Wiki Links for SEO?

In reality that kind of thought experiment doesn't matter. The other site is apparently getting some pretty nice press, and even if the big ones were all nofollow (they aren't) they'd probably get some blog hits and other mentions from that.

If you get many links from the homepages of such sites, you're either loaded or you've got great content. In either case, you get visitors from those sites.

If you're loaded but have great content, nothing happens.

If you're not loaded or are loaded and have great content, some of the visitors will link to you from their sites, some of the links will come without the nofollow tag, and you'll rank higher in Google.

Or, maybe, the visitors have pitiful sites that get de-indexed or porno sites and such and your site's ranking does not change.

Or, maybe, the link to you with the words, 'bad ass site' and you rank for the words bad ass and never make a penny because the people who google bad ass are not interested in forex trading or the most awesome backlinking technique.

Or, maybe, none of the visitors are site owners and none of them, therefore, can give you a link, let alone one that comes without the nofollow tag, and then, you're at the same point, from a ranking point of view, as the site that did not get the amazon.com, CNN, etc. links.

To make money online, you need to develop strategies that work. To develop strategies that work, especially to do it fast and economically, you need to be clear on how things work.

Nofollow links, from the right sites, can get you visitors. They may even get you visitors that will link to you. And your site may end up ranking. But is it a good strategy? And, from the point of view of people on this forum, do you have the skills to produce content that people will feel compelled to link to?

So, in reality, the site without links will be on page 165 in Google and the site with links from amazon.com, etc., will be on page 137 in Google.

Ok. So you're either too dense to understand why there's no "factual statement" where you claim there's one, or you're just posting garbage.

Trolling seems like an ad hoc "rationalization" for your behaviour, but in case you didn't know it's frowned upon on forums such as this.

You started by lying and painting yourself in the corner, and ended by describing your own behaviour as trolling. I'm not quite sure which part is supposed to be amusing.

What a strange question. Nettiapina answered it so many times in this thread alone!