<?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 To Make An Honest Buck From Link Removal Requests	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/how-to-make-an-honest-buck-from-link-removal-requests.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/how-to-make-an-honest-buck-from-link-removal-requests.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, 23 Jun 2020 00:14:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jon Wade		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/how-to-make-an-honest-buck-from-link-removal-requests.html/comment-page-1#comment-270796</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon Wade]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=34130#comment-270796</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Glad you enjoyed it. It is tempted to switch my affiliate link for the actual company, but the problem is that the article is obviously written to promote the product and I would not want to upset the company by making it look like they bought an ad from my site. 

I am sure the &#039;you might also like&#039; article is good, but it is not one of mine!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad you enjoyed it. It is tempted to switch my affiliate link for the actual company, but the problem is that the article is obviously written to promote the product and I would not want to upset the company by making it look like they bought an ad from my site. </p>
<p>I am sure the &#8216;you might also like&#8217; article is good, but it is not one of mine!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jason Darrell		</title>
		<link>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/how-to-make-an-honest-buck-from-link-removal-requests.html/comment-page-1#comment-270186</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Darrell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.searchenginepeople.com/?p=34130#comment-270186</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi, Jon.

What a fantastic post. Like you, I&#039;d have contemplated whether to just tear the page down and disavow all knowledge of the company, but it just goes to show that there are benefits to be had by looking at an issue from dual aspects.  No, I&#039;m not an estate agent.

I&#039;d just like to add one thing, if I may, that I touched upon on my StumbleUpon comment for this article:
if the site passes Copyscape &lt;b&gt;and&lt;/b&gt; is in the context/theme of your own blog/website, the reason it may not have been ranking &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the very links you&#039;ve been asked to disavow, so it might be worth keeping.

I&#039;d repopulate the anchor text, give it a social share or two and see what happens, at least for a while.  

It may be that linking to sites you know would benefit from your links, rather than the site you were asked to link to at the article creation stage, will encourage the new beneficiaries of the links to do more to link back to your article, making it more searchable.

Just a thought.

I&#039;ve just started my own product website so I&#039;m now off to read your &#039;you might also like&#039; article.

Thanks again, Jon - cracking read. xxx]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Jon.</p>
<p>What a fantastic post. Like you, I&#8217;d have contemplated whether to just tear the page down and disavow all knowledge of the company, but it just goes to show that there are benefits to be had by looking at an issue from dual aspects.  No, I&#8217;m not an estate agent.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d just like to add one thing, if I may, that I touched upon on my StumbleUpon comment for this article:<br />
if the site passes Copyscape <b>and</b> is in the context/theme of your own blog/website, the reason it may not have been ranking <em>is</em> the very links you&#8217;ve been asked to disavow, so it might be worth keeping.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d repopulate the anchor text, give it a social share or two and see what happens, at least for a while.  </p>
<p>It may be that linking to sites you know would benefit from your links, rather than the site you were asked to link to at the article creation stage, will encourage the new beneficiaries of the links to do more to link back to your article, making it more searchable.</p>
<p>Just a thought.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve just started my own product website so I&#8217;m now off to read your &#8216;you might also like&#8217; article.</p>
<p>Thanks again, Jon &#8211; cracking read. xxx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
