<?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: NoFollow = No Love?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kempwire.com/seo/nofollow-no-love.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kempwire.com/seo/nofollow-no-love.html</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:33:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sebastian</title>
		<link>http://kempwire.com/seo/nofollow-no-love.html#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kempwire.com/?p=66#comment-11</guid>
		<description>&#62; It’s time for a new solution.

I second that. I think Google should not only find a way to figure out a link's intention, stage and weight algorithmically. Google has invented the microformat which has mutated to a unusable and no longer beloved beast, so Google should participate in standardizing a suitable solution for crawler directives on link level to substitute rel=nofollow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; It’s time for a new solution.</p>
<p>I second that. I think Google should not only find a way to figure out a link&#8217;s intention, stage and weight algorithmically. Google has invented the microformat which has mutated to a unusable and no longer beloved beast, so Google should participate in standardizing a suitable solution for crawler directives on link level to substitute rel=nofollow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
