<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Weekly Search &amp; Social News:&#160;02/09/2010</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.searchenginejournal.com/weekly-search-social-news-02092010/17439/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/weekly-search-social-news-02092010/17439/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:43:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Harry</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/weekly-search-social-news-02092010/17439/comment-page-1/#comment-1191526</link>
		<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:29:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=17439#comment-1191526</guid>
		<description>Hiya Michael, as I eluded to, I am not entirely a fan of it... but it is often worth putting things out there to see what others think. I often find myself struggling editorially as to what does and doesn&#039;t make it into the edition. I can say that on MANY occasions I&#039;ve listed items I many not fully endorse. I&#039;ve had experiences with some publications in the search sphere that wanted to censor/editorially inhibit me. So I try to balance the fine line of subjectivity. I prefer there be discussions created than to simply bury it.

I shall try and put a little more conviction of my own feelings in the future. M&#039;ay? (at least yer still talking to me... it served some purpose :0)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hiya Michael, as I eluded to, I am not entirely a fan of it&#8230; but it is often worth putting things out there to see what others think. I often find myself struggling editorially as to what does and doesn&#8217;t make it into the edition. I can say that on MANY occasions I&#8217;ve listed items I many not fully endorse. I&#8217;ve had experiences with some publications in the search sphere that wanted to censor/editorially inhibit me. So I try to balance the fine line of subjectivity. I prefer there be discussions created than to simply bury it.</p>
<p>I shall try and put a little more conviction of my own feelings in the future. M&#8217;ay? (at least yer still talking to me&#8230; it served some purpose :0)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Martinez</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/weekly-search-social-news-02092010/17439/comment-page-1/#comment-1190882</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Martinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=17439#comment-1190882</guid>
		<description>&quot;Overcoming The SEO Challenges Of Huge Online Commerce Sites – ok sure, Eric said the dreaded ‘PR sculpting’ but at least it has a new spin (lol). All in all, still a worthy edition for those in ecom. &quot;

No, it was an article with crap advice.  You can do better than to pick this kind of nonsense for your weekly roundups.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Overcoming The SEO Challenges Of Huge Online Commerce Sites – ok sure, Eric said the dreaded ‘PR sculpting’ but at least it has a new spin (lol). All in all, still a worthy edition for those in ecom. &#8221;</p>
<p>No, it was an article with crap advice.  You can do better than to pick this kind of nonsense for your weekly roundups.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

