<?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: Google causing web stagnation?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/02/20/google-causing-web-stagnation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/02/20/google-causing-web-stagnation/</link>
	<description>Thought stream from SmugMug's CEO &#38; Chief Geek</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-hemorrhage</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: eas</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2006/02/20/google-causing-web-stagnation/#comment-40122</link>
		<dc:creator>eas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/?p=34#comment-40122</guid>
		<description>Interesting comment.  How relevant is search to your site traffic beyond the front page and a few landing pages?

I've very rarely seen any photosharing site rank highly on google for a specific subject in a text search.  Even the image searches seem to ignore the huge and often relevant sets of photos at places like SmugMug and Flickr.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting comment.  How relevant is search to your site traffic beyond the front page and a few landing pages?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve very rarely seen any photosharing site rank highly on google for a specific subject in a text search.  Even the image searches seem to ignore the huge and often relevant sets of photos at places like SmugMug and Flickr.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
