<?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: Google Revises Reciprocal Linking Rule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:28:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Google Allows Some Linking Schemes As Okay &#187; InsideGoogle &#187; part of the Blog News Channel</title>
		<link>http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-226</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Google Allows Some Linking Schemes As Okay &#187; InsideGoogle &#187; part of the Blog News Channel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/#comment-226</guid>
		<description>[...] The change, especially because of the specificity of it, represents a change in policy by Google. While Google would like to ban all linking schemes, it has certainly lost the battle in that regard to all the hungry SEOs (and evil spammers), so it&#8217;s allowing the more innocent. Many SEOs say that there are certain supposedly &#8220;black hat&#8221; techniques that only an idiot wouldn&#8217;t use, since staying competitive is impossible without them, and Google is being a little more reasonable for the good guys. (via EndGamePR) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The change, especially because of the specificity of it, represents a change in policy by Google. While Google would like to ban all linking schemes, it has certainly lost the battle in that regard to all the hungry SEOs (and evil spammers), so it&#8217;s allowing the more innocent. Many SEOs say that there are certain supposedly &#8220;black hat&#8221; techniques that only an idiot wouldn&#8217;t use, since staying competitive is impossible without them, and Google is being a little more reasonable for the good guys. (via EndGamePR) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-225</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:09:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/#comment-225</guid>
		<description>Agreed.  The rule was intended to penalize sites that were doing mass linking in order to try to game the Google system.  They should be able to do that without penalizing honest sites that just want to link to other relevant sites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed.  The rule was intended to penalize sites that were doing mass linking in order to try to game the Google system.  They should be able to do that without penalizing honest sites that just want to link to other relevant sites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurie Evans</title>
		<link>http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurie Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.endgamepr.com/blog/2007/08/23/google-revises-reciprocal-linking-rule/#comment-224</guid>
		<description>it sure does make a world of difference basically letting webmasters know that link exchange is accepted as long as you dont go crazy and maintain normal volume.  We use linksmanager to maintain human control of our linking.  the key is to avoid high volume irrelevant linking and you will have no problems with google or any other search engine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it sure does make a world of difference basically letting webmasters know that link exchange is accepted as long as you dont go crazy and maintain normal volume.  We use linksmanager to maintain human control of our linking.  the key is to avoid high volume irrelevant linking and you will have no problems with google or any other search engine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

