Links sought should also be quality, targetted links and not quantity, poor links.…I’ve previously opted for the quantity links and it’s done me absolutley no favours at all!
Hours/ days/ weeks of submissions on my part, over a 3 month period and my google PR stayed exactly the same. Then I’m hearing about 3 month old blogs (mine’s 2 years old) having a PR increase from 0 – 4, due to original content and good quality links.

How gutted am I? Back to the drawing board I guess….

When I read or hear people ask whether links or content are better, I liken such a question to asking, “What’s better, air or water?”.

And you said it very well. Indeed links are like air and content is like water. You can live a few days without water but few minutes with no air

A better analogy air vs. water would be gossip vs. truth. Truth (content) is what we need, but gossip (linking) is what we get.

In the search for truth (content) gossip (links) lead to wild goose chases.

Gossip is commercially viable, whereas truth can break the bank.

The dismal science of economics reigns in link-land.

The algo has certainly matured from where it once was, thats for sure. And thank god too!

The bigger the challenge, the bigger the pie for those prepared to put in the legwork for the know how.

Cheers

Contents is the hard way to earn the SE attention. Links is much more better way. I have a friend who achieve PR4 in less than a month and all she did was had it linked from other highly rank sites (a bunch of them).

Anyhow, lots of link without great contents means shit also. No one will bother to come back to read craps.