<?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: MSN support rep on link exchanges and penalties</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/</link>
	<description>SEO insiders share all on SEO news, tips and theories.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:35:37 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Search Engine Marketing Blog by ambergreen &#187; Blog Archive &#187; MSN Spills on Link Penalties</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/#comment-585</link>
		<dc:creator>Search Engine Marketing Blog by ambergreen &#187; Blog Archive &#187; MSN Spills on Link Penalties</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/#comment-585</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Over at SEO Scoop there is a post concerning a site penalised by MSN for “exchanging links with sites unrelated to … site content???.?  Surely linking with sites not in the same thematic group should only be considered ineffective and not illegal??  If thematically unrelated links can prompt MSN to penalise a site, surely many worthy and relevant sites will have problems making the grade on MSN and therefore struggle to gain traffic from the site, making links from potentially unrelated, but traffic driving sites, all the more important? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rmccarley</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/#comment-584</link>
		<dc:creator>rmccarley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/#comment-584</guid>
		<description>The point about getting more traffic from the links than from MSN is an important one. WTF is MSN to say those links aren&#039;t relevant if the links are proving to be more relevant than MSN?

This is a concern I have with Google as well. When you break people down by interests and intentions the &quot;relevance&quot; can be surprising.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point about getting more traffic from the links than from MSN is an important one. WTF is MSN to say those links aren&#8217;t relevant if the links are proving to be more relevant than MSN?</p>
<p>This is a concern I have with Google as well. When you break people down by interests and intentions the &#8220;relevance&#8221; can be surprising.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drum</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/#comment-583</link>
		<dc:creator>drum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/10/16/msn-support-rep-on-link-exchanges-and-penalties/#comment-583</guid>
		<description>Good find. Sounds like MSN is doing what Matt Cutts spoke of in the summer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good find. Sounds like MSN is doing what Matt Cutts spoke of in the summer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
