<?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: Is The Guardian website keyword stuffing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thetechnewsblog.com/2009/02/27/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thetechnewsblog.com/2009/02/27/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/</link>
	<description>Tech news &#124; Tech views &#124; Geeky goodness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:58:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Aaron Murnahan</title>
		<link>http://thetechnewsblog.com/2009/02/27/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1980</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Aaron Murnahan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetechnewsblog.com/?p=1702#comment-1980</guid>
		<description>It does not look natural. Certainly keyword density has a place, but it has been somewhat devalued. I believe there is something on this in Matt Cutts&#039; blog (http://mattcutts.com/blog) on the topic. I make careful consideration to the inclusion of keywords in various proximity to each other and keyword density, but you should only go so far. If it looks awkward for users, the whole point is missed. Is traffic worth anything if you cannot convert it and you make the site useless to the audience? In this case, it is only in the URL, and the rest is not so spammy. It is just not done well in general. The title, description, keywords, and content are not very complementary. Everybody has a good and bad day ... this author had a bad one. perhaps they need more training or help to assure better blogging.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does not look natural. Certainly keyword density has a place, but it has been somewhat devalued. I believe there is something on this in Matt Cutts&#8217; blog (<a href="http://mattcutts.com/blog" rel="nofollow">http://mattcutts.com/blog</a>) on the topic. I make careful consideration to the inclusion of keywords in various proximity to each other and keyword density, but you should only go so far. If it looks awkward for users, the whole point is missed. Is traffic worth anything if you cannot convert it and you make the site useless to the audience? In this case, it is only in the URL, and the rest is not so spammy. It is just not done well in general. The title, description, keywords, and content are not very complementary. Everybody has a good and bad day &#8230; this author had a bad one. perhaps they need more training or help to assure better blogging.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graeme</title>
		<link>http://thetechnewsblog.com/2009/02/27/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1978</link>
		<dc:creator>Graeme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetechnewsblog.com/?p=1702#comment-1978</guid>
		<description>Blame Charlie Brooker, he started it!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/charliebrooker.pressandpublishing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blame Charlie Brooker, he started it!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/charliebrooker.pressandpublishing" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/charliebrooker.pressandpublishing</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

