"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
d7m1q2$152$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:d7m1q2$152$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> SEO Dave wrote:
<snip>
> Okay, I followed that odd direction that this thread had taken and I can't
> hold back. I must comment.
>
> Stacey, you are taking things too personally and throw flames.
Only when there is propane to light it. BTW I never take things personally.
Trust me it doesn't bother me..the sun will be out tomorrow!
>
> John, I agree with your opinion that non-related links are garbage. That's
> the point I was making.
That is not the point you made but I made.
*"You stated "I never knew linking was a 'crime'. Pages without links are
poorer to the
reader because they are a narrow. Imagine yourself a paper without
citations."*
I made the point of stating if you have a lot of non related links it would
be bad. That above to me seems to say sure put all kinds of links on. I
followed with this:
*"Never said it was a crime. Say you have a paper with 100 non related links
going out. Not good for your paper for someone wanting to read it or someone
wanting to publish it.
So, it depends on how much you have going out!"*
This is stating it is a bad thing to do.
You only posted once in this thread before this one. And the only other
thing your stated that could mean it to be bad was you think non-related
links shouldn't pass PR. But the fact is, that isn't the way it is, you will
be passing PR to a non related link that sometimes doesn't need it.
Especially, for a validation link. Shoot yeah, W3C has all it can take
really they are already a PR of 10. Why? because so many put those links on
their page and it really isn't needed to be on it.
> Dave, with your ~100,000 page, random content sites, I am not surprised
> that
> you defend the proposition that unrelated links are fine.
He didn't. But so what if you have a couple of non related links. It doesn't
matter.
Stacey
|
|
