<?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: Introducing The DeTweet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/</link>
	<description>A Long Hard Look At Paid Search Marketing Strategies, Tactics, and Tools</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:52:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mars Analytics</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-748</link>
		<dc:creator>Mars Analytics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-748</guid>
		<description>Was thinking of that two days ago.
Great idea !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was thinking of that two days ago.<br />
Great idea !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mana</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-836</link>
		<dc:creator>Mana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:03:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-836</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a cool idea. I too have noticed there&#039;s a ton of &quot;agreeing&quot; in twitterverse but not much disagreeing. Probably because it&#039;s easier to say yes via an RT and leave it at that, than say no and explain why. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I would only use DT if  the tweet was a cool concept, worth getting additional visibility, despite me disagreeing with it.  If it&#039;s something idiotic I would not want to give it additional exposure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#39;s a cool idea. I too have noticed there&#39;s a ton of &#8220;agreeing&#8221; in twitterverse but not much disagreeing. Probably because it&#39;s easier to say yes via an RT and leave it at that, than say no and explain why. </p>
<p>I would only use DT if  the tweet was a cool concept, worth getting additional visibility, despite me disagreeing with it.  If it&#39;s something idiotic I would not want to give it additional exposure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mana</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-722</link>
		<dc:creator>Mana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:03:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-722</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a cool idea. I too have noticed there&#039;s a ton of &quot;agreeing&quot; in twitterverse but not much disagreeing. Probably because it&#039;s easier to say yes via an RT and leave it at that, than say no and explain why. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I would only use DT if  the tweet was a cool concept, worth getting additional visibility, despite me disagreeing with it.  If it&#039;s something idiotic I would not want to give it additional exposure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#39;s a cool idea. I too have noticed there&#39;s a ton of &#8220;agreeing&#8221; in twitterverse but not much disagreeing. Probably because it&#39;s easier to say yes via an RT and leave it at that, than say no and explain why. </p>
<p>I would only use DT if  the tweet was a cool concept, worth getting additional visibility, despite me disagreeing with it.  If it&#39;s something idiotic I would not want to give it additional exposure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Pete</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-407</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:01:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-407</guid>
		<description>I like the concept, in the sense that we don&#039;t really have a way to comment on Tweets, but I tend to agree with Toby - The Detweet is essentially just drawing attention to the original point. It&#039;s a bit like the &quot;don&#039;t think of an elephant&quot; phenomenon.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Still, it&#039;s worth a shot. I&#039;ve been wrong before (more than once, according to my wife). The nice thing about conventions like this is that they&#039;re easy to start and try out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the concept, in the sense that we don&#39;t really have a way to comment on Tweets, but I tend to agree with Toby &#8211; The Detweet is essentially just drawing attention to the original point. It&#39;s a bit like the &#8220;don&#39;t think of an elephant&#8221; phenomenon.</p>
<p>Still, it&#39;s worth a shot. I&#39;ve been wrong before (more than once, according to my wife). The nice thing about conventions like this is that they&#39;re easy to start and try out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Pete</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-386</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:01:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-386</guid>
		<description>I like the concept, in the sense that we don&#039;t really have a way to comment on Tweets, but I tend to agree with Toby - The Detweet is essentially just drawing attention to the original point. It&#039;s a bit like the &quot;don&#039;t think of an elephant&quot; phenomenon.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Still, it&#039;s worth a shot. I&#039;ve been wrong before (more than once, according to my wife). The nice thing about conventions like this is that they&#039;re easy to start and try out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the concept, in the sense that we don&#39;t really have a way to comment on Tweets, but I tend to agree with Toby &#8211; The Detweet is essentially just drawing attention to the original point. It&#39;s a bit like the &#8220;don&#39;t think of an elephant&#8221; phenomenon.</p>
<p>Still, it&#39;s worth a shot. I&#39;ve been wrong before (more than once, according to my wife). The nice thing about conventions like this is that they&#39;re easy to start and try out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zyxo</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-385</link>
		<dc:creator>zyxo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-385</guid>
		<description>Allways love to see some equilibrium in our world...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allways love to see some equilibrium in our world&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Danuloff</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-384</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Danuloff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-384</guid>
		<description>Ironically, lots of RT&#039;s but nobody else has DT&#039;d to my knowledge. Of course, it&#039;s a good sign if not much to disagree with is floating around...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ironically, lots of RT&#39;s but nobody else has DT&#39;d to my knowledge. Of course, it&#39;s a good sign if not much to disagree with is floating around&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claire Jarrett</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-383</link>
		<dc:creator>Claire Jarrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-383</guid>
		<description>Interesting, what a good idea.  Have you noticed much take up yet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, what a good idea.  Have you noticed much take up yet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Senser</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-378</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Senser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-378</guid>
		<description>Yes... Yes!!! Great idea to improve the Twitterhood!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes&#8230; Yes!!! Great idea to improve the Twitterhood!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Danuloff</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-374</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Danuloff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-374</guid>
