<?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: SEO CopyWriting Vs Conversion Rates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/29/seo-vs-conversion-rates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/29/seo-vs-conversion-rates/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:40:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Da Vanzo</title>
		<link>http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/29/seo-vs-conversion-rates/comment-page-1/#comment-533</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Da Vanzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 22:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/29/seo-vs-conversion-rates/#comment-533</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think we ever forget the search engines ;)

Some approach &quot;SEO Copywriting&quot; from a technical perspective (i.e. positioning and density of phrases). Without going into the reasons why that approach doesn&#039;t work (on Google, at least), I think seo copywriting is best approached from a visitor perspective. 

If we truly understand the visitor, and allow the visitor to define the language and terminology, while we direct the visitor to (desireable) action, then we&#039;re getting somewhere. 

Simply repeating keyword terms risks missing the bigger picture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think we ever forget the search engines <img src='http://blog.v7n.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Some approach &#8220;SEO Copywriting&#8221; from a technical perspective (i.e. positioning and density of phrases). Without going into the reasons why that approach doesn&#8217;t work (on Google, at least), I think seo copywriting is best approached from a visitor perspective. </p>
<p>If we truly understand the visitor, and allow the visitor to define the language and terminology, while we direct the visitor to (desireable) action, then we&#8217;re getting somewhere. </p>
<p>Simply repeating keyword terms risks missing the bigger picture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruben</title>
		<link>http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/29/seo-vs-conversion-rates/comment-page-1/#comment-530</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 06:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/29/seo-vs-conversion-rates/#comment-530</guid>
		<description>Well, I would argue the best SEO copywriting is writing with the reader in mind, but never forgetting the search engines. When I write, I always think of the two or three keywords that the post could be about, then I make sure I use those words more then just once, and in places which makes sense.
I always correct my text after writing it, making up of course numerous spelling errors, but also adding a few keywords by rewriting some sentences. I don&#039;t think my readers mind so far ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I would argue the best SEO copywriting is writing with the reader in mind, but never forgetting the search engines. When I write, I always think of the two or three keywords that the post could be about, then I make sure I use those words more then just once, and in places which makes sense.<br />
I always correct my text after writing it, making up of course numerous spelling errors, but also adding a few keywords by rewriting some sentences. I don&#8217;t think my readers mind so far <img src='http://blog.v7n.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

