<?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: That Traffic Thing Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.newsome.org/2006/03/that-traffic-thing-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.newsome.org/2006/03/that-traffic-thing-again/</link>
	<description>Kent Newsome on technology, music and life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.newsome.org/2006/03/that-traffic-thing-again/comment-page-1/#comment-4827</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/newsome/?p=2760#comment-4827</guid>
		<description>Hi Kent.  I think some of the problem here is semantics.  I don&#039;t like the term &quot;link bait&quot; (as I say in the report) because it sounds aggressive.  But the actual common usage of the term these days is more of the fishy kind -- any content that simply *attracts* links.  Also, from a promotional standpoint, that&#039;s the term people are looking for, unfortunately.  So I used it, and then tried to diffuse it.It&#039;s certainly not about attacking people.  In fact, I think attacking people is one of the most dangerous and unproductive strategies there is.Another thing that I tried to express is that gaining attention is in large part about showing up day after day, and putting your audience first.  Your article is a much more straight forward way of expressing that, and you&#039;re absolutely right that all referenced are saying the same thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Kent.  I think some of the problem here is semantics.  I don&#8217;t like the term &#8220;link bait&#8221; (as I say in the report) because it sounds aggressive.  But the actual common usage of the term these days is more of the fishy kind &#8212; any content that simply *attracts* links.  Also, from a promotional standpoint, that&#8217;s the term people are looking for, unfortunately.  So I used it, and then tried to diffuse it.It&#8217;s certainly not about attacking people.  In fact, I think attacking people is one of the most dangerous and unproductive strategies there is.Another thing that I tried to express is that gaining attention is in large part about showing up day after day, and putting your audience first.  Your article is a much more straight forward way of expressing that, and you&#8217;re absolutely right that all referenced are saying the same thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Finkelstein</title>
		<link>http://www.newsome.org/2006/03/that-traffic-thing-again/comment-page-1/#comment-4828</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Finkelstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/newsome/?p=2760#comment-4828</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;&quot;Rather than focus on links, the better approach is to focus on relationships. The blogosphere is a small place in a lot of ways, and if you add to the conversation, people will notice you.&quot;&lt;/I&gt;That&#039;s a nicer way of putting it than &quot;Rather than focus on links, the better approach is to focus on sucking-up to A-listers. The bogosphere is an incestuous, clubby network, and if you scratch their back, they&#039;ll scratch yours.&quot;Now - discounting the cynical tone - did I say anything so very different? I know, it&#039;s not quite the same. But c&#039;mon, isn&#039;t it uncomfortably descriptive?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;Rather than focus on links, the better approach is to focus on relationships. The blogosphere is a small place in a lot of ways, and if you add to the conversation, people will notice you.&#8221;</i>That&#8217;s a nicer way of putting it than &#8220;Rather than focus on links, the better approach is to focus on sucking-up to A-listers. The bogosphere is an incestuous, clubby network, and if you scratch their back, they&#8217;ll scratch yours.&#8221;Now &#8211; discounting the cynical tone &#8211; did I say anything so very different? I know, it&#8217;s not quite the same. But c&#8217;mon, isn&#8217;t it uncomfortably descriptive?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

