<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The SEO Magic Bullet; 2011 Edition</title>
		<description>Discuss The SEO Magic Bullet; 2011 Edition</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 04:09:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/128/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-310</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Amanda - thanks for dropping in ya mad geek! While I appreciate the head's up and the correction, the point of the post was actually more about people running wild with filings. And at the end of the day, awarded or not, to me the exercise is more about getting into the headspace of the engineers, than the exact method in question. Know what I mean? Thanks again for the head's up tho. @Tad - we should open a new agency; Red Ryder SEO @Bill - hey bro, nice to see ya. I remember when we started this 'series' back in 07, oddly it seems not a whole lot has changed out there as far as the perceptions of patents/papers and how the SEO media uses it. I certainly agree on that last part about questions. Many times I end up much the same. Finding things in an offering that leads me to dig deeper into a given methodology and how I might find some actionable elements to test/research. And well, end of the day, it's just fascinating to consider the task of indexing the world's information. It never get's old.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-310</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Slawski says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-309</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What I loved about the reasonable surfer patent wasn't that it give us a stark and sudden awareness of how Google might be weighing links different, but rather it confirmed something that we already knew about if we were paying attention, and let us see some of the assumptions about the weight that a link might carry based upon how a link might be presented on a page. As always, this is spot on: "Reading and analyzing papers and patents from the major engines is about insight, not definitive answers." There have been some patents from places like Google that spot on in their description, and what ends up being developed by the search engine, like the handful of patents that described how Google personalized search would be set up. But, most patents provide information about processes that aren't so clear and transparent, and are difficult to tell if they've been implemented. I don't usually read patents or white papers to tell how a search engine does something. I read them to come up with questions that I might not have considered asking without having read those patents or papers.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Slawski</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-309</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tad Miller says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-308</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I know their is no magic bullet, but I'll settle for a BB! :P]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tad Miller</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-308</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Amanda says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-306</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Also- wanted to point something out: "It was awarded in late 2010 so it must be something super secret and important right?" This is inaccurate. This patent was PUBLISHED 9/30/10 and filed 6/15/10. It's official status is "Application Dispatched from Preexam, Not Yet Docketed " There is a HUGE distinction between applications being published and patents being awarded. I could file an application today claiming to have invented a hammer and my application will be PUBLISHED (unless you file a document specifically requesting them not to, called a "Non Publication Request") but I most certainly won't get a patent for it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Amanda</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-306</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Amanda says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-305</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you want to see the claims as Google originally intended them in US 2010/0250552 A1 (you'll note that claims 2-24 have been canceled and, as of publication, only claim 1 is pending)... I downloaded them from PAIR and uploaded it here: http://www.amandaorson.com/go/googleapp.pdf On October 15th they entered a supplemental Preliminary Amendment including claims 25-43 which are substantively very similar to the above claims. For those that aren't patent savvy, claims are the "meat" of a patent- without them, you have nothing to defend or 'claim' ownership to. And, FYI, this is the inventor: http://www.google.com/programming-contest/winner.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Amanda</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110203128/General-SEO/the-seo-magic-bullet-2011-edition.html#comment-305</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
