<?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: Bing Spamming Twitter?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/</link>
	<description>Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Tactics Through Test</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:16:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yumi Vega</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-144097</link>
		<dc:creator>Yumi Vega</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-144097</guid>
		<description>i  am  using  both  Bing   and   Google  a nd i think both search engines give relevant search results. i would still prefer Google though, because it gives a little bit more relevant search results than Bing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i  am  using  both  Bing   and   Google  a nd i think both search engines give relevant search results. i would still prefer Google though, because it gives a little bit more relevant search results than Bing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy Sy</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-143412</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy Sy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-143412</guid>
		<description>i have been using the BING search engine for a couple of weeks. it seems to be as good as Google but for some reason i would still want to stick with Google search engine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have been using the BING search engine for a couple of weeks. it seems to be as good as Google but for some reason i would still want to stick with Google search engine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-142771</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-142771</guid>
		<description>i have been evaluating the search results of Microsoft Bing compared to Google and they are comparable. Bing gives almost the same relevant search results just like Google.

[[Posted from IP address 122.55.51.100 - see other comments in the same vein, from the same IP; JeremyC]]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have been evaluating the search results of Microsoft Bing compared to Google and they are comparable. Bing gives almost the same relevant search results just like Google.</p>
<p>[[Posted from IP address 122.55.51.100 - see other comments in the same vein, from the same IP; JeremyC]]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: melatoninlady</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-142477</link>
		<dc:creator>melatoninlady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-142477</guid>
		<description>Microsoft Bing would be the closet competitor of Google. but i still use Google because it shows more relevant results on the serp.

[[Posted from IP address 122.55.51.100 - see other comments in the same vein, from the same IP; JeremyC]]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Microsoft Bing would be the closet competitor of Google. but i still use Google because it shows more relevant results on the serp.</p>
<p>[[Posted from IP address 122.55.51.100 - see other comments in the same vein, from the same IP; JeremyC]]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: detoxdiet</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-142397</link>
		<dc:creator>detoxdiet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:11:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-142397</guid>
		<description>my initial test result shows that Bing is as good as Google when displaying relevant search results. Google might be having a tough competitor with Microsofts own search engine.

[[Posted from IP address 122.55.51.100 - see other comments in the same vein, from the same IP; JeremyC]]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my initial test result shows that Bing is as good as Google when displaying relevant search results. Google might be having a tough competitor with Microsofts own search engine.</p>
<p>[[Posted from IP address 122.55.51.100 - see other comments in the same vein, from the same IP; JeremyC]]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-140662</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Chatfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-140662</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Rich - I should have known you&#039;d penetrate the details!

Hmm. Twitter-culture wise, doesn&#039;t this seem a dangerous usage? Or is this part of the emergence of trending topics?

And what if, as in this case, it appears to be based on re-presenting old information as new? The original source needs to get &quot;community de-rating&quot; as an unreliable source?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Rich &#8211; I should have known you&#8217;d penetrate the details!</p>
<p>Hmm. Twitter-culture wise, doesn&#8217;t this seem a dangerous usage? Or is this part of the emergence of trending topics?</p>
<p>And what if, as in this case, it appears to be based on re-presenting old information as new? The original source needs to get &#8220;community de-rating&#8221; as an unreliable source?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Ball</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-140652</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Ball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:29:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-140652</guid>
		<description>I think Joe&#039;s right.  It&#039;s crowdsourced spam, enabled by Twitter, encouraged by MerchantCircle (who&#039;s scraping TechCrunch content).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Joe&#8217;s right.  It&#8217;s crowdsourced spam, enabled by Twitter, encouraged by MerchantCircle (who&#8217;s scraping TechCrunch content).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim Clink</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-140640</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim Clink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-140640</guid>
		<description>Even *if* it is a tweet this issue appearing as spam in this case I think it is just a matter of time before we have a spam issue on Twitter.  Spammers have worked their way in everywhere else, why not Twitter?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even *if* it is a tweet this issue appearing as spam in this case I think it is just a matter of time before we have a spam issue on Twitter.  Spammers have worked their way in everywhere else, why not Twitter?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-140637</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Chatfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-140637</guid>
		<description>Thanks Joe - that would do it. Hmm. Never occurred to me to ever click &quot;Tweet This&quot; with someone else&#039;s writing. Perhaps I&#039;m too much of a control freak. When I speak, I try to make it me :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Joe &#8211; that would do it. Hmm. Never occurred to me to ever click &#8220;Tweet This&#8221; with someone else&#8217;s writing. Perhaps I&#8217;m too much of a control freak. When I speak, I try to make it me :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Bowers</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2009/06/05/bing-spamming-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-140635</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Bowers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.merjis.com/?p=295#comment-140635</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m guessing these identical messages are the result of a &quot;Tweet this&quot; control offered by some upstream web site. Users click a button, log in to twitter, and the message is posted (or something more complex but operationally identical).

I suppose this sort of *is* spamming, but it&#039;s spamming with the complicity of each poster. Perhaps the punch line is, think three times before clicking the &quot;Tweet this&quot; button/link/whathaveyou on a site you think is worth sharing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m guessing these identical messages are the result of a &#8220;Tweet this&#8221; control offered by some upstream web site. Users click a button, log in to twitter, and the message is posted (or something more complex but operationally identical).</p>
<p>I suppose this sort of *is* spamming, but it&#8217;s spamming with the complicity of each poster. Perhaps the punch line is, think three times before clicking the &#8220;Tweet this&#8221; button/link/whathaveyou on a site you think is worth sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

