<?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: Writing For Google. Or Not.</title> <atom:link href="http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/</link> <description>News, insights, tools, and inspiration for business owners and professionals</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 17:25:59 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: AgentGenius</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-86955</link> <dc:creator>AgentGenius</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:03:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-86955</guid> <description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;#agnow It&#039;s not that you have to write for google, you just have to write was is natural because that is ultimately... http://bit.ly/80oGiH&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span
class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span
class="topsy_twitter_username"><span
class="topsy_trackback_content">#agnow It&#39;s not that you have to write for google, you just have to write was is natural because that is ultimately&#8230; http://bit.ly/80oGiH</span></span></span></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Tyler</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-45567</link> <dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:25:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-45567</guid> <description>It&#039;s not that you have to write for google, you just have to write was is natural because that is ultimately what google likes imo.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not that you have to write for google, you just have to write was is natural because that is ultimately what google likes imo.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Suzanne Gantner</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-18360</link> <dc:creator>Suzanne Gantner</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:56:02 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-18360</guid> <description>I wonder if people think we/clients/others are actually going to read bad redundant crude like your Realtor above.  To me it is offensive because he/she thinks we are stupid.  Good information is what we want, it doesn&#039;t have to be written by Hemingway, it needs to be informative.  Give me good substance!!</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if people think we/clients/others are actually going to read bad redundant crude like your Realtor above.  To me it is offensive because he/she thinks we are stupid.  Good information is what we want, it doesn&#8217;t have to be written by Hemingway, it needs to be informative.  Give me good substance!!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Mike Taylor</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15389</link> <dc:creator>Mike Taylor</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:01:15 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15389</guid> <description>I think if you write for you audience your writing will naturally contain enough of you keywords to satisfy the search engines.  I don&#039;t see a problem with tweaking your copy slightly to target certain words or phrases, but not at the expense of sounding like a idiot.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think if you write for you audience your writing will naturally contain enough of you keywords to satisfy the search engines.  I don&#8217;t see a problem with tweaking your copy slightly to target certain words or phrases, but not at the expense of sounding like a idiot.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bob</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15375</link> <dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:01:42 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15375</guid> <description>&quot;It is a matter of priorities for me, and I place a higher priority on
the readability once I am found than being found in the first place.&quot;
I understand that. However, readability, or the lack thereof, has very little to do with being found.
You&#039;ve written the same thing about quality vs results before, most recently on Inman, so it&#039;s my goal to dispel the belief that a writer of your caliber would have to compromise to compete. A site like your castles site with your local content could and should be more readily found for Scripps Ranch real estate, and it&#039;s certainly better for the user than what is currently on page one now. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sandiegocastles.com/&quot; title=&quot;Scripps Ranch&quot;&gt;SanDiegoCastles.com&lt;/a&gt; at #1 would be the map to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.inman.com/buyers-sellers/columnists/kris-berg/indiana-jones-and-google-ranking&quot;&gt;treasure
you mentioned&lt;/a&gt;.
As for the horse, no way I&#039;m giving up. When you speak, people listen, but this is the one thing where I don&#039;t want them to believe you. I don&#039;t even want you to believe you on this. You don&#039;t have to change a word. It isn&#039;t all or nothing. You really can have it both ways.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It is a matter of priorities for me, and I place a higher priority on<br
/> the readability once I am found than being found in the first place.&#8221;</p><p>I understand that. However, readability, or the lack thereof, has very little to do with being found.</p><p>You&#8217;ve written the same thing about quality vs results before, most recently on Inman, so it&#8217;s my goal to dispel the belief that a writer of your caliber would have to compromise to compete. A site like your castles site with your local content could and should be more readily found for Scripps Ranch real estate, and it&#8217;s certainly better for the user than what is currently on page one now. <a
href="http://www.sandiegocastles.com/" title="Scripps Ranch">SanDiegoCastles.com</a> at #1 would be the map to the <a
href="http://www.inman.com/buyers-sellers/columnists/kris-berg/indiana-jones-and-google-ranking">treasure<br
/> you mentioned</a>.</p><p>As for the horse, no way I&#8217;m giving up. When you speak, people listen, but this is the one thing where I don&#8217;t want them to believe you. I don&#8217;t even want you to believe you on this. You don&#8217;t have to change a word. It isn&#8217;t all or nothing. You really can have it both ways.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: This week&#8217;s blog watch: First week of August 2008 &#124; Real Estate Industry Watch</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15373</link> <dc:creator>This week&#8217;s blog watch: First week of August 2008 &#124; Real Estate Industry Watch</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:50:32 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15373</guid> <description>[...] Jay Thompson entered the Agent Genius arena with a post about writing for Google vs writing for the consumer. That got the comments [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Jay Thompson entered the Agent Genius arena with a post about writing for Google vs writing for the consumer. That got the comments [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Kris Berg</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15368</link> <dc:creator>Kris Berg</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:36:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15368</guid> <description>&gt;OMG, barf. Just write for your audience.
