<?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: One Really Annoying Search Result at Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/</link>
	<description>Because not everyone can throw thousands of dollars at the &#039;How do we market ourselves online?&#039; question...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:57:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: PinkCakeBox</title>
		<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18370</link>
		<dc:creator>PinkCakeBox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18370</guid>
		<description>Matt Cutts addressed this behavior in one of his comments.  I find it hard to believe that people are missing sitelinks, but google claims their tests show otherwise:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Hart and Jean-Luc, you asked why we still show a second result from e.g. starbucks.com even if we show Sitelinks for starbucks.com at the #1 slot. That is intentional (not a bug), and the reason is that some people don’t notice the Sitelinks. We’ve done lots of UI tests to make the Sitelinks have the right amount of visibility, but showing a second result helps in those cases when people don’t notice the Sitelinks, which does happen.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt Cutts addressed this behavior in one of his comments.  I find it hard to believe that people are missing sitelinks, but google claims their tests show otherwise:</p>
<blockquote><p>Hart and Jean-Luc, you asked why we still show a second result from e.g. starbucks.com even if we show Sitelinks for starbucks.com at the #1 slot. That is intentional (not a bug), and the reason is that some people don’t notice the Sitelinks. We’ve done lots of UI tests to make the Sitelinks have the right amount of visibility, but showing a second result helps in those cases when people don’t notice the Sitelinks, which does happen.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt McGee</title>
		<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18040</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt McGee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:09:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18040</guid>
		<description>@sheseltine - That&#039;s actually the situation I have on a search for &quot;small business sem&quot;, and it doesn&#039;t look good as an objective observer.

@Linda Bustos -- Good question. I don&#039;t know the status on that.

@rishil -- it&#039;s not a dream come true when the competition gets the extra real estate.  :)

@incrediblehelp -- I know why it happens, but I&#039;m saying it shouldn&#039;t. Once you get site links for a given phrase/query, they oughtta be able to turn off that domain for the rest of the top 10.

Great comments, folks - thanks so much,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@sheseltine &#8211; That&#8217;s actually the situation I have on a search for &#8220;small business sem&#8221;, and it doesn&#8217;t look good as an objective observer.</p>
<p>@Linda Bustos &#8212; Good question. I don&#8217;t know the status on that.</p>
<p>@rishil &#8212; it&#8217;s not a dream come true when the competition gets the extra real estate.  <img src='http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>@incrediblehelp &#8212; I know why it happens, but I&#8217;m saying it shouldn&#8217;t. Once you get site links for a given phrase/query, they oughtta be able to turn off that domain for the rest of the top 10.</p>
<p>Great comments, folks &#8211; thanks so much,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: incrediblehelp</title>
		<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18039</link>
		<dc:creator>incrediblehelp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18039</guid>
		<description>Sure but this has much more to do with a websites internal linking and Google&#039;s inability to handle websites linking to the same page 1-2-3 different ways.  Really has nothing to do with Sitelinks at all.  The problem is totally separate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure but this has much more to do with a websites internal linking and Google&#8217;s inability to handle websites linking to the same page 1-2-3 different ways.  Really has nothing to do with Sitelinks at all.  The problem is totally separate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rishil</title>
		<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18033</link>
		<dc:creator>rishil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18033</guid>
		<description>Well I agree from a users point of view it can be annoying, but from a search merketers point of view isnt it a dream come true? 

We all try to capitalise our real estate on the SERPs, especially with blended search, and I would hold on to that one with dear life ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I agree from a users point of view it can be annoying, but from a search merketers point of view isnt it a dream come true? </p>
<p>We all try to capitalise our real estate on the SERPs, especially with blended search, and I would hold on to that one with dear life <img src='http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda Bustos</title>
		<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18032</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda Bustos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18032</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I noticed when entering a friend&#039;s business in Google yesterday that all the sub-domains were also listed individually (main site, forum, blog etc). I thought Google was going to treat subdomains like sub-folders to reduce the amount of sub-domains that appear in serps. Has that supposed to have taken effect already or did they change their mind?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I noticed when entering a friend&#8217;s business in Google yesterday that all the sub-domains were also listed individually (main site, forum, blog etc). I thought Google was going to treat subdomains like sub-folders to reduce the amount of sub-domains that appear in serps. Has that supposed to have taken effect already or did they change their mind?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Lander</title>
		<link>http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18031</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Lander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/one-really-annoying-search-result-at-google/1095/#comment-18031</guid>
		<description>This is incredibly frustrating -- perhaps it&#039;s something that we should respond to via the &quot;Dissatisfied&quot; link.

I love when you see this behavior in addition to the ten other links on the bottom of the SERPs labeled as &quot;Searches related to: (query)&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is incredibly frustrating &#8212; perhaps it&#8217;s something that we should respond to via the &#8220;Dissatisfied&#8221; link.</p>
<p>I love when you see this behavior in addition to the ten other links on the bottom of the SERPs labeled as &#8220;Searches related to: (query)&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
