<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vince&#8217;s Change to the Google Algorithm favors Brands</title>
	<link>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html</link>
	<description>I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere....</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 06:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-129556</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-129556</guid>
					<description>Google just killed the SEO industry...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google just killed the SEO industry&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Authentic Paid Surveys</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128674</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128674</guid>
					<description>In the past, I had the impression that Google was impartial and gave special consideration to non-commercial sites. Google's new logic that being a big brand means trustworth and authority is utterly baseless. Big brands spend huge amount of money to promote and defend their sites and have selfish economic interests. This algorithm update by Google is really not welcome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the past, I had the impression that Google was impartial and gave special consideration to non-commercial sites. Google&#8217;s new logic that being a big brand means trustworth and authority is utterly baseless. Big brands spend huge amount of money to promote and defend their sites and have selfish economic interests. This algorithm update by Google is really not welcome.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kristina Tomlin</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128671</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128671</guid>
					<description>There are lots of ways Google can identify brand names and their related keywords.
The Chrome browser can collect behavioral data, they might estimate how often a URL is typed in the browser - more often = a brand. They can measure CTR, bounce rate &#38; time on page for site-to-site links with Chrome. Data harvesting capabilities have expanded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are lots of ways Google can identify brand names and their related keywords.<br />
The Chrome browser can collect behavioral data, they might estimate how often a URL is typed in the browser - more often = a brand. They can measure CTR, bounce rate &amp; time on page for site-to-site links with Chrome. Data harvesting capabilities have expanded.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: john andrews</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128654</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128654</guid>
					<description>Anyone know for real why Matt Cutts keeps hyping webmasterworld? I've already seen him say twice something like (not actual quote) "and it was mentioned on webmasterworld I think even before that". It's almost like he's a sponsor for them. 

Best I can see wmw started talking about it on the 20th. SEOBook forum discussion started back in January. I'm cool with everyone staying in wmw but I want to understand why the Matt Cutts endorsement (?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone know for real why Matt Cutts keeps hyping webmasterworld? I&#8217;ve already seen him say twice something like (not actual quote) &#8220;and it was mentioned on webmasterworld I think even before that&#8221;. It&#8217;s almost like he&#8217;s a sponsor for them. </p>
<p>Best I can see wmw started talking about it on the 20th. SEOBook forum discussion started back in January. I&#8217;m cool with everyone staying in wmw but I want to understand why the Matt Cutts endorsement (?)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Melanie Phung</title>
		<link>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128653</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnon.com/650/mattcuttsobserved.html#comment-128653</guid>
					<description>Nice catch on those semantic details. I wonder if his use of "sites" instead of pages was an error or a Freudian slip. Although I've long figured that homepages weren't merely simple pages as often claimed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice catch on those semantic details. I wonder if his use of &#8220;sites&#8221; instead of pages was an error or a Freudian slip. Although I&#8217;ve long figured that homepages weren&#8217;t merely simple pages as often claimed.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
