I like you and I think that you are generally a bright fellow, however, I feel compelled to call you out on these same topics again. Repeating the same incorrect conclusions, over and over again, may convince some folks they are valid, but in my opinion, they are based on false notions.
First, let’s deal with your claim that link juice is not diluted by the number of OBLs. You make this claim, in spite of every Google engineer that has discussed it making the counterclaim. Google has published the core formula for PageRank and mathematicians and statisticians have reviewed and tested the formula, vouching for its validity. The formula does not work if you remove the dilution quotient.
So if the proceeding paragraph is true, what then do you base your claim on? I believe the most likely cause of your invalid conclusion lies in the lack of understanding of the geometric progression of logarithmic scales, which is what the PageRank score is based on. Terry’s conclusion seems to completely ignore the fact that PR is a score based on a logarithmic scale.
What he actually discovered was how much of a difference there is between the value of a PR5 and PR6. Even a highly diluted link from a PR6 can be worth more than an undiluted PR5. Anyone who understands the basics of how PR is calculated would expect that.
Now to your second assertion about relevancy. Here again, you seem to base a conclusion on a false notion. The whole notion that search engines look at website topics is completely false in my opinion. Again, this points to a lack of understanding of how search engines actually work.
Research on large scale search engines at Stanford University is what Google is based on. The core technology, certain principles, goals and specific algorithms are documented and published by the Stanford research team. While Google has added enhancements over the years, there is no sign that I can see that the core technology has been abandoned. And nowhere in this core technology is the ability to determine website topics and it seems to me that it would be highly detrimental to do so.
Website topics are what directories are based on. Search engines where built to go well beyond the limitations of a directory. They are much more granular in their approach to mining data and therefore deliberately bypass the concept of website topics and focus instead of on-page topics. This is the fundamental difference between a directory index and a search engine index.
Within the SEO industry, there is a saying: The first rule of SEO is search engines rank web pages, not websites.
Your incorrect conclusions about relevancy seem to be centered around the false notion that search engines base relevancy on website topics. That is how directories work, not search engines. Google is a search engine, not a directory.
You obviously see the value and importance of relevant anchor text, but in your conclusions, you insist on calling the link irrelevant based on a false notion of website topic. Website topics are not part of any search engine algorithm that I have ever heard of, all major search engines ignore website topics and are based on on-page topics.
Let me ask you, is the Kaizen page on Wikipedia not relevant to the Kaizen principle due to the website topic being about free encyclopedias? That’s a silly notion, isn’t it? If search engines based relevancy on website topics, you would never be able to find that page in a search. You would only find listings for pages that were on websites about Kaizen. Fortunately for us, search engines don’t work that way, and we are able to find this page quite easily.
Page relevancy factors are determined by a number of elements including the anchor text of OBLs, so it is impossible to have relevant anchor text and be an irrelevant page. The anchor text influences the relevancy of the page topic. After all, anchor text is part of the text of the page, plus it often indicates the primary topic of the page.
I feel it’s a shame that you and Terry are misleading so many folks, though I do believe it is unintentional misguidance. Anyone can make a mistake, however, it takes character to admit our mistakes.