<?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: Digg&#039;s vs Retweets: Which Would You Prefer?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andrewjamesinc.com/social-media/diggs-vs-retweets-which-would-you-prefer/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andrewjamesinc.com/social-media/diggs-vs-retweets-which-would-you-prefer</link>
	<description>Andrew James :: Advertising Technology Strategist &#38; Adventure Entrepteneur</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:30:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew James</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewjamesinc.com/social-media/diggs-vs-retweets-which-would-you-prefer/comment-page-1#comment-175</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andrewjamesinc.com/?p=1112#comment-175</guid>
		<description>Great point and question Jacob.  I guess it all comes down to focus and technical ability.  If you are focused purely on social media word of mouth promotion, then you&#039;re all about re-tweets and people spreading the word.  However, if you engineer your social efforts to include some simple technical benefits of SEO you can gain huge benefits.  And thus the Digg&#039;s.  For some reason, (which is actually genius) search engines are able to value the human votes with something like Digg.  And Digg, or other social new/bookmarking sites generate a back link and that helps your SEO.

If you have a post with 10+ diggs, going for keywords that are fairly difficult to rank for, you&#039;ll notice yourself beating out other content with those links.  Especially if the actual content goes viral.

Anyway, it&#039;s all about links, make sense?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great point and question Jacob.  I guess it all comes down to focus and technical ability.  If you are focused purely on social media word of mouth promotion, then you&#8217;re all about re-tweets and people spreading the word.  However, if you engineer your social efforts to include some simple technical benefits of SEO you can gain huge benefits.  And thus the Digg&#8217;s.  For some reason, (which is actually genius) search engines are able to value the human votes with something like Digg.  And Digg, or other social new/bookmarking sites generate a back link and that helps your SEO.</p>
<p>If you have a post with 10+ diggs, going for keywords that are fairly difficult to rank for, you&#8217;ll notice yourself beating out other content with those links.  Especially if the actual content goes viral.</p>
<p>Anyway, it&#8217;s all about links, make sense?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob S. Paulsen</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewjamesinc.com/social-media/diggs-vs-retweets-which-would-you-prefer/comment-page-1#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob S. Paulsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andrewjamesinc.com/?p=1112#comment-174</guid>
		<description>I think I agree with the Diggs in principle but when I look at the results on all my own sites I clearly get more traffic from Twitter than I do from Digg. So..... its hard to quantify and thus I&#039;m confused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I agree with the Diggs in principle but when I look at the results on all my own sites I clearly get more traffic from Twitter than I do from Digg. So&#8230;.. its hard to quantify and thus I&#8217;m confused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

