0 or PR n/a, it means that the page has near zero link juice to give your site if you get your link on there. PR2 is worth many PR1, PR3 is worth many PR2 and so-on.

This is why, for reasons of time efficiency more than anything else, I tend not to look at anything below PR3. And I consider an hour spent finding one good PR5 backlink much better than getting 100 PR0 backlinks in that same timeframe.

Many of you will be thinking about the authority effect playing a positive role even on PR n/a links. I don't know how powerful it is or if it exists but in all my backlinking experiments I have seen scant evidence of it. For example, I hit one of my blogs with a PR7 link from NASA.gov, and a PR7 from Yale.edu, it hasn't helped much at all. Although maybe that was overkill

So, in answer to the question, PR0 backlinks are not worthwhile because they are not time efficient ways of boosting SERP position. I advise you to look for fewer, higher PR pages (not just domains - for a good backlink, the page itself needs the high PR). I have had great success using these sorts of backlinks.

 

[nitrotrader]

From my personal and professional experience, PR is important, but remember that PR is an aggregation of several things that are important for better SERP rankings. "Page Rank" is simply the coined term was originally developed after Larry Page (co-founder of GOogle) not a web-PAGE rating.

For the purposes of link-building most SEO "experts" agreed that the quality of the domains passing link-juice is the most important. "Quality" is more that the PR ranking...factors that have equal weight are age of domain, frequency of indexing, and a bunch more.

There are several experts in the SEO agency world that each are finding out that while quality is important, QUANTITY is just as important (and by quantity they mean different links from unique domains).

I'd be weary on paying for low PR, but I actively go after niche-specific domains in my link building campaigns that sometimes have low PR's.

 

[jazzc]

"Page Rank" is simply the coined term was originally developed after Larry Page (co-founder of GOogle) not a web-PAGE rating.

PR is not a "term". It is the result of a complex validation algorith that RATES from 0 to 10 a web PAGE. This is PR, its functional definition. What kind of a logical leap (or drugs ) did you do to claim it is not a web page rating? :bath:

For the purposes of link-building most SEO "experts" agreed that the quality of the domains passing link-juice is the most important. "Quality" is more that the PR ranking...factors that have equal weight are age of domain, frequency of indexing, and a bunch more.

I tend to agree that these factors are mildly important. But why do you presume they are out of the PR context instead of being a part of it? A high PR page is high because it has ranked well in many factors.

There are several experts in the SEO agency world that each are finding out that while quality is important, QUANTITY is just as important (and by quantity they mean different links from unique domains).

Just as? I beg to differ. Quantity is GOOD as long as you have some QUALITY backlinks. You can have both to get a huge boost, but simply a lot of PR0 links do nothing.

I'd be weary on paying for low PR, but I actively go after niche-specific domains in my link building campaigns that sometimes have low PR's.

Is niche specific another whitehat myth? I 've ranked a test site on first page on a 200m results keyword using xrummer (spaaaaaam) blasts and a 2 or 3 high PR relevant niches and a few low PR relevant niches. I can't decisevely say if it matters a lot or not.