That is hysterical in its simplicity and brilliant in its eloquence, Diane. I think you may have just come up with the title of the opening panel session at Inman NY. :)
Just so there is no misunderstanding, Bob, I like Google, and I like Page Ones. I wish I was on more of them. And, yes, I know I suck at SEO and would probably (certainly) enjoy more success, however it is that we are measuring that this week, if I used my noggin a little instead of thoughtlessly typing whatever thoughts happen to pop into my head. It is a matter of priorities for me, and I place a higher priority on the readability once I am found than being found in the first place. This is admittedly foolhardy, but I&#039;m stubborn that way.
I think it could be argued that we have sufficiently beat this horse.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;OMG, barf. Just write for your audience.</p><p>That is hysterical in its simplicity and brilliant in its eloquence, Diane. I think you may have just come up with the title of the opening panel session at Inman NY. <img
src='http://agbeat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p><p>Just so there is no misunderstanding, Bob, I like Google, and I like Page Ones. I wish I was on more of them. And, yes, I know I suck at SEO and would probably (certainly) enjoy more success, however it is that we are measuring that this week, if I used my noggin a little instead of thoughtlessly typing whatever thoughts happen to pop into my head. It is a matter of priorities for me, and I place a higher priority on the readability once I am found than being found in the first place. This is admittedly foolhardy, but I&#8217;m stubborn that way.</p><p>I think it could be argued that we have sufficiently beat this horse.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Matthew Rathbun</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15363</link> <dc:creator>Matthew Rathbun</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:54:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15363</guid> <description>Writing to get found on Google and writing to attract a consumer to come back after the first article are the two steps (IMO) that should be considered.  However, I think writing many posts with the same key words is much better than writing one post with all the key words repeated.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Writing to get found on Google and writing to attract a consumer to come back after the first article are the two steps (IMO) that should be considered.  However, I think writing many posts with the same key words is much better than writing one post with all the key words repeated.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bob</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15357</link> <dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:39:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15357</guid> <description>i asked earlier &quot;Does the NY Times write for readership or search engines?&quot;
It wasn&#039;t rhetorical. Would it surprise anyone if the answer was search engines?
A few years ago the NY Times brought in one of the best SEOs out there. The assumption was that he would work his magic and they would own Google, after all, they are the NY Times. He did his thing with site architecture, etc, but what they didn&#039;t expect was that he required everyone from copyboy to editor go thru his training on writing for &lt;i&gt;an audience that includes search engines&lt;/i&gt;.
The end result was subtle changes that most would never pick up on that generated some pretty big positive results.
The point is that the concept of &quot;just write it for Ma and Pa kettle and they (Ma, Pa and google) will come&quot; isn&#039;t true. But the notion that you have to write keyword stuffed crap isn&#039;t true either.
I dont write a lot of blog posts, and when I do, they are geared to the consumer who doesnt know me and isnt looking for me. They are looking for specific answers. They find those via a search engine because it seemed to me that, this being a numbers game, that would be the easiest way to get in front of the most numbers.
The end game is I get search engine results that bring traffic that continues to generate business (over a dozen listings with offers pending), and close to 1200 comments in 14 months, even though only 2 posts were written in 2008.
