<?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: How Do Online Reviews Affect Your Search Engine Rankings	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html?utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s Search and Social Media Authority</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2017 01:36:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jonny Ross		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html/comment-page-1#comment-1068117</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonny Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:39:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com?p=63794&#038;preview_id=63794#comment-1068117</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Maureen,
Thanks so much for reading the blog and taking the time to comment. 

From my point of view I thought the original links included were still relevant. However I totally take your point that it&#039;s always good to include links that are as up to date as possible. For this reason, I&#039;ve updated the blog with more recent research and and references.

Thanks again, appreciate your comments!
Jonny]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Maureen,<br />
Thanks so much for reading the blog and taking the time to comment. </p>
<p>From my point of view I thought the original links included were still relevant. However I totally take your point that it&#8217;s always good to include links that are as up to date as possible. For this reason, I&#8217;ve updated the blog with more recent research and and references.</p>
<p>Thanks again, appreciate your comments!<br />
Jonny</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ruud Hein		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html/comment-page-1#comment-1067921</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ruud Hein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com?p=63794&#038;preview_id=63794#comment-1067921</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html/comment-page-1#comment-1067813&quot;&gt;Maureen McCabe&lt;/a&gt;.

Thanks for sharing that, Maureen.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html/comment-page-1#comment-1067813" data-wpel-link="internal">Maureen McCabe</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing that, Maureen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Maureen McCabe		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/16065-reviews-ranking.html/comment-page-1#comment-1067813</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maureen McCabe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 04:06:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com?p=63794&#038;preview_id=63794#comment-1067813</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[When I read a blog, I look at the links/references… to learn more, in this case I am flabbergasted at the outdated research/pointing from 2012 and 2013.

1. &quot;Hubspot recently tested this process…&quot;  April 17, 2012  

2. “Could be…”   Search Engine RoundTable –  July 24, 2013

3. Zendesk and undertaken by Dimensional Research   - April 15, 2013

4. &quot;Google Reviews undoubtedly has the most clout for Google SERPs&quot; - Your blog from Sept 14, 2013

&#062;&#062;&#062; I was fairly certain #4 wasn&#039;t correct, and googled to find this.... Search Engine Journal, Sept 17, 2015. 
Google+ links and reviews are no longer being included in search results, even in searches for specific business names. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-links-and-reviews-dropped-from-google-search-results/141262/  

5. More current research thank you…  MOZ - September 2nd, 2015 

I hope you can update this blog, with more current links/references... to give it credibility.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I read a blog, I look at the links/references… to learn more, in this case I am flabbergasted at the outdated research/pointing from 2012 and 2013.</p>
<p>1. &#8220;Hubspot recently tested this process…&#8221;  April 17, 2012  </p>
<p>2. “Could be…”   Search Engine RoundTable –  July 24, 2013</p>
<p>3. Zendesk and undertaken by Dimensional Research   &#8211; April 15, 2013</p>
<p>4. &#8220;Google Reviews undoubtedly has the most clout for Google SERPs&#8221; &#8211; Your blog from Sept 14, 2013</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;&gt; I was fairly certain #4 wasn&#8217;t correct, and googled to find this&#8230;. Search Engine Journal, Sept 17, 2015.<br />
Google+ links and reviews are no longer being included in search results, even in searches for specific business names. <a href="https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-links-and-reviews-dropped-from-google-search-results/141262/" rel="ugc nofollow external noopener noreferrer" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" class="ext-link">https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-links-and-reviews-dropped-from-google-search-results/141262/</a>  </p>
<p>5. More current research thank you…  MOZ &#8211; September 2nd, 2015 </p>
<p>I hope you can update this blog, with more current links/references&#8230; to give it credibility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
