<?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 for </title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aodmarketing.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:13:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Google Long Tail Fail Whale by Samuel Lavoie</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/google-long-tail-fail-whale/#comment-4535</link>
		<dc:creator>Samuel Lavoie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:13:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=930#comment-4535</guid>
		<description>Nice &quot;spam report&quot; and your digging shows how much crap there is.
Not surprisingly, Blekko is doing a way better job than Google on this specific query.

http://blekko.com/ws/yellow+gold+stud+labret+4mm

Google have definitly 1 or 2 things to learn there...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice &#8220;spam report&#8221; and your digging shows how much crap there is.<br />
Not surprisingly, Blekko is doing a way better job than Google on this specific query.</p>
<p><a href="http://blekko.com/ws/yellow+gold+stud+labret+4mm" rel="nofollow">http://blekko.com/ws/yellow+gold+stud+labret+4mm</a></p>
<p>Google have definitly 1 or 2 things to learn there&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by Panda1 &#171; happyncalm</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-3513</link>
		<dc:creator>Panda1 &#171; happyncalm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-3513</guid>
		<description>[...] Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by oggy</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-3310</link>
		<dc:creator>oggy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-3310</guid>
		<description>Hi Mossi, I see your point, but aside from the scraping content issue which Google has constantly say they addressed (see&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4259541.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;), the question is this:  Are these the most relevant results?  It&#039;s not just about having keywords in a domain name.  Otherwise Zappos.com should be outranked for the word &quot;shoes [specific name of product]&quot; by something like shoes-specific-shoe-product-size-7.tk  It would not make sense.  So domain name containing a keyword could be a signal, but when it is given too much importance Google SERPs start losing relevancy. 

Relevancy is Google&#039;s &quot;Main&quot; objective, if they screw this up long enough and searchers consistently get irrelevant results they will go elsewhere.  It is no coincidence that Bing is continuously growing these past few months.  Google users are increasingly finding irrelevant results in the top ten for long-tail search queries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mossi, I see your point, but aside from the scraping content issue which Google has constantly say they addressed (see<a href="http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4259541.htm" rel="nofollow"> here</a>), the question is this:  Are these the most relevant results?  It&#8217;s not just about having keywords in a domain name.  Otherwise Zappos.com should be outranked for the word &#8220;shoes [specific name of product]&#8221; by something like shoes-specific-shoe-product-size-7.tk  It would not make sense.  So domain name containing a keyword could be a signal, but when it is given too much importance Google SERPs start losing relevancy. </p>
<p>Relevancy is Google&#8217;s &#8220;Main&#8221; objective, if they screw this up long enough and searchers consistently get irrelevant results they will go elsewhere.  It is no coincidence that Bing is continuously growing these past few months.  Google users are increasingly finding irrelevant results in the top ten for long-tail search queries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by Mossi</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-3307</link>
		<dc:creator>Mossi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-3307</guid>
		<description>But I don&#039;t understand, 

if the domain has the keywords in it, it should RANK higher. Freshtrends does Not have those keywords in their domain name, so how could they expect to rank higher for any of those keywords ??

the other issue is one of  &quot;ethics&quot; or rather protecting one&#039;s commercial interests

i do Not believe that google are in business to protect the monetary or commercial interests of millions of private companies :) 

you can&#039;t go and beg google to &quot;take someone&#039;s domain down&quot; because the person is causing you &quot;income loss&quot; or is cheating you money. the problem with such an approach is that every company that sells some widgets out there could come and tell google that THEY ARE THE REAL owners of the brand or the first person on the planet to own such-and-such brand, and NOW google would have to play God or play Judge arbitrating over the commercial/financial interests of these two. 

I am Not sure if google would even be able to employ enough people to do this sort of arbitration as it would quickly run into Millions of queries/requests/complaints per day.

What if a spammer comes to google and tells them (showing ALL the proof) that he is the REAL owner of some brand or product ?? should google now go ahead and REMOVE the top rankers from their position (which THEY ATTAINED first) and now INSERT the new spammer&#039;s website as the top ranker ?

