<?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: Information Silos are Bad for the Web</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/</link>
	<description>News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:29:21 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric Ferraiuolo</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-797324</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Ferraiuolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:40:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2849#comment-797324</guid>
		<description>Well it&#039;s true, &lt;em&gt;websites&lt;/em&gt; are hard to monetize!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well it&#8217;s true, <em>websites</em> are hard to monetize!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Catone</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-783034</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Catone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2849#comment-783034</guid>
		<description>@Joel and jobol: Indeed -- and of course, better rankings in Google = more people on your site = more revenue from ads (or whatever you sell). :)

@glenngould: Wikipedia is an interesting case, because an encyclopedia should be self-referential.  Wikipedia generally does make an effort to link out to cited sources and official web site and additional outside information, at least, which is helpful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Joel and jobol: Indeed &#8212; and of course, better rankings in Google = more people on your site = more revenue from ads (or whatever you sell). :)</p>
<p>@glenngould: Wikipedia is an interesting case, because an encyclopedia should be self-referential.  Wikipedia generally does make an effort to link out to cited sources and official web site and additional outside information, at least, which is helpful.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jobol</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-782942</link>
		<dc:creator>jobol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2849#comment-782942</guid>
		<description>My comment was caught as s p.a m. I try again with some word changes and a removed link to Wikipedia for the mentioned HITS algorithm:

Internal linking is not just about page views and keeping people on the site, imho. There is also the (alleged at least) search engine opt. effect of keeping &quot;Google juice&quot; or Page.Rank on your own site, and not let too much flow out. On the other hand, from a visitor&#039;s perspective, a page with many outgoing links is often more useful, so probably search engines take that into account to some extent when ranking a page.
The HITS page ranking algorithm defines pages as &lt;em&gt;authorities&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;hubs&lt;/em&gt; respectively, if they have lots of either incoming or outbound links. Both hubs and authorities are valuable in different aspects. A page that manages to be both a hub and an authority is especially valuable, imho. Authorities generally deserve a higher value though, since making a page a hub is quite easy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My comment was caught as s p.a m. I try again with some word changes and a removed link to Wikipedia for the mentioned HITS algorithm:</p>
<p>Internal linking is not just about page views and keeping people on the site, imho. There is also the (alleged at least) search engine opt. effect of keeping &#8220;Google juice&#8221; or Page.Rank on your own site, and not let too much flow out. On the other hand, from a visitor&#8217;s perspective, a page with many outgoing links is often more useful, so probably search engines take that into account to some extent when ranking a page.<br />
The HITS page ranking algorithm defines pages as <em>authorities</em> or <em>hubs</em> respectively, if they have lots of either incoming or outbound links. Both hubs and authorities are valuable in different aspects. A page that manages to be both a hub and an authority is especially valuable, imho. Authorities generally deserve a higher value though, since making a page a hub is quite easy.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-782806</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2849#comment-782806</guid>
		<description>This is Google driven NOT advertising driven. It has become received wisdom that internal linking is a useful tool to drive the rank of existing content as well as &quot;re-upping&quot; content that was (typically) written some time ago.

The only cure for this phenomenon is for Google to actively punish the practice, and to publicly state that it will hurt rankings to do this.

If fact it is in their interest to do so because they rely on cross site link for a (large?) part of their ranking algorithms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is Google driven NOT advertising driven. It has become received wisdom that internal linking is a useful tool to drive the rank of existing content as well as &#8220;re-upping&#8221; content that was (typically) written some time ago.</p>
<p>The only cure for this phenomenon is for Google to actively punish the practice, and to publicly state that it will hurt rankings to do this.</p>
<p>If fact it is in their interest to do so because they rely on cross site link for a (large?) part of their ranking algorithms.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: glenngould</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/19/information-silos-are-bad-for-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-782646</link>
		<dc:creator>glenngould</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2849#comment-782646</guid>
		<description>Josh, what is your opinion about internal linking at sites like wikipedia?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh, what is your opinion about internal linking at sites like wikipedia?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
