<?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: Google Filters: Exact Match Anchor Text Links Are the New Meta Keywords</title>
	<atom:link href="http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords</link>
	<description>Search &#38; Social Media Survival Guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:53:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bliss O. Oharisi</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-327202</link>
		<dc:creator>Bliss O. Oharisi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-327202</guid>
		<description>thanks for this info, but does it mean no more keywords or google just track keywords from post?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for this info, but does it mean no more keywords or google just track keywords from post?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Sim</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-304314</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Sim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-304314</guid>
		<description>Your conclusion makes good logical sense. We all know that Google constantly refines their algorithim to spot pandering, so this must be another of their attempts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your conclusion makes good logical sense. We all know that Google constantly refines their algorithim to spot pandering, so this must be another of their attempts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Maurice</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-275748</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Maurice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 17:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-275748</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a good research.

It mean that, an anchor Text contain keyword phase is better than only exact keyword, right?
For example:

Online Marketing vs Online Marketing – the best online Method

Which is better or both are the same?

Many thanks
Rich</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a good research.</p>
<p>It mean that, an anchor Text contain keyword phase is better than only exact keyword, right?<br />
For example:</p>
<p>Online Marketing vs Online Marketing – the best online Method</p>
<p>Which is better or both are the same?</p>
<p>Many thanks<br />
Rich</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charlie</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-191743</link>
		<dc:creator>charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-191743</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a believer in filters, so your post makes sense. But I would guess that it would take several identical links to trip the filter. You wrote, &quot;It happened both with one link added or with lots of.&quot; So just one single link did it? Wow...
I&#039;m also thinking this might be a temporary dampening. Have you done any testing since then to see if after a week or two your ranking recovers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a believer in filters, so your post makes sense. But I would guess that it would take several identical links to trip the filter. You wrote, &#8220;It happened both with one link added or with lots of.&#8221; So just one single link did it? Wow&#8230;<br />
I&#8217;m also thinking this might be a temporary dampening. Have you done any testing since then to see if after a week or two your ranking recovers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bartjan from BajaCa</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-190103</link>
		<dc:creator>Bartjan from BajaCa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-190103</guid>
		<description>This more recent blogpost seems to strengthen your suggestion: http://searchenginewatch.com/3641002
It analysis a few top 10 rankings with the used anchor texts on the websites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This more recent blogpost seems to strengthen your suggestion: <a href="http://searchenginewatch.com/3641002" rel="nofollow">http://searchenginewatch.com/3641002</a><br />
It analysis a few top 10 rankings with the used anchor texts on the websites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruno Vincent</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-186736</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruno Vincent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:38:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-186736</guid>
		<description>I hope this thread is still open...

I used to rank #1 for &quot;Vancouver Movers&quot; on both Google.ca and Google.com

But now a whole bunch of new sites with less link popularity are beating me...

Did I over optimize? Am I repeating my keywords to often in my links?

Any input would be much appreciated. The website in question is:

http://www.vincentmoving.com

I live in Thailand now and don&#039;t own any trucks anymore...I make my living with this site so it&#039;s pretty important for me ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope this thread is still open&#8230;</p>
<p>I used to rank #1 for &#8220;Vancouver Movers&#8221; on both Google.ca and Google.com</p>
<p>But now a whole bunch of new sites with less link popularity are beating me&#8230;</p>
<p>Did I over optimize? Am I repeating my keywords to often in my links?</p>
<p>Any input would be much appreciated. The website in question is:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vincentmoving.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vincentmoving.com</a></p>
<p>I live in Thailand now and don&#8217;t own any trucks anymore&#8230;I make my living with this site so it&#8217;s pretty important for me ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-185204</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:24:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-185204</guid>
		<description>There are scores of people who spam using keyword rich anchors and this is only obvious that google would come up with something to devalue such links. Guess the brand based anchor links hold a lot more value than keyword rich links.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are scores of people who spam using keyword rich anchors and this is only obvious that google would come up with something to devalue such links. Guess the brand based anchor links hold a lot more value than keyword rich links.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-184876</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-184876</guid>
		<description>Interesting observation. I have a question though, I rank highest in my exact phrase anchor text that I use the most, but not so much for other phrases, how do you explain that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting observation. I have a question though, I rank highest in my exact phrase anchor text that I use the most, but not so much for other phrases, how do you explain that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Myk</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-180251</link>
		<dc:creator>Myk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-180251</guid>
		<description>If that&#039;s true, everyone would spam their competitor so they will drop rank, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If that&#8217;s true, everyone would spam their competitor so they will drop rank, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victoria Blount</title>
		<link>http://seo2.0.onreact.com/google-filters-exact-match-anchor-text-links-are-the-new-meta-keywords#comment-178677</link>
		<dc:creator>Victoria Blount</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seo2.0.onreact.com/?p=1102#comment-178677</guid>
		<description>This is a really interesting article,as SEO to a certain extent is theory based and without blog discussions like this verbalising your findings to others wouldn&#039;t happen. So if your anchor text links have some variation in them, but still with the keyword included does this have the same detrimental effect?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a really interesting article,as SEO to a certain extent is theory based and without blog discussions like this verbalising your findings to others wouldn&#8217;t happen. So if your anchor text links have some variation in them, but still with the keyword included does this have the same detrimental effect?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