The thing is, it will be what you are willing to make it. You don&#039;t need to write everyday, every week or even every month, and you certainly don&#039;t need a ghost writer. However, learning how to leverage the exposure of what you do publish seems obvious to me.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i asked earlier &#8220;Does the NY Times write for readership or search engines?&#8221;</p><p>It wasn&#8217;t rhetorical. Would it surprise anyone if the answer was search engines?</p><p>A few years ago the NY Times brought in one of the best SEOs out there. The assumption was that he would work his magic and they would own Google, after all, they are the NY Times. He did his thing with site architecture, etc, but what they didn&#8217;t expect was that he required everyone from copyboy to editor go thru his training on writing for <i>an audience that includes search engines</i>.</p><p>The end result was subtle changes that most would never pick up on that generated some pretty big positive results.</p><p>The point is that the concept of &#8220;just write it for Ma and Pa kettle and they (Ma, Pa and google) will come&#8221; isn&#8217;t true. But the notion that you have to write keyword stuffed crap isn&#8217;t true either.</p><p>I dont write a lot of blog posts, and when I do, they are geared to the consumer who doesnt know me and isnt looking for me. They are looking for specific answers. They find those via a search engine because it seemed to me that, this being a numbers game, that would be the easiest way to get in front of the most numbers.</p><p>The end game is I get search engine results that bring traffic that continues to generate business (over a dozen listings with offers pending), and close to 1200 comments in 14 months, even though only 2 posts were written in 2008.</p><p>The thing is, it will be what you are willing to make it. You don&#8217;t need to write everyday, every week or even every month, and you certainly don&#8217;t need a ghost writer. However, learning how to leverage the exposure of what you do publish seems obvious to me.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Cheryl Allin</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15328</link> <dc:creator>Cheryl Allin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:13:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15328</guid> <description>If you read your blog post out loud and it sounds weird, you need to fix it. I love the Kevin Nealon analogy, perfect! What you can do to a well worded, conversational blog post is ensure your url has keywords, title has keywords, H1 tags have keywords, images have alt tags and links have good anchor text and titles. But if you really want that page to have some google goodness, get some links pointing to it. People have teensie attention spans - they&#039;re going to skim it unless it&#039;s amazingly compelling. I can tell from my stats I don&#039;t often write anything terribly compelling - but I keep working to improve. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you read your blog post out loud and it sounds weird, you need to fix it. I love the Kevin Nealon analogy, perfect! What you can do to a well worded, conversational blog post is ensure your url has keywords, title has keywords, H1 tags have keywords, images have alt tags and links have good anchor text and titles. But if you really want that page to have some google goodness, get some links pointing to it. People have teensie attention spans &#8211; they&#8217;re going to skim it unless it&#8217;s amazingly compelling. I can tell from my stats I don&#8217;t often write anything terribly compelling &#8211; but I keep working to improve.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Diane Cohn</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15321</link> <dc:creator>Diane Cohn</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:34:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15321</guid> <description>OMG, barf. Just write for your audience.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMG, barf. Just write for your audience.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bob</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15291</link> <dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:13:18 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15291</guid> <description>Benn, I didn&#039;t ask because it was insurance. I asked because Kris isn&#039;t showing up organically 1-10 and could/should be. The myth that gets perpetuated ad nausem with real estate bloggers is that they rank primarily because of what they write or how they write.
Kris has written several times that she won&#039;t be found for certain keywords because of how she writes, so she is writing off an opportunity for greater exposure because of a misunderstanding of why her stuff ranks or doesn&#039;t rank.
Question: Does the NY Times write for readership or search engines?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benn, I didn&#8217;t ask because it was insurance. I asked because Kris isn&#8217;t showing up organically 1-10 and could/should be. The myth that gets perpetuated ad nausem with real estate bloggers is that they rank primarily because of what they write or how they write.</p><p>Kris has written several times that she won&#8217;t be found for certain keywords because of how she writes, so she is writing off an opportunity for greater exposure because of a misunderstanding of why her stuff ranks or doesn&#8217;t rank.</p><p>Question: Does the NY Times write for readership or search engines?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Eric Blackwell</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15287</link> <dc:creator>Eric Blackwell</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:37:42 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15287</guid> <description>Benn;
Since you brought the point up, I think it is worth mentioning that studies have found a synergistic effect in having both good organic ranking AND simultaneously running PPC ads.
In other words, it is better than insurance...doing both X + Y often will yield even more traffic to your site than the sum of either one.
