<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yahoo Bing Search Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joeduck.com/2010/07/15/yahoo-bing-search/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joeduck.com/2010/07/15/yahoo-bing-search/</link>
	<description>Have Blog. Will Travel.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:54:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: horatiox</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2010/07/15/yahoo-bing-search/#comment-115630</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[horatiox]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.com/?p=3814#comment-115630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;... you are too cynical Horatiox&lt;/i&gt;

Dankeschoen!   And you, Mr Duck, may be overly optimistic.  I&#039;m not opposed to anyone making money by blogging, but that&#039;s quite rare. Any normal citizen who thinks that vis a vis SEOs or Google&#039;s &quot;analytics&quot; they will convert their 50 hits into 5000 in a few weeks, and their one or two shekel-a- day into hundreds--well, Eric Schmidt&#039;s got some ocean-front property in Pahrump he wants to sell you. That&#039;s not really what blogging&#039;s about anyhoo.  

Google has for a few years (since like taking over blogspot) been pitching their ad plans (as have others--blog ads, etc) but apart from a few big sites the ads are mostly fluff. Any real revenue due to a sale of a product  online goes to the vendors themselves (and ...Schmidt &amp; Co), and blog-person rarely even receives a finder&#039;s fee. In short, Google&#039;s not too respected for their shark-like business practices (or you-tube practices).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8230; you are too cynical Horatiox</i></p>
<p>Dankeschoen!   And you, Mr Duck, may be overly optimistic.  I&#8217;m not opposed to anyone making money by blogging, but that&#8217;s quite rare. Any normal citizen who thinks that vis a vis SEOs or Google&#8217;s &#8220;analytics&#8221; they will convert their 50 hits into 5000 in a few weeks, and their one or two shekel-a- day into hundreds&#8211;well, Eric Schmidt&#8217;s got some ocean-front property in Pahrump he wants to sell you. That&#8217;s not really what blogging&#8217;s about anyhoo.  </p>
<p>Google has for a few years (since like taking over blogspot) been pitching their ad plans (as have others&#8211;blog ads, etc) but apart from a few big sites the ads are mostly fluff. Any real revenue due to a sale of a product  online goes to the vendors themselves (and &#8230;Schmidt &amp; Co), and blog-person rarely even receives a finder&#8217;s fee. In short, Google&#8217;s not too respected for their shark-like business practices (or you-tube practices).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoeDuck</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2010/07/15/yahoo-bing-search/#comment-115622</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JoeDuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.com/?p=3814#comment-115622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even with my many concerns about Google&#039;s clever economic opportunism, I think you are too cynical Horatiox.   Even a whiff of that approach would undermine Google&#039;s credibility to the extent they&#039;d lose a lot of market share.   That isn&#039;t to say it&#039;s not about money, but in this case Google&#039;s best long term self interest really does coincide with the quality, though this has yet to be tested well.   If, for example, Google had to choose between a slight reduction in search quality and a massive reduction in revenues, I think they&#039;d take the cash.  Folks I know there would bristle at that notion, but I&#039;d argue this has already happened.  One example are the ads placed directly above organic results that many people think are not ads.   I don&#039;t think they are WRONG to do this, I just think they need to be more honest about their self interests and how these change the search landscape.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even with my many concerns about Google&#8217;s clever economic opportunism, I think you are too cynical Horatiox.   Even a whiff of that approach would undermine Google&#8217;s credibility to the extent they&#8217;d lose a lot of market share.   That isn&#8217;t to say it&#8217;s not about money, but in this case Google&#8217;s best long term self interest really does coincide with the quality, though this has yet to be tested well.   If, for example, Google had to choose between a slight reduction in search quality and a massive reduction in revenues, I think they&#8217;d take the cash.  Folks I know there would bristle at that notion, but I&#8217;d argue this has already happened.  One example are the ads placed directly above organic results that many people think are not ads.   I don&#8217;t think they are WRONG to do this, I just think they need to be more honest about their self interests and how these change the search landscape.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: horatiox</title>
		<link>http://joeduck.com/2010/07/15/yahoo-bing-search/#comment-115621</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[horatiox]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:06:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joeduck.com/?p=3814#comment-115621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SEO--like Shekels Efficiency Operator??

(j-k. It&#039;s the holy S.E. Optimizer function).  I wager they relate it to...cash, with some complex algorithm which lists money-making blogs and sites (not only just # of hits, but thats relevant)--say Slate-- above...blogs which don&#039;t make much revenue (Joe Duck, apparently).  Simple loser blogs (ie New Worlds) just don&#039;t appear in the searches at all, except with some tweaking (ie, &quot;tweaking&quot; new worlds, perps, Glenn Beck etc).    

That said, Google&#039;s ad programs are, per those philosophers Penn and Teller, mostly ...bull-sh*t. (Maybe put a call into Herr Schmidt for some blog-stipends).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SEO&#8211;like Shekels Efficiency Operator??</p>
<p>(j-k. It&#8217;s the holy S.E. Optimizer function).  I wager they relate it to&#8230;cash, with some complex algorithm which lists money-making blogs and sites (not only just # of hits, but thats relevant)&#8211;say Slate&#8211; above&#8230;blogs which don&#8217;t make much revenue (Joe Duck, apparently).  Simple loser blogs (ie New Worlds) just don&#8217;t appear in the searches at all, except with some tweaking (ie, &#8220;tweaking&#8221; new worlds, perps, Glenn Beck etc).    </p>
<p>That said, Google&#8217;s ad programs are, per those philosophers Penn and Teller, mostly &#8230;bull-sh*t. (Maybe put a call into Herr Schmidt for some blog-stipends).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