i Don&#039;t know guys, maybe i am missing the boat totally on this in some way, but it appears to me that vendors cry foul over crazy expectations. when a vendor fails to protect his brand in a &quot;ranking game&quot; , are they supposed to go and BEG google to remove the TOP ranking guy and **put the vendor** at the top instead ?  i mean even if this is against the affiliate program&#039;s T&amp;C, when it comes to google and organic ranking... you CANT buy your position to the top spot hey .... neither can you BEG your way into the TOP spot when you&#039;re out-ranked :))  you&#039;ve got to EARN your rankings by working for them in the SEO game, period.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But I don&#8217;t understand, </p>
<p>if the domain has the keywords in it, it should RANK higher. Freshtrends does Not have those keywords in their domain name, so how could they expect to rank higher for any of those keywords ??</p>
<p>the other issue is one of  &#8220;ethics&#8221; or rather protecting one&#8217;s commercial interests</p>
<p>i do Not believe that google are in business to protect the monetary or commercial interests of millions of private companies <img src='http://www.aodmarketing.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>you can&#8217;t go and beg google to &#8220;take someone&#8217;s domain down&#8221; because the person is causing you &#8220;income loss&#8221; or is cheating you money. the problem with such an approach is that every company that sells some widgets out there could come and tell google that THEY ARE THE REAL owners of the brand or the first person on the planet to own such-and-such brand, and NOW google would have to play God or play Judge arbitrating over the commercial/financial interests of these two. </p>
<p>I am Not sure if google would even be able to employ enough people to do this sort of arbitration as it would quickly run into Millions of queries/requests/complaints per day.</p>
<p>What if a spammer comes to google and tells them (showing ALL the proof) that he is the REAL owner of some brand or product ?? should google now go ahead and REMOVE the top rankers from their position (which THEY ATTAINED first) and now INSERT the new spammer&#8217;s website as the top ranker ?</p>
<p>i Don&#8217;t know guys, maybe i am missing the boat totally on this in some way, but it appears to me that vendors cry foul over crazy expectations. when a vendor fails to protect his brand in a &#8220;ranking game&#8221; , are they supposed to go and BEG google to remove the TOP ranking guy and **put the vendor** at the top instead ?  i mean even if this is against the affiliate program&#8217;s T&amp;C, when it comes to google and organic ranking&#8230; you CANT buy your position to the top spot hey &#8230;. neither can you BEG your way into the TOP spot when you&#8217;re out-ranked <img src='http://www.aodmarketing.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> )  you&#8217;ve got to EARN your rankings by working for them in the SEO game, period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by chris</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-2454</link>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 20:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-2454</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been in seo for over 10 years, it really does feel like going back to the altavista days, it&#039;s crazy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been in seo for over 10 years, it really does feel like going back to the altavista days, it&#8217;s crazy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by Frank L. Ludwig</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-2451</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank L. Ludwig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 19:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-2451</guid>
		<description>Google has lost the plot altogether. Hardly any of their search results are relevant,and most of them are spam sites or fake virus alerts. Original content can be found at the bottom of the results.

After 10 years of using Google, I have switched to Yahoo, and I&#039;m sure millions of others will do so, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google has lost the plot altogether. Hardly any of their search results are relevant,and most of them are spam sites or fake virus alerts. Original content can be found at the bottom of the results.</p>
<p>After 10 years of using Google, I have switched to Yahoo, and I&#8217;m sure millions of others will do so, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by Naoise</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-2448</link>
		<dc:creator>Naoise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 17:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-2448</guid>
		<description>Looking at the link profiles of the spammy keyword exact-match domains, well, they don&#039;t have any links. Hmm, maybe Google shouldn&#039;t, after all these years, still be boosting exact match domains for the exact match keyword - at the very least not for an essentially hijacked TLD (Tokelau) which are given away for free from a country that is all of 10 square kms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking at the link profiles of the spammy keyword exact-match domains, well, they don&#8217;t have any links. Hmm, maybe Google shouldn&#8217;t, after all these years, still be boosting exact match domains for the exact match keyword &#8211; at the very least not for an essentially hijacked TLD (Tokelau) which are given away for free from a country that is all of 10 square kms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by Amir @ClickFox</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-2446</link>
		<dc:creator>Amir @ClickFox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 17:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-2446</guid>
		<description>Google getting too big for their own good? I noticed several similar results in the past for hot trending topics and not only did Google let you click through to the spam/malware site, but they even had the red warning page up. You&#039;d think that would trigger some sort of failsafe, right?

Nice article. Glad I subscribe to your feed. Post more often!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google getting too big for their own good? I noticed several similar results in the past for hot trending topics and not only did Google let you click through to the spam/malware site, but they even had the red warning page up. You&#8217;d think that would trigger some sort of failsafe, right?</p>
<p>Nice article. Glad I subscribe to your feed. Post more often!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hijacking Google Rankings Through Content Scraping and Cloaking in 2011 by Vincent Guérin</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/seo/hijacking-google-rankings-content-scraping-cloaking-2011/#comment-2443</link>
		<dc:creator>Vincent Guérin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 15:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?p=888#comment-2443</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t have any examples to share, but this is really sneaky. I&#039;m really surprised by the answer you&#039;ve got from Google.

I hope they will tackle shortly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t have any examples to share, but this is really sneaky. I&#8217;m really surprised by the answer you&#8217;ve got from Google.</p>
<p>I hope they will tackle shortly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About Us by Conférence SEO Camp Montréal avril 2011 &#124; Montreal Social Media</title>
		<link>http://www.aodmarketing.com/about-us/#comment-2245</link>
		<dc:creator>Conférence SEO Camp Montréal avril 2011 &#124; Montreal Social Media</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2011 06:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aodmarketing.com/?page_id=760#comment-2245</guid>
		<description>[...] where given in French expect for the following: Google Analytics : the search for meaning by Augustin-Vazquez-Levi. Please have a look at Oggy&#8217;s presentation since he&#8217;s definitely of of our best SEOs in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] where given in French expect for the following: Google Analytics : the search for meaning by Augustin-Vazquez-Levi. Please have a look at Oggy&#8217;s presentation since he&#8217;s definitely of of our best SEOs in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
