obono - 2:30 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

frup, you nailed it.

If my understanding is correct Google is trying to determine which is the most important url regardless of having or not having an ID. If true to their philosophy I can't see why they would consider affiliate links less valuable. They probably do not consider them more valuable either, just another url that must be scored according to their parameters. In the end, if they want to be fair, that score should vary per link and per keyword but this seems like a gargantuan task. Then, they could credit every individual webmaster/sponsor under the same light.

> I do the SEO for the company and I compete in a similar fashion as affiliates do, only i am an in-house employee.

I don't mean any offense, but how in the world could you possibly compare yourself to the affiliates you seem to manage? You have access to all their information, all their work, not to mention you have at your disposal enourmous resources that affiliates lack. Yet, in your tiny conception of the world you truly believe you and affiliates compete in the same ground and that the fact that you are *just* an in-house employee makes no difference at all. I do not want to sound rude but reading your lines requires that I have an extra dose of patience. Had I been your boss I would have either asked you to stop or resign, unless I misunderstood your role in the company. If you are a really good seo -by the book- and could truly compete with the rest of the affiliates and in the same ground, why not quit and do it 100% of your time? Then, there would be no conflicts of interest.

Also, by stating a maximum of 60 keywords being used by your potential prospects you might be leaving out the long tail. It sounds incomprehensible to me how could anyone in any industry can come up with a precise number of targeted searches... or did you mean the 60 most important ones out of a universe of thousands?