<?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: Modified Expanded Broad Match and More</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/</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=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Match Types &#38; Quality Score &#8211; The Truth At Last &#124; The ClickEquations Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/comment-page-1/#comment-1239</link>
		<dc:creator>Match Types &#38; Quality Score &#8211; The Truth At Last &#124; The ClickEquations Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=2804#comment-1239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Quality Score &#8211; The Truth At LastBy Craig Danuloff &#124; November 11, 2010In the comments to the previous post on Modified Broad Match, Helena Papirnikova asked an interesting question regarding the role of match type in quality [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Quality Score &#8211; The Truth At LastBy Craig Danuloff | November 11, 2010In the comments to the previous post on Modified Broad Match, Helena Papirnikova asked an interesting question regarding the role of match type in quality [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Danuloff</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/comment-page-1/#comment-1236</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Danuloff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=2804#comment-1236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great question Helena. I&#039;m writing up an answer as a full blog post - should be out soon. Thanks -Craig]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great question Helena. I&#8217;m writing up an answer as a full blog post &#8211; should be out soon. Thanks -Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helena Papirnikova</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/comment-page-1/#comment-1237</link>
		<dc:creator>Helena Papirnikova</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=2804#comment-1237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Craig,nI do not understand the match type Analysys giving better qs as I know qs is counted just for exact match types, so if you have all match types for one KW the result is the same qs for all of them. Am I wrong about that? Or did you test it diffrently?nnHelena]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Craig,nI do not understand the match type Analysys giving better qs as I know qs is counted just for exact match types, so if you have all match types for one KW the result is the same qs for all of them. Am I wrong about that? Or did you test it diffrently?nnHelena</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Summerhill</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/comment-page-1/#comment-1229</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Summerhill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=2804#comment-1229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Craig,rnrnGreat post! Thanks for including my new BMM tool in your post.  Have had 80+ people download it so far.  And thanks for the great suggestions you gave me to make it better.rnrn-Chad]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Craig,rnrnGreat post! Thanks for including my new BMM tool in your post.  Have had 80+ people download it so far.  And thanks for the great suggestions you gave me to make it better.rnrn-Chad</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2010/10/modified-expanded-broad-match/comment-page-1/#comment-1228</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clickequations.com/blog/?p=2804#comment-1228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Craig,nnThanks for the mention. Hopefully as modified broad match is tested in greater detail we&#039;ll start to see more studies which prove it&#039;s worth. nnYou&#039;re right - PPC has just got more complicated, but like you said, most advertisers will welcome the increased control over our keywords with open arms.nnDefinitely one of Google&#039;s most notable improvements in recent years.nnCheers,nAlan]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Craig,nnThanks for the mention. Hopefully as modified broad match is tested in greater detail we&#8217;ll start to see more studies which prove it&#8217;s worth. nnYou&#8217;re right &#8211; PPC has just got more complicated, but like you said, most advertisers will welcome the increased control over our keywords with open arms.nnDefinitely one of Google&#8217;s most notable improvements in recent years.nnCheers,nAlan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