		<description>Chad: Glad to see your comment. Tried to reply to your tweet but it wouldn&#039;t let me since you weren&#039;t a follower. Anyway, I don&#039;t believe that account level separation of high CTR or high QS keywords will have much effect on any individual keywords. This is based, somewhat, on a panel I participated on at SMX West with Google&#039;s Dir of Search Quality, who explained that basically if they have KW level CTR, most of the other factors don&#039;t matter much. If they don&#039;t (new keyword) they progress outword, to adgroup CTR/QS, then if adgroup is new, to Campaign CTR/QS, and finally if there are just no good clues available, to overall account CTR/QS. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So ultimately each KW gets the QS it deserves no matter where it is. Only case where segmented accounts would help would be if constantly adding new keywords of new contextual nature, and you always did well with them, in which case you&#039;d get &#039;benefit of the doubt (account QS) initially before custom kw-based was earned. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So the idea that better performing kw in account full of them get better QS, is more self fulfilling than due to the account. Having said that, I agree (and suggest in the presentation I made which is now available on this blog) that poor performing KW&#039;s should be paused/deleted, and AdGroup or Campaign Segmentation by performance is a good idea - I just think Account level is a huge step (moving low performers in and out is pretty hard) that really isn&#039;t going to benefit anyone much.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;BTW: Interesting thing I learned, relative to your way if you or someone wanted to do it, is that if you move a KW-Ad-LandingPage combo EXACTLY from one account to another, the historic QS moves with it - Google recognizes it and applies the history. Any change however and it starts over as new.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Great to have you reading, looking forward to your future tweets and information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chad: Glad to see your comment. Tried to reply to your tweet but it wouldn&#39;t let me since you weren&#39;t a follower. Anyway, I don&#39;t believe that account level separation of high CTR or high QS keywords will have much effect on any individual keywords. This is based, somewhat, on a panel I participated on at SMX West with Google&#39;s Dir of Search Quality, who explained that basically if they have KW level CTR, most of the other factors don&#39;t matter much. If they don&#39;t (new keyword) they progress outword, to adgroup CTR/QS, then if adgroup is new, to Campaign CTR/QS, and finally if there are just no good clues available, to overall account CTR/QS. </p>
<p>So ultimately each KW gets the QS it deserves no matter where it is. Only case where segmented accounts would help would be if constantly adding new keywords of new contextual nature, and you always did well with them, in which case you&#39;d get &#39;benefit of the doubt (account QS) initially before custom kw-based was earned. </p>
<p>So the idea that better performing kw in account full of them get better QS, is more self fulfilling than due to the account. Having said that, I agree (and suggest in the presentation I made which is now available on this blog) that poor performing KW&#39;s should be paused/deleted, and AdGroup or Campaign Segmentation by performance is a good idea &#8211; I just think Account level is a huge step (moving low performers in and out is pretty hard) that really isn&#39;t going to benefit anyone much.</p>
<p>BTW: Interesting thing I learned, relative to your way if you or someone wanted to do it, is that if you move a KW-Ad-LandingPage combo EXACTLY from one account to another, the historic QS moves with it &#8211; Google recognizes it and applies the history. Any change however and it starts over as new.</p>
<p>Great to have you reading, looking forward to your future tweets and information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-373</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-373</guid>
		<description>Interesting concept, am honored to be your first detweet :-) .. &quot;in the spirit of twitterville - as a new way to participate in the conversation&quot; -  I would love to hear why you disagree with the tweet.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It&#039;s obviously a generalization (how much can you fit into 140 characters?) but from a high view is sound imho.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Adwords weights your account&#039;s QS, why would I dilute a high QS account by testing ads I&#039;m not even sure will get decent CTR?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Reposting in the stream to spur conversation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting concept, am honored to be your first detweet <img src='http://www.clickequations.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  .. &#8220;in the spirit of twitterville &#8211; as a new way to participate in the conversation&#8221; &#8211;  I would love to hear why you disagree with the tweet.  </p>
<p>It&#39;s obviously a generalization (how much can you fit into 140 characters?) but from a high view is sound imho.</p>
<p>Adwords weights your account&#39;s QS, why would I dilute a high QS account by testing ads I&#39;m not even sure will get decent CTR?</p>
<p>Reposting in the stream to spur conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toby DiPasquale</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-372</link>
		<dc:creator>Toby DiPasquale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-372</guid>
		<description>Lets see how well this takes off... given the old saw &quot;no press is bad press&quot;, I&#039;d think you&#039;d not want to retweet links/tweets you disagree with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lets see how well this takes off&#8230; given the old saw &#8220;no press is bad press&#8221;, I&#39;d think you&#39;d not want to retweet links/tweets you disagree with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-370</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-370</guid>
		<description>I think this is a great idea.  Although I still have a small Twitter profile (I have less than 170 followers) I do see some stuff that I:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1. Don&#039;t trust/believe&lt;br&gt;2. Don&#039;t think others should be reading as it may give a wrong impression.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Twitter is great for sharing information and ideas, there is no reason why we should continue to sit around and turn a blind eye to some of the &quot;silly&quot; things that get posted in the &quot;twitt-o-sphere&quot;.  You should be seeing some DTs from me in the future!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this is a great idea.  Although I still have a small Twitter profile (I have less than 170 followers) I do see some stuff that I:</p>
<p>1. Don&#39;t trust/believe<br />2. Don&#39;t think others should be reading as it may give a wrong impression.</p>
<p>Twitter is great for sharing information and ideas, there is no reason why we should continue to sit around and turn a blind eye to some of the &#8220;silly&#8221; things that get posted in the &#8220;twitt-o-sphere&#8221;.  You should be seeing some DTs from me in the future!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Szetela</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/02/introducing-the-detweet/comment-page-1/#comment-371</link>
		<dc:creator>David Szetela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:17:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=1019#comment-371</guid>
		<description>Oh, YES! Brilliant, CD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, YES! Brilliant, CD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

