<?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 for </title>
	<atom:link href="http://news.whiplashdps.net/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://news.whiplashdps.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:32:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Maximize Your Website and Domain Names by whiplashdps</title>
		<link>http://news.whiplashdps.net/marketing-center/maximize-your-website-and-domain-names.html/comment-page-1#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>whiplashdps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.whiplashdps.net/?p=34#comment-9</guid>
		<description>UPDATE: 
Some recent reading in this topic has found debate in regard to:
- micro sites: specifcly pertaining to micro sites on the same server or I.P.
- Duplicate Content: there is debate as to whether sites are actually penalized for duplicate content, or it is simply a matter of search engines comparing the two sites and only offering up the more relevant or popular (link-backs) of the two (or three, etc).

Since putting duplicate content on a site, rather then developing for additional organic content seems a waste, it probably remains a non-recommended practice from our point of view.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE:<br />
Some recent reading in this topic has found debate in regard to:<br />
- micro sites: specifcly pertaining to micro sites on the same server or I.P.<br />
- Duplicate Content: there is debate as to whether sites are actually penalized for duplicate content, or it is simply a matter of search engines comparing the two sites and only offering up the more relevant or popular (link-backs) of the two (or three, etc).</p>
<p>Since putting duplicate content on a site, rather then developing for additional organic content seems a waste, it probably remains a non-recommended practice from our point of view.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

