<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keywords in Domains</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nickyjurd.com/keywords-in-domains/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nickyjurd.com/keywords-in-domains/</link>
	<description>Effective Small Business Websites</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.nickyjurd.com/keywords-in-domains/#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nickyjurd.com/?p=83#comment-124</guid>
		<description>Very good points there nicky. I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to push a search term or a specific brand.

Because the very 2.0 names such as flikr, digg etc all rely on their branding being the search terms, not an English logical search term ie 'voteable news website'</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good points there nicky. I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to push a search term or a specific brand.</p>
<p>Because the very 2.0 names such as flikr, digg etc all rely on their branding being the search terms, not an English logical search term ie &#8216;voteable news website&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
