My third world reference is in regards to less developed nations and a mindset of a people that is content using yesterday's technology. In this case, it's the thought that PR is like it some silver bullet in SEO or some sort of actual value placed on a site. How much money a site makes is what matters, not PR unless you are selling links to those still riding the PR bandwagon.
Newsflash people... You don't need high PR links to rank a site. Tried, tested and proven by myself. I know this is a kick in the nuts to the PR junkies and link sellers, but it is flat out honest. Relevance is working quite well. But skipping the whole opinions of how to rank sites, look at what a Google employee stated:
Source: http://jamesnorquay.com/an-interview-ex-member-matt-cuttss-search-quality-team/
Source: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/seo-link-building-qa-with-an-ex-google-webspam-team-member/51640/
It's true, and you can look at the service providers who are generating quick results here as proof. Interlinking is kicking ass and not taking any names while driving sites up to the front page of Google. Interlinked PR NR blog posts, interlinked PR NR web 2.0 profiles, interlinked PR NR articles, etc. are getting the job done quite effectively. Link to your tiers with relevant text, and you will see the results for yourself.
You can either keep tripping over your dick spending a lot of money buying high PR links that don't give you the boost they once did or spend far less money/some time creating relevant contextual links that work wonders. The choice is yours. I'm not here to appease or lie to anyone. Each time someone talks about a goofy PR update, they are simply giving Google free advertising for a metric that is anywhere from 2-4 weeks old and is no longer anywhere near effective as it once was.
