<?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 DirJournal: Search and Social Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:59:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why PageRank Shouldn&#8217;t Matter Anymore When Choosing Web Directories by J. Mattern</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/why-pagerank-shouldnt-matter-anymore-when-choosing-web-directories/comment-page-1/#comment-84771</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Mattern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=1816#comment-84771</guid>
		<description>Personally I consider multiple pages covering the same things (with slightly different keywords) to be shallow content. That&#039;s a part of what got the lousy content mills with the Panda update (finally). 

But this...

&quot;The focus should be to get backlinks to generate more traffic rather than just spamming the Web to get more links from pages nobody visits (or at least if you target audience is not going to visit). Focus more on page contents and clean page design. &quot;

This I can agree with 100%, and I really wish more people felt that way. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally I consider multiple pages covering the same things (with slightly different keywords) to be shallow content. That&#8217;s a part of what got the lousy content mills with the Panda update (finally). </p>
<p>But this&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;The focus should be to get backlinks to generate more traffic rather than just spamming the Web to get more links from pages nobody visits (or at least if you target audience is not going to visit). Focus more on page contents and clean page design. &#8221;</p>
<p>This I can agree with 100%, and I really wish more people felt that way. <img src='http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why PageRank Shouldn&#8217;t Matter Anymore When Choosing Web Directories by Dong</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/why-pagerank-shouldnt-matter-anymore-when-choosing-web-directories/comment-page-1/#comment-84766</link>
		<dc:creator>Dong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=1816#comment-84766</guid>
		<description>Let me rephrase.  People should not spend too much efforts in getting backlinks assuming that more backlinks mean better PR.  Based own my own analysis of my websites, I can say that once you have about 20 good quality backlinks, you get full points for the backlink part of the algorithm (just my assumption based on what I have seen ). The focus should be to get backlinks to generate more traffic rather than just spamming the Web to get more links from pages nobody visits (or at least if you target audience is not going to visit). Focus more on page contents and clean page design.  Don&#039;t go too much graphics heavy.

What I have also noticed that search engines give a high priority to keywords in page titles. So focus on finding good keywords and then create multiple pages for each set of related keywords.  Each of these pages can be altered slightly in contents so that they are not duplicate.  Don&#039;t through in random keywords in the titles.  The keywords that you put in in the titles should be related in the way that they appear together at other sites too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me rephrase.  People should not spend too much efforts in getting backlinks assuming that more backlinks mean better PR.  Based own my own analysis of my websites, I can say that once you have about 20 good quality backlinks, you get full points for the backlink part of the algorithm (just my assumption based on what I have seen ). The focus should be to get backlinks to generate more traffic rather than just spamming the Web to get more links from pages nobody visits (or at least if you target audience is not going to visit). Focus more on page contents and clean page design.  Don&#8217;t go too much graphics heavy.</p>
<p>What I have also noticed that search engines give a high priority to keywords in page titles. So focus on finding good keywords and then create multiple pages for each set of related keywords.  Each of these pages can be altered slightly in contents so that they are not duplicate.  Don&#8217;t through in random keywords in the titles.  The keywords that you put in in the titles should be related in the way that they appear together at other sites too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why PageRank Shouldn&#8217;t Matter Anymore When Choosing Web Directories by J. Mattern</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/why-pagerank-shouldnt-matter-anymore-when-choosing-web-directories/comment-page-1/#comment-84659</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Mattern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:24:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=1816#comment-84659</guid>
		<description>I can agree and disagree with some of your points. 

I don&#039;t think &quot;random&quot; is necessarily the right word. While you did seem to get erratic results early on, we can&#039;t be sure why it happened. For example, many blogs have duplicate pages without realizing it (like different URLs to access a category page which in turn links to posts). That said, I haven&#039;t seen similar results before in the dozens of blogs I&#039;ve run. So something wonky might have been going on around your launch time. It&#039;s also important to remember that the pagerank we see is not live pagerank -- that&#039;s constantly updated on Google&#039;s side, so it may have gone back down since the pagerank checkers pulled the rank you&#039;re seeing. 

That said, I agree that no one should be agonizing over pagerank or seo in general (to the point where they&#039;re blatantly trying to game the system as opposed to working toward earned organic rankings). I&#039;m not sure I agree about backlinks though. If you only worry about backlinks for pagerank or SERP rankings, then I agree. But backlinks aren&#039;t bad in and of themselves. They&#039;re often how new visitors find out about your blog. So I wouldn&#039;t discourage anyone from pursuing reasonable and well-targeted links (such as links tied to high quality comments on related blogs).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can agree and disagree with some of your points. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think &#8220;random&#8221; is necessarily the right word. While you did seem to get erratic results early on, we can&#8217;t be sure why it happened. For example, many blogs have duplicate pages without realizing it (like different URLs to access a category page which in turn links to posts). That said, I haven&#8217;t seen similar results before in the dozens of blogs I&#8217;ve run. So something wonky might have been going on around your launch time. It&#8217;s also important to remember that the pagerank we see is not live pagerank &#8212; that&#8217;s constantly updated on Google&#8217;s side, so it may have gone back down since the pagerank checkers pulled the rank you&#8217;re seeing. </p>
<p>That said, I agree that no one should be agonizing over pagerank or seo in general (to the point where they&#8217;re blatantly trying to game the system as opposed to working toward earned organic rankings). I&#8217;m not sure I agree about backlinks though. If you only worry about backlinks for pagerank or SERP rankings, then I agree. But backlinks aren&#8217;t bad in and of themselves. They&#8217;re often how new visitors find out about your blog. So I wouldn&#8217;t discourage anyone from pursuing reasonable and well-targeted links (such as links tied to high quality comments on related blogs).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why PageRank Shouldn&#8217;t Matter Anymore When Choosing Web Directories by Dong</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/why-pagerank-shouldnt-matter-anymore-when-choosing-web-directories/comment-page-1/#comment-84605</link>
		<dc:creator>Dong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=1816#comment-84605</guid>
		<description>PageRank is just a random number.  And I will tell you why I think so. 

