<?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: Linkscape Helps To Demystify Google&#8217;s Algorithm</title> <atom:link href="http://unstuckdigital.com/linkscape-demystifies-googles-algorithm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://unstuckdigital.com/linkscape-demystifies-googles-algorithm/</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:51:32 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator> <item><title>By: Mike Tekula</title><link>http://unstuckdigital.com/linkscape-demystifies-googles-algorithm/comment-page-1/#comment-39</link> <dc:creator>Mike Tekula</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:56:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.unstuckdigital.com/?p=372#comment-39</guid> <description>Two valid points.I was surprised to see how simple and easy it can be to game your way to #1 with just a handful of links with rich anchor text.  It doesn&#039;t seem even suppression has been Google&#039;s goal - although I have heard of sites being penalized for anchor text that is too well-aligned.My thinking was that less trust for Google&#039;s rankings based on the publication of these details and their further exploitation could lead to less market share for Google.  Although I do agree with your second point.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two valid points.</p><p>I was surprised to see how simple and easy it can be to game your way to #1 with just a handful of links with rich anchor text.  It doesn&#8217;t seem even suppression has been Google&#8217;s goal &#8211; although I have heard of sites being penalized for anchor text that is too well-aligned.</p><p>My thinking was that less trust for Google&#8217;s rankings based on the publication of these details and their further exploitation could lead to less market share for Google.  Although I do agree with your second point.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Carlos del Rio</title><link>http://unstuckdigital.com/linkscape-demystifies-googles-algorithm/comment-page-1/#comment-38</link> <dc:creator>Carlos del Rio</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:07:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.unstuckdigital.com/?p=372#comment-38</guid> <description>Two points should be made:
1.) You will probably never see a tactic entirely stop working, only be suppressed. There is a huge portion of the Internet that quite genuinely uses these tactics because they are newcomers to the web. So ruling out tactics would be detrimental to the health and growth of the search engine.2.) While it may be in the best interest of Google to correct the algorithm as  a service level issue it is not in there economic interest. They make a lot of money from the spam sites that we want them to get rid of.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two points should be made:<br
/> 1.) You will probably never see a tactic entirely stop working, only be suppressed. There is a huge portion of the Internet that quite genuinely uses these tactics because they are newcomers to the web. So ruling out tactics would be detrimental to the health and growth of the search engine.</p><p>2.) While it may be in the best interest of Google to correct the algorithm as  a service level issue it is not in there economic interest. They make a lot of money from the spam sites that we want them to get rid of.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 14/22 queries in 0.845 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: unstuckdigital.com @ 2012-02-03 23:16:14 -->
