<?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: Say What? Keyword Density, Frequency, Prominence, &amp; Proximity?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seo.com/blog/keyword-density-frequency-prominence-proximity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seo.com/blog/keyword-density-frequency-prominence-proximity/</link>
	<description>Search Engine Optimization SEO &#38; Internet Marketing Company</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:58:52 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://www.seo.com/blog/keyword-density-frequency-prominence-proximity/comment-page-1/#comment-30185</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 04:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo.com/?p=2291#comment-30185</guid>
		<description>Nice summary Greg, I&#039;m going to examine my KW prominence tomorrow!  :D

Those of us with enough sites to experiment with know full well the power that keywords have.  It cracks me up that the clowns in the following link (web guys?  lol) claim keywords are irrelevant!  

http://www.webworkshop.net/seoforum/viewtopic.php?t=28192&amp;start=0&amp;sid=04fb9559990b4c992274444dc6e07753


Nice write-up, bro.  Bookmarked ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice summary Greg, I&#8217;m going to examine my KW prominence tomorrow!  <img src='http://www.seo.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Those of us with enough sites to experiment with know full well the power that keywords have.  It cracks me up that the clowns in the following link (web guys?  lol) claim keywords are irrelevant!  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.webworkshop.net/seoforum/viewtopic.php?t=28192&amp;start=0&amp;sid=04fb9559990b4c992274444dc6e07753" rel="nofollow">http://www.webworkshop.net/seoforum/viewtopic.php?t=28192&amp;start=0&amp;sid=04fb9559990b4c992274444dc6e07753</a></p>
<p>Nice write-up, bro.  Bookmarked <img src='http://www.seo.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fabio Uncinotti</title>
		<link>http://www.seo.com/blog/keyword-density-frequency-prominence-proximity/comment-page-1/#comment-24809</link>
		<dc:creator>Fabio Uncinotti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo.com/?p=2291#comment-24809</guid>
		<description>I like a lot your way to explain the keyword proximity. I like the way you explain the difference between the proximity and the prominence, that is an important difference to stand out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like a lot your way to explain the keyword proximity. I like the way you explain the difference between the proximity and the prominence, that is an important difference to stand out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.seo.com/blog/keyword-density-frequency-prominence-proximity/comment-page-1/#comment-19147</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 20:58:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo.com/?p=2291#comment-19147</guid>
		<description>I like this a lot. One thing I can&#039;t stand is a keyword stuffer. It just looks dumb and doesn&#039;t make a whole lot of since.

I agree with Agent SEO about solid keyword density and valuable content.

I believe the spiders are advanced enough to recognize a websites most important keywords when they are placed grammatically correct, in the right places, and with taste.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like this a lot. One thing I can&#8217;t stand is a keyword stuffer. It just looks dumb and doesn&#8217;t make a whole lot of since.</p>
<p>I agree with Agent SEO about solid keyword density and valuable content.</p>
<p>I believe the spiders are advanced enough to recognize a websites most important keywords when they are placed grammatically correct, in the right places, and with taste.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Agent SEO</title>
		<link>http://www.seo.com/blog/keyword-density-frequency-prominence-proximity/comment-page-1/#comment-19143</link>
		<dc:creator>Agent SEO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo.com/?p=2291#comment-19143</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re on the right track. Too many people get hung up on hitting their exact percentage of keywords. 

I am of the opinion that if you have valuable content, and write it with a user focus, then solid keyword density will come on its own.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re on the right track. Too many people get hung up on hitting their exact percentage of keywords. </p>
<p>I am of the opinion that if you have valuable content, and write it with a user focus, then solid keyword density will come on its own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