I have a new website, setup in Nov. 2011.  I also setup a separate domain for a blog.  Both sites got PageRank for the first time on Feb. 6, 2012.  According to Google Webmaster, the blog has 22 backlinks.  The home page of the blog got PR3. Most internal pages also got PR3, a few got PR2.  Now the main website.. good clean design, good SEO.  Most internal pages got PR3 or PR4.  The domain has 65 backlinks, quality backlinks from reputed sites.  None of the internal pages is linked from any other sites, only the domain.  Well, the domain got PR1.  All pages has same header and footer and the home page has good content.  I don&#039;t understand why the domain would get PR1 while internal pages (some of them were created just a few days ago and have no inbound links from any other site) would get PR3 or PR4.  One page simple has one line &quot;We are experiencing issues with IE Browser&quot;, this page was created Jan 20, 2012, got PR3.  

Bottomline, Google is too much hype and no substance.  Don&#039;t sweat about PR, SEO or backlinks. Just focus on getting traffic using right marketing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PageRank is just a random number.  And I will tell you why I think so. </p>
<p>I have a new website, setup in Nov. 2011.  I also setup a separate domain for a blog.  Both sites got PageRank for the first time on Feb. 6, 2012.  According to Google Webmaster, the blog has 22 backlinks.  The home page of the blog got PR3. Most internal pages also got PR3, a few got PR2.  Now the main website.. good clean design, good SEO.  Most internal pages got PR3 or PR4.  The domain has 65 backlinks, quality backlinks from reputed sites.  None of the internal pages is linked from any other sites, only the domain.  Well, the domain got PR1.  All pages has same header and footer and the home page has good content.  I don&#8217;t understand why the domain would get PR1 while internal pages (some of them were created just a few days ago and have no inbound links from any other site) would get PR3 or PR4.  One page simple has one line &#8220;We are experiencing issues with IE Browser&#8221;, this page was created Jan 20, 2012, got PR3.  </p>
<p>Bottomline, Google is too much hype and no substance.  Don&#8217;t sweat about PR, SEO or backlinks. Just focus on getting traffic using right marketing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 30 of the Best Firefox Extensions to Make Browsing Better by J. Mattern</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/30-of-the-best-firefox-extensions-to-make-browsing-better/comment-page-1/#comment-82343</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Mattern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:52:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=2026#comment-82343</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the addition!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the addition!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Social Media Etiquette: 20 Dos and Don&#8217;ts to Avoid Looking Like an Ass by J. Mattern</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/social-media-etiquette-20-dos-and-donts-to-avoid-looking-like-an-ass/comment-page-1/#comment-82342</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Mattern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=1643#comment-82342</guid>
		<description>Using keywords is not a problem. It makes good sense. It&#039;s keyword spamming / stuffing that is a problem (and which can hurt your rankings). You can see Google&#039;s stance on it in their content guidelines -- http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=66358.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using keywords is not a problem. It makes good sense. It&#8217;s keyword spamming / stuffing that is a problem (and which can hurt your rankings). You can see Google&#8217;s stance on it in their content guidelines &#8212; <a href="http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#038;answer=66358" rel="nofollow">http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#038;answer=66358</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Social Media Etiquette: 20 Dos and Don&#8217;ts to Avoid Looking Like an Ass by Jon Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/social-media-etiquette-20-dos-and-donts-to-avoid-looking-like-an-ass/comment-page-1/#comment-82286</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:41:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=1643#comment-82286</guid>
		<description>For me it&#039;s all about your audience and the quality of the blog. A blog like this deserves to have some decorum used, others blatent keyword spamming are a goer. Do we know if google takes a view on blog posts with keywords?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me it&#8217;s all about your audience and the quality of the blog. A blog like this deserves to have some decorum used, others blatent keyword spamming are a goer. Do we know if google takes a view on blog posts with keywords?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Taking Advantage of User-Generated Content Sites by June Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/taking-advantage-of-user-generated-content-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-82237</link>
		<dc:creator>June Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:52:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=589#comment-82237</guid>
		<description>Certainly these sites are very important and useful from an online marketing perspective. These websites are always a part of any online marketing campaign...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly these sites are very important and useful from an online marketing perspective. These websites are always a part of any online marketing campaign&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 30 of the Best Firefox Extensions to Make Browsing Better by pokindra</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/30-of-the-best-firefox-extensions-to-make-browsing-better/comment-page-1/#comment-82210</link>
		<dc:creator>pokindra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=2026#comment-82210</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s try iOpus imacros for screen page capture</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s try iOpus imacros for screen page capture</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Preparing for the Demise of Social Media by Kathleen Kuhns</title>
		<link>http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/demise-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-82067</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathleen Kuhns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:14:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dirjournal.com/articles/?p=2318#comment-82067</guid>
		<description>Hey, i just wanted to say i genuinely enjoyed your post, and i that i feel i may possibly be able to take some ideas from it Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, i just wanted to say i genuinely enjoyed your post, and i that i feel i may possibly be able to take some ideas from it Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

