<?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 promoting comment spam?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.milesburke.com.au/blog/2007/01/30/google-promoting-comment-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.milesburke.com.au/blog/2007/01/30/google-promoting-comment-spam/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on small business, the web industry and more, from Miles Burke, Author, Speaker, Entrepreneur and Geek.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:39:42 +0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bronwen</title>
		<link>http://www.milesburke.com.au/blog/2007/01/30/google-promoting-comment-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-83306</link>
		<dc:creator>Bronwen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://miles.burke.id.au/blog/?p=125#comment-83306</guid>
		<description>There is some moderation when it comes to Google ads, but I&#039;m not too sure to what extent. I updated my own Google adwords today and it wouldn&#039;t accept the word &quot;click&quot;. I could make a case for it&#039;s use by sending an appeal to Google. 
Why couldn&#039;t they do the same with spam. That way ads targeting reducing spam would come up in the search results and not ones promoting it. 
You can&#039;t fool a human editor (well generally, speaking that is :))</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is some moderation when it comes to Google ads, but I&#8217;m not too sure to what extent. I updated my own Google adwords today and it wouldn&#8217;t accept the word &#8220;click&#8221;. I could make a case for it&#8217;s use by sending an appeal to Google.<br />
Why couldn&#8217;t they do the same with spam. That way ads targeting reducing spam would come up in the search results and not ones promoting it.<br />
You can&#8217;t fool a human editor (well generally, speaking that is :))</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tuna</title>
		<link>http://www.milesburke.com.au/blog/2007/01/30/google-promoting-comment-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-83214</link>
		<dc:creator>Tuna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://miles.burke.id.au/blog/?p=125#comment-83214</guid>
		<description>This is the problem I have blogged about earlier, can we trust Google with the content of the ads, can we trust the links behind the ads are going somewhere safe and legitimate. 

Mind you we have to remember the major business for Google is selling ads. But does that make it right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the problem I have blogged about earlier, can we trust Google with the content of the ads, can we trust the links behind the ads are going somewhere safe and legitimate. </p>
<p>Mind you we have to remember the major business for Google is selling ads. But does that make it right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathanael</title>
		<link>http://www.milesburke.com.au/blog/2007/01/30/google-promoting-comment-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-83201</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathanael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://miles.burke.id.au/blog/?p=125#comment-83201</guid>
		<description>Hey, if they&#039;re paying for the ads, they&#039;re not going to say no!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, if they&#8217;re paying for the ads, they&#8217;re not going to say no!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
