<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Search Engine Optimisation Services, Expert SEO Solutions- Bluelight SEO &#187; Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/category/google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk</link>
	<description>SEO Services UK!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:26:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Google Riding The Wave!</title>
		<link>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-riding-the-wave/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-riding-the-wave/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BluelightSEO</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google wave]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week Google released Google Wave to around 100,000 trial users, described by Google as an online tool for real-time communication and collaboration.<br />
Google appears to be trying to grab a hold of the Social Media world, by creating a tool that could rival MSN Live Messenger and perhaps even Facebook. This is what they hope to achieve anyway, but is it really that unique?<br...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fgoogle-riding-the-wave%2F"><img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fgoogle-riding-the-wave%2F" height="61" width="51" /></a></div><p>This week Google released Google Wave to around 100,000 trial users, described by Google as an online tool for real-time communication and collaboration.</p>
<p>Google appears to be trying to grab a hold of the Social Media world, by creating a tool that could rival MSN Live Messenger and perhaps even Facebook. This is what they hope to achieve anyway, but is it really that unique?</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/09/who_will_ride_googles_wave.html">BBC</a> have had a play with it and described it as &#8220;little more than a combination of e-mail and instant messaging on steroids&#8221;</p>
<div id="rory_300909" class="player" style="margin-left: 40px;">
<embed id="bbc_emp_embed_rory_300909" width="512" height="323" flashvars="embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/&#038;embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/09/who_will_ride_googles_wave.html&#038;domId=rory_300909&#038;playlist=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/emp/8280000/8282600/8282687.xml" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="default" quality="high" bgcolor="#000000" name="bbc_emp_embed_rory_300909" style="" src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/9player.swf?revision=13439_13730" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
</div>
<p></br></p>
<p>Although I am yet to have a go myself, I would have to agree with the above statement! Do we really need Wave? I for one am comfortable keeping my social contacts on Facebook and Messenger and my business via email. From what I have heard so far Google Wave doesn&#8217;t seem to be anything exciting other than the fact you can watch people typing, and have a quick game of sudoku.</p>
<p>Google do insist that they have lots of plugins and the potential for more which is good news, perhaps this is a building block for Google OS, something which I am a lot more enthusiastic about.</p>
<p>I would love to hear opinions on this, and if anyone has a spare Google Wave invite lying around so that I can do some &#8220;research&#8221; please get in touch</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-riding-the-wave