<?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: Case Study #4 &#8211; Evidence for the critics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/</link>
	<description>Helping Affiliates Marketers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:50:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stu</title>
		<link>http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-629</link>
		<dc:creator>Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:03:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/#comment-629</guid>
		<description>Hi Andy

Excellent tutorial

Its is very refreshing to see all these ideas on one page. I totally agree with your ideas on this subject as I have been using this method for years and it works beautifully.
What I cannot understand is how an earth do some websites with no content, no meta keywords, not optimised and some with lots of flash, end up in the number one slot??
I have checked the age of some of these sites and that is not the reason they are at the top, and they are not adword adverts either.
I cant give any examples here, but I guess that you will know what I mean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Andy</p>
<p>Excellent tutorial</p>
<p>Its is very refreshing to see all these ideas on one page. I totally agree with your ideas on this subject as I have been using this method for years and it works beautifully.<br />
What I cannot understand is how an earth do some websites with no content, no meta keywords, not optimised and some with lots of flash, end up in the number one slot??<br />
I have checked the age of some of these sites and that is not the reason they are at the top, and they are not adword adverts either.<br />
I cant give any examples here, but I guess that you will know what I mean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-405</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:09:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/#comment-405</guid>
		<description>I actually think you have a chicken/egg scenario here and in much the same way as the egg obviously came first (neither of the parents of the first chicken was a chicken) so too the quality content came before the authority status of the sites.

To write a good article on gestational diabetes (as in this study), the article will need to be long and obviously the longer an article, the more related theme words there will be (if written naturally by someone who knows the topic).  Shorter articles just wont cover the material.

The whole point of this (and several other studies) was to show that articles need to cover a range of words and phrases related to the topic of the article.  Without those words and phrases you wont compete for any mildly competitive term.  Authority sites are authority sites BECAUSE they have shown that they know their stuff and create quality content, but to do so, they have to write longer, theme word rich articles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually think you have a chicken/egg scenario here and in much the same way as the egg obviously came first (neither of the parents of the first chicken was a chicken) so too the quality content came before the authority status of the sites.</p>
<p>To write a good article on gestational diabetes (as in this study), the article will need to be long and obviously the longer an article, the more related theme words there will be (if written naturally by someone who knows the topic).  Shorter articles just wont cover the material.</p>
<p>The whole point of this (and several other studies) was to show that articles need to cover a range of words and phrases related to the topic of the article.  Without those words and phrases you wont compete for any mildly competitive term.  Authority sites are authority sites BECAUSE they have shown that they know their stuff and create quality content, but to do so, they have to write longer, theme word rich articles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Beard</title>
		<link>http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-404</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Beard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:52:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://affiliate-minder.com/lsi-themeing/case-study-4-evidence-for-the-critics/#comment-404</guid>
		<description>Take a look at that &quot;last page of SERPs&quot; again - every result is from books.google.com

I think you need to cross reference your data more, as for instance there is a strong correlation between length of article and SERP, and length of article and keyword use.

Those first 10 results smell of just one thing - massive authority

That they might also contain useful thick articles might be irrelevant, or this is a chicken/egg scenario.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Take a look at that &#8220;last page of SERPs&#8221; again &#8211; every result is from books.google.com</p>
<p>I think you need to cross reference your data more, as for instance there is a strong correlation between length of article and SERP, and length of article and keyword use.</p>
<p>Those first 10 results smell of just one thing &#8211; massive authority</p>
<p>That they might also contain useful thick articles might be irrelevant, or this is a chicken/egg scenario.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

