<?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: SearchMe.com beta review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/</link>
	<description>The most useful SEO and monetization tips I can find</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:32:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mickey</title>
		<link>http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/comment-page-1/#comment-331</link>
		<dc:creator>Mickey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 02:12:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/#comment-331</guid>
		<description>I agree that their focus is on the visual side, as that's their hook.  Take that away, and they've got nothing.  However, what good are the fancy visuals if the results aren't any good?

Transferring focus wouldn't help -- they need to focus on the graphical side of the site.  That's exactly why they should hand the algorithm side of it off to Google.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that their focus is on the visual side, as that&#8217;s their hook.  Take that away, and they&#8217;ve got nothing.  However, what good are the fancy visuals if the results aren&#8217;t any good?</p>
<p>Transferring focus wouldn&#8217;t help &#8212; they need to focus on the graphical side of the site.  That&#8217;s exactly why they should hand the algorithm side of it off to Google.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Isles Tech</title>
		<link>http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/comment-page-1/#comment-330</link>
		<dc:creator>Isles Tech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 02:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/#comment-330</guid>
		<description>I find that reasoning correct. But from what I can see, their focus in on the visual side. Or should they transfer focus now and do the categorizing instead?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find that reasoning correct. But from what I can see, their focus in on the visual side. Or should they transfer focus now and do the categorizing instead?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mickey</title>
		<link>http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/comment-page-1/#comment-328</link>
		<dc:creator>Mickey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 00:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/#comment-328</guid>
		<description>I never asked them directly.  If they want to build their own engine and they think it can compete with Google, then more power to them.  Someone needs to step up and give Google a challenge...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never asked them directly.  If they want to build their own engine and they think it can compete with Google, then more power to them.  Someone needs to step up and give Google a challenge&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Isles Tech</title>
		<link>http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/comment-page-1/#comment-327</link>
		<dc:creator>Isles Tech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 20:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mickmelseo.com/20080318/searchmecom-beta-review/#comment-327</guid>
		<description>Sorry for digging up this old article, but I have the same question on why not just let Google do the searching. Did you get an answer from them?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry for digging up this old article, but I have the same question on why not just let Google do the searching. Did you get an answer from them?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
