<?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: Google Places Page Optimization: Google Local in Review</title>
	<atom:link href="/2011/08/google-places-page-optimization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://nightlitemedia.com/2011/08/google-places-page-optimization/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:42:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Steele</title>
		<link>https://nightlitemedia.com/2011/08/google-places-page-optimization/#comment-752</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Steele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://nightlitemedia.com/?p=1866#comment-752</guid>
		<description>Hi Peggy! I am happy to hear you found something useful. Re additional details, from an optimization standpoint I have heard good arguments for both sides. I think Google banished it because guys like myself were using it to interconnect our local seo supporting data (citations, maps, etc.). While it lasted it was a fantastic way to increase the rate at which Google would discover (crawl) your supporting data. Increased discovery and indexing attributed to faster ranking. Today I don&#039;t bother. I have not seen any benefit since Google hid it.

Received your email by the way and will send that list over stat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Peggy! I am happy to hear you found something useful. Re additional details, from an optimization standpoint I have heard good arguments for both sides. I think Google banished it because guys like myself were using it to interconnect our local seo supporting data (citations, maps, etc.). While it lasted it was a fantastic way to increase the rate at which Google would discover (crawl) your supporting data. Increased discovery and indexing attributed to faster ranking. Today I don&#8217;t bother. I have not seen any benefit since Google hid it.</p>
<p>Received your email by the way and will send that list over stat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peggy Hurd</title>
		<link>https://nightlitemedia.com/2011/08/google-places-page-optimization/#comment-749</link>
		<dc:creator>Peggy Hurd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://nightlitemedia.com/?p=1866#comment-749</guid>
		<description>I have found several things from your article to use to improve my google places listings. I am curious about the &quot;additional details&quot; part. Is there any indication this will be dropped or does it really matter what we do with it if it&#039;s hidden? Does google still read it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have found several things from your article to use to improve my google places listings. I am curious about the &#8220;additional details&#8221; part. Is there any indication this will be dropped or does it really matter what we do with it if it&#8217;s hidden? Does google still read it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
