<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Video Introduction to SEO for Small Business Owners by Matt Cutts</title>
	<link>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/</link>
	<description>Remixing the routes of Video, Online marketing &#038; Keyword based strategies</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:22:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: annplugged</title>
		<link>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-694</link>
		<author>annplugged</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-694</guid>
		<description>blimey, that was meant to be 'filter ouT'! :) Thanks for pinpointing the power of misspelling. 

I cannot comment on Yahoo - Google PR 9-10 - haven't been paying attention to the PR of major websites for a long time, sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>blimey, that was meant to be &#8216;filter ouT&#8217;! :) Thanks for pinpointing the power of misspelling. </p>
<p>I cannot comment on Yahoo - Google PR 9-10 - haven&#8217;t been paying attention to the PR of major websites for a long time, sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marketing Articles</title>
		<link>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-693</link>
		<author>Marketing Articles</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-693</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;our unethical practices&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Good thing you also admit.:-) Do you think Google didn't make any manipulation to PageRank when one of their great competitor (Yahoo!) has fallen into PR9 when I noticed it since that it has a PR of 10? Have you observed it also?
Btw, thanks to your effort in explaining me about misspelling.

Regards

-Jan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>our unethical practices</p></blockquote>
<p>Good thing you also admit.:-) Do you think Google didn&#8217;t make any manipulation to PageRank when one of their great competitor (Yahoo!) has fallen into PR9 when I noticed it since that it has a PR of 10? Have you observed it also?<br />
Btw, thanks to your effort in explaining me about misspelling.</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>-Jan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: annplugged</title>
		<link>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-688</link>
		<author>annplugged</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-688</guid>
		<description>Hi Jan,
misspelling SEO a, usually comes cheaper b, you save a click for the user (saving the 'did you mean' repeated full search) c, it's totally legal

Google has ethical standards for search (even a specific one with Yahoo, Microsoft, LookSmart, Ask against clickfraud called the Click Measurement Working Group) and they try to filter our unethical practices in an automated way combined with human editing. Even big companies, like BMW (!) can be excluded from search results due to using unethical means.
 
Also, there are legal precedents for punishing black SEO firms, e.g. recently a Washington based SEO company (Internet Advancement) was to pay more than $118,000 in civil penalty.

BUT: there are no industry-wide standards yet, only intentions. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jan,<br />
misspelling SEO a, usually comes cheaper b, you save a click for the user (saving the &#8216;did you mean&#8217; repeated full search) c, it&#8217;s totally legal</p>
<p>Google has ethical standards for search (even a specific one with Yahoo, Microsoft, LookSmart, Ask against clickfraud called the Click Measurement Working Group) and they try to filter our unethical practices in an automated way combined with human editing. Even big companies, like BMW (!) can be excluded from search results due to using unethical means.</p>
<p>Also, there are legal precedents for punishing black SEO firms, e.g. recently a Washington based SEO company (Internet Advancement) was to pay more than $118,000 in civil penalty.</p>
<p>BUT: there are no industry-wide standards yet, only intentions. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marketing Articles</title>
		<link>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-687</link>
		<author>Marketing Articles</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://videovoo.com/2008/04/01/video-introduction-to-seo-for-small-business-owners-by-matt-cutts/#comment-687</guid>
		<description>I never tried using misspelling keywords. What's the use of this when  Google has this &lt;i&gt;did you mean: feature? How would Google know if a technique is considered as cheating? Does Google has an ethical standards in doing SEO?


-Jan&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never tried using misspelling keywords. What&#8217;s the use of this when  Google has this <i>did you mean: feature? How would Google know if a technique is considered as cheating? Does Google has an ethical standards in doing SEO?</p>
<p>-Jan</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
