<?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: Direct SEO is dead! (Almost)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html?utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s Search and Social Media Authority</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:06:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Emilia		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html/comment-page-1#comment-133829</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emilia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=22322#comment-133829</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Google Knows&quot;, &quot;Google Knows everything&quot;. I wonder if it really is so. If I go after my own logic, if Google knew about everything, then there were not so many sh.tty websites doing/ranking so well. But now I wonder if Google knows anyways, but it lets them do their &quot;things&quot; for a while and then interact in a way that we can not imagine. Or use that information for later development. Who knows?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Google Knows&#8221;, &#8220;Google Knows everything&#8221;. I wonder if it really is so. If I go after my own logic, if Google knew about everything, then there were not so many sh.tty websites doing/ranking so well. But now I wonder if Google knows anyways, but it lets them do their &#8220;things&#8221; for a while and then interact in a way that we can not imagine. Or use that information for later development. Who knows?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Danny Chapman		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html/comment-page-1#comment-133578</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Danny Chapman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=22322#comment-133578</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html/comment-page-1#comment-133351&quot;&gt;Jeff&lt;/a&gt;.

Hi Jeff, thanks for reading.

I was more referring to Google ranking websites that partake in the &quot;sneaky methods&quot; and hinting that not whatever they say is gospel currently, this surely must change and every algo tweak is attempting to tip the balance in favour of the more &#039;natural&#039; approach.

&quot;The fact is that right now, direct works as well as it ever did. Anyone that says it doesn&#039;t probably isn&#039;t that good at it&quot; --- I agree, which is what I said above, just that I believe it is becomming less about direct SEO and more about how Google attempts to stop the &quot;sneaky tactics&quot;, which effectively makes it harder for you and me to appear natural.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html/comment-page-1#comment-133351" data-wpel-link="internal">Jeff</a>.</p>
<p>Hi Jeff, thanks for reading.</p>
<p>I was more referring to Google ranking websites that partake in the &#8220;sneaky methods&#8221; and hinting that not whatever they say is gospel currently, this surely must change and every algo tweak is attempting to tip the balance in favour of the more &#8216;natural&#8217; approach.</p>
<p>&#8220;The fact is that right now, direct works as well as it ever did. Anyone that says it doesn&#8217;t probably isn&#8217;t that good at it&#8221; &#8212; I agree, which is what I said above, just that I believe it is becomming less about direct SEO and more about how Google attempts to stop the &#8220;sneaky tactics&#8221;, which effectively makes it harder for you and me to appear natural.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jeff		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/direct-seo-dead.html/comment-page-1#comment-133351</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=22322#comment-133351</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You contradict yourself.

You state that &quot;Google knows&quot; and make a good argument of why they do. I think most would agree there. 

Then, however, you suggest manipulation via &quot;sneaky methods&quot; that Google won&#039;t know. Google will know, by your previous logic, so direct or in-direct doesn&#039;t matter. The fact is that right now, direct works as well as it ever did. Anyone that says it doesn&#039;t probably isn&#039;t that good at it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You contradict yourself.</p>
<p>You state that &#8220;Google knows&#8221; and make a good argument of why they do. I think most would agree there. </p>
<p>Then, however, you suggest manipulation via &#8220;sneaky methods&#8221; that Google won&#8217;t know. Google will know, by your previous logic, so direct or in-direct doesn&#8217;t matter. The fact is that right now, direct works as well as it ever did. Anyone that says it doesn&#8217;t probably isn&#8217;t that good at it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
