<?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: Michelle Obama Image Spam on Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.shcl.co.uk/blog/2009/11/michelle-obama-image-spam-on-google.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.shcl.co.uk/blog/2009/11/michelle-obama-image-spam-on-google.html</link>
	<description>Internet marketing training and consultancy for small businesses in the UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:58:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dennis Hollingworth</title>
		<link>http://www.shcl.co.uk/blog/2009/11/michelle-obama-image-spam-on-google.html/comment-page-1#comment-1118</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis Hollingworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shcl.co.uk/?p=2175#comment-1118</guid>
		<description>I saw that their (Google&#039;s) initial response was &#039;does not affect policy of inclusion or exclusion of contents&#039;, and that the search company believes in &#039;free speech&#039;. 

Initially, this may sound a bit of an automated cop-out. Having said that, the brand that Google sits as could hardly offer up an Orwellian stance. I&#039;m sure that &#039;instances&#039; such as this (other subjects being the unfortunate target), run to their thousands, but with the profile that Ms Obama has we should have expected no less a reaction. I did notice what appeared to be quite a few paid results yesterday coming up with reference to &#039;Michelle Obama&#039; in the visible results, and clearly non at all when clicked through.

Re the links, Google in-bounds are the main source of frustration, Google not showing any, or some, when there may well be over a 100 that &#039;do follow&#039;. This seems to be a common problem; from what I read on-line and speaking to others. With in-bounds account for around 70% of the seo result (the rest being on-page), it would be good to solve the riddle!
I may not be the only one at the Online Marketing Conference with pen poised for a possible expansion on that subject!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw that their (Google&#8217;s) initial response was &#8216;does not affect policy of inclusion or exclusion of contents&#8217;, and that the search company believes in &#8216;free speech&#8217;. </p>
<p>Initially, this may sound a bit of an automated cop-out. Having said that, the brand that Google sits as could hardly offer up an Orwellian stance. I&#8217;m sure that &#8216;instances&#8217; such as this (other subjects being the unfortunate target), run to their thousands, but with the profile that Ms Obama has we should have expected no less a reaction. I did notice what appeared to be quite a few paid results yesterday coming up with reference to &#8216;Michelle Obama&#8217; in the visible results, and clearly non at all when clicked through.</p>
<p>Re the links, Google in-bounds are the main source of frustration, Google not showing any, or some, when there may well be over a 100 that &#8216;do follow&#8217;. This seems to be a common problem; from what I read on-line and speaking to others. With in-bounds account for around 70% of the seo result (the rest being on-page), it would be good to solve the riddle!<br />
I may not be the only one at the Online Marketing Conference with pen poised for a possible expansion on that subject!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
