<?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: Google Sitemaps</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thunderguy.com/semicolon/2005/06/03/google-sitemaps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thunderguy.com/semicolon/2005/06/03/google-sitemaps/</link>
	<description>Software, the Internet and you.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Google Sitemaps Deconstructed &#187; semicolon</title>
		<link>http://www.thunderguy.com/semicolon/2005/06/03/google-sitemaps/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Sitemaps Deconstructed &#187; semicolon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thunderguy.com/semicolon/2005/06/03/google-sitemaps/#comment-104</guid>
		<description>[...] Google Sitemaps seemed like a moderately good idea at first. A standard format for information is always good for interoperability. But it&#8217;s hard to see Google Sitemaps ever really being useful to web search engines. Some features seem to add little to what Google already does, and others seem entirely useless. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Google Sitemaps seemed like a moderately good idea at first. A standard format for information is always good for interoperability. But it&#8217;s hard to see Google Sitemaps ever really being useful to web search engines. Some features seem to add little to what Google already does, and others seem entirely useless. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
