<?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: FTC, Google or both?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/12/ftc-google-or-both/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/12/ftc-google-or-both/</link>
	<description>Innovative Marketing Strategy and Programs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 21:04:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/12/ftc-google-or-both/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markdevisser.com/?p=115#comment-5</guid>
		<description>I think you will agree that for Google this needs to be an automated process. in other words, they will need to be able to have their computers recognize the pattern that makes the review deceitful. 

Would you recommend they refuse advertising for *any page* that has an affiliate link that is not disclosed? And how would they know it was or was not disclosed - from semantic text processing? 

The point of my article was to support your fight. I&#039;&#039;m sure it must be frustrating. I think over time, Google will be able to detect the pattern and subsequently will be able to refuse advertising for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you will agree that for Google this needs to be an automated process. in other words, they will need to be able to have their computers recognize the pattern that makes the review deceitful. </p>
<p>Would you recommend they refuse advertising for *any page* that has an affiliate link that is not disclosed? And how would they know it was or was not disclosed &#8211; from semantic text processing? </p>
<p>The point of my article was to support your fight. I&#8221;m sure it must be frustrating. I think over time, Google will be able to detect the pattern and subsequently will be able to refuse advertising for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Marks</title>
		<link>http://www.markdevisser.com/2009/12/ftc-google-or-both/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Marks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markdevisser.com/?p=115#comment-4</guid>
		<description>I think that you&#039;&#039;ve missed Zurlocher&#039;&#039;s point.  The complaint with Google is, they accept advertising that looks like an unbiased review.  These reviews don&#039;&#039;t disclose affiliate compensation and are deceitful.  These bogus reviews are the entire marketing strategy of one of my competitors.  Google is able to adhere to the FTC&#039;&#039;s advertising guidelines.  It is within their control.  Google accepts this advertising because it&#039;&#039;s highly profitable for both Google and the advertiser.   This isn&#039;&#039;t about free speech or page rank.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that you&#8221;ve missed Zurlocher&#8221;s point.  The complaint with Google is, they accept advertising that looks like an unbiased review.  These reviews don&#8221;t disclose affiliate compensation and are deceitful.  These bogus reviews are the entire marketing strategy of one of my competitors.  Google is able to adhere to the FTC&#8221;s advertising guidelines.  It is within their control.  Google accepts this advertising because it&#8221;s highly profitable for both Google and the advertiser.   This isn&#8221;t about free speech or page rank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
