Common Misconceptions About SEO

I think you need too re-read what I wrote Paul. Where did I say the nofollow links were "bad"? Nofollow links can be a great source of referral traffic when placed on high traffic sites. I said that they don't help in ranking! Which you agreed on in another post above?! Show me a page that is ranking based on nofollow links?? Next time you might want to make sure that you actually read what I write before flinging the insult cause it just makes you look bad.

Are you for real? Why do you think the big 3 SE's agreed to honor the canonical tag for if duplicate content wasn't an issue? It's because duplicate content can hurt your rankings when your back links are split between two or more url's. Let me guess...you never considered the canonical issue as being a part of the duplicate content debate (which it is.)

Again Paul why don't you read what I wrote. I was not talking about getting traffic from link bait. I was talking about rankings. Google does not use traffic stats to determine where a person ranks in the serp's. That would be a completely moronic thing to do since traffic numbers can be manipulated. And its been said by a number of google engineers that they do not base ranking on how much traffic a site gets.

If you cared to actually follow people who do these kinds of tests you'd see that in general they all come to the same conclusions. Generally the things that may be disagreed on between the different parties are the finer details.
The statements made by this OP were so far off what has already been tested that it is evident that no testing was done.

It's one thing to go further in ones testing to conclude on things on a "details" level but the underlying statements made from the original tests still hold true, your just ironing out the finer details.

The statements made by this OP have never been proven as being true.

And if one is going to make statements that are 180 degress off of what has already been tested and proven then they better present some kind of documentation showing how they tested it and how they ended up with their conclusions.
If at least that was done I'd give the guy props, but it wasn't.

Of course a PR 5 link is going to be weighted more then a PR 2. And what the hell are you talking about cat pictures for. The OP was talking about site topic relevance. As in getting links from other sites with in your topic/niche. That has also been completely dis-proven as being a fact and I can personally vouch for that one because a lot of the links I get are from outside my niche/topic and they all work to help my ranking.

You know it's one thing to come in an try and defend someone, and it's another thing to come in and start bashing another persons post before you spend the time actually understanding what was said. It doesn't make you look good at all. Just because you come in here with your 1000+ posts doesn't mean you have any knowledge on this topic which is evident based on your comments. Or maybe it was like I said...you rushing in to defend before reading and understanding whats being discussed.

@dadamson - there's no hate bro. but when there are statements made like that with no documentation behind it I had to call you on it.

I can agree on twitter even though it is nofollow and here's why. Because alot of sites that pull in twitter feeds have dofollow links. So the twitter feed that gets displayed becomes dofollow.
That's the reason twitter and a few others are still useful when used as a backlinking tactic.

Agreed. Nobody actually knows Googles algorithms so everything debated is based on trial and testing alone.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and what works for them simply works for them.