<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: News Wire: Google&#8217;s New Meta Tag</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/07/24/news-wire-googles-new-meta-tag/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/07/24/news-wire-googles-new-meta-tag/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: cranial-bore</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/07/24/news-wire-googles-new-meta-tag/#comment-315033</link>
		<dc:creator>cranial-bore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/07/24/news-wire-googles-new-meta-tag/#comment-315033</guid>
		<description>So does the use of the unavailable_after tag mean that the document will actually be REMOVED from Google's index once expired, or it simply won't be crawled again for updates?

The name of the tag would have me believe the former, but the wording of the article implies that it only relates to crawling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So does the use of the unavailable_after tag mean that the document will actually be REMOVED from Google&#8217;s index once expired, or it simply won&#8217;t be crawled again for updates?</p>
<p>The name of the tag would have me believe the former, but the wording of the article implies that it only relates to crawling.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