And Bob is correct. For a term like Scripps Ranch real estate, you do not need to compromise your writing style Kris. I like the way that you write and to change that would be uncool. ;-)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benn;</p><p>Since you brought the point up, I think it is worth mentioning that studies have found a synergistic effect in having both good organic ranking AND simultaneously running PPC ads.</p><p>In other words, it is better than insurance&#8230;doing both X + Y often will yield even more traffic to your site than the sum of either one.</p><p>And Bob is correct. For a term like Scripps Ranch real estate, you do not need to compromise your writing style Kris. I like the way that you write and to change that would be uncool. <img
src='http://agbeat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bob</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15286</link> <dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:31:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15286</guid> <description>Kris, I meant the sponsored ad in Google for Scripps Ranch real estate..
The reason I mentioned it is that your site could easily rank well for Scripps Ranch real estate without having to compromise your writing style at all.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kris, I meant the sponsored ad in Google for Scripps Ranch real estate..</p><p>The reason I mentioned it is that your site could easily rank well for Scripps Ranch real estate without having to compromise your writing style at all.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ginger Wilcox</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15285</link> <dc:creator>Ginger Wilcox</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:28:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15285</guid> <description>Come on Jay.  The best way to hire a Phoenix real estate agent when you are buying Phoenix real estate in Phoenix is to hire a Phoenix expert who knows Phoenix like the back of his Phoenix born hand.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on Jay.  The best way to hire a Phoenix real estate agent when you are buying Phoenix real estate in Phoenix is to hire a Phoenix expert who knows Phoenix like the back of his Phoenix born hand.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Eric Blackwell</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15274</link> <dc:creator>Eric Blackwell</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:46:33 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15274</guid> <description>I think the most difficult task is teaching the words MODERATE and APPROPRIATE to Realtors (grin).</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the most difficult task is teaching the words MODERATE and APPROPRIATE to Realtors (grin).</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Kris Berg</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15266</link> <dc:creator>Kris Berg</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:33:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15266</guid> <description>Bob, I don&#039;t buy &quot;adwords&quot; for anything.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob, I don&#8217;t buy &#8220;adwords&#8221; for anything.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jennifer in Louisville</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15259</link> <dc:creator>Jennifer in Louisville</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:57:05 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15259</guid> <description>Echoing others sentiments:  If you actually generate traffic to your site (through SERPs or whatever), you need to have something compelling to keep them there.  But, by the same token, I can sympathize with the other guy - who feels that he has to do something to try to become more visible in the searches.  Its an act of desperation.  I&#039;m not saying its right or even good - but I do understand their desire to get seen.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Echoing others sentiments:  If you actually generate traffic to your site (through SERPs or whatever), you need to have something compelling to keep them there.  But, by the same token, I can sympathize with the other guy &#8211; who feels that he has to do something to try to become more visible in the searches.  Its an act of desperation.  I&#8217;m not saying its right or even good &#8211; but I do understand their desire to get seen.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jim Duncan</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15257</link> <dc:creator>Jim Duncan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:34:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15257</guid> <description>We&#039;re all writing for Google, whether we like or admit it or not. A difference is that some like your Phoenix friend are writing &lt;em&gt;specifically&lt;/em&gt; for Google and others are writing with Google as a third- or fourth-level goal or even as as afterthought. There is a blog in my area (happens to be AR) that does just what you speak of; the keywords are the primary content and the &lt;em&gt;content&lt;/em&gt; is secondary. Ugh.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;re all writing for Google, whether we like or admit it or not. A difference is that some like your Phoenix friend are writing <em>specifically</em> for Google and others are writing with Google as a third- or fourth-level goal or even as as afterthought. There is a blog in my area (happens to be AR) that does just what you speak of; the keywords are the primary content and the <em>content</em> is secondary. Ugh.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Benn Rosales</title><link>http://agbeat.com/editorials/point-purpose/writing-for-google-or-not/#comment-15256</link> <dc:creator>Benn Rosales</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:23:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://agentgenius.com/?p=3017#comment-15256</guid> <description>if you come up organically from 1-10 whats wrong with some insurance that you&#039;re also seen 10 - 100 in the results?  I&#039;m not getting why a little insurance with gooogle ads has anything to do with packing a post with crap to cheat the system...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if you come up organically from 1-10 whats wrong with some insurance that you&#8217;re also seen 10 &#8211; 100 in the results?  I&#8217;m not getting why a little insurance with gooogle ads has anything to do with packing a post with crap to cheat the system&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
