<?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: Accuracy: It&#8217;s Not Just A Song By The Cure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seo-chicks.com/249/accuracy-its-not-just-a-song-by-the-cure.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/249/accuracy-its-not-just-a-song-by-the-cure.html</link>
	<description>The SEO Blog with attitude</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:03:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Intermediate SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-chicks.com/249/accuracy-its-not-just-a-song-by-the-cure.html#comment-16438</link>
		<dc:creator>Intermediate SEO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-chicks.com/249/accuracy-its-not-just-a-song-by-the-cure.html#comment-16438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congrats. I think focusing on our BS - albeit airing our dirty laundry - is a great thing. Here&#039;s my pet peeve about lousy statistics.  Much of the SEO industry seems to be built around the WordTracker methodology. But there are two nonsense pieces of statistics in it.
1. Their data on searches comes from extremely minor (weird) sampling (follow my signature link to read about it). So it&#039;s not representative of the general population. While it&#039;s better than guessing, it&#039;s far from accurate.
2. Their whole theory that google references equates to competitiveness of term is....silly.  I haven&#039;t blogged on this but it&#039;s easy to disprove.  Pick a color. If you google &quot;red&quot;, you&#039;ll find there are over 1 trillion references. Sounds very competitive. Yet, there is not ONE paid ad for that term.  

I couldn&#039;t be the first one to have noticed this, can I?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congrats. I think focusing on our BS &#8211; albeit airing our dirty laundry &#8211; is a great thing. Here&#8217;s my pet peeve about lousy statistics.  Much of the SEO industry seems to be built around the WordTracker methodology. But there are two nonsense pieces of statistics in it.<br />
1. Their data on searches comes from extremely minor (weird) sampling (follow my signature link to read about it). So it&#8217;s not representative of the general population. While it&#8217;s better than guessing, it&#8217;s far from accurate.<br />
2. Their whole theory that google references equates to competitiveness of term is&#8230;.silly.  I haven&#8217;t blogged on this but it&#8217;s easy to disprove.  Pick a color. If you google &#8220;red&#8221;, you&#8217;ll find there are over 1 trillion references. Sounds very competitive. Yet, there is not ONE paid ad for that term.  </p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t be the first one to have noticed this, can I?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
