<?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: Can Spam Comments Kill Your Search Engine Rankings?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/spam-comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/spam-comments/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 21:06:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weekly SEO Round Up &#124; Sam Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/spam-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-58750</link>
		<dc:creator>Weekly SEO Round Up &#124; Sam Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=5237#comment-58750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...]  http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2009/06/20/spam-comments/ [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  <a href="http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2009/06/20/spam-comments/" rel="nofollow">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2009/06/20/spam-comments/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Can Spam Comments Hurt Your Blog&#8217;s Rankings? - Blog Content Provider .com &#187; Archivio Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/spam-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-49842</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Can Spam Comments Hurt Your Blog&#8217;s Rankings? - Blog Content Provider .com &#187; Archivio Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/?p=5237#comment-49842</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Search Engine Optimization Journal&#8217;s conclusion is that those comments were harmful because they were porn-related content. That&#8217;s possible too, but doubtful. One of the issues regarding spam comments, as pointed out by Scotland SEO, is that they are supposed to be nofollow. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Search Engine Optimization Journal&#8217;s conclusion is that those comments were harmful because they were porn-related content. That&#8217;s possible too, but doubtful. One of the issues regarding spam comments, as pointed out by Scotland SEO, is that they are supposed to be nofollow. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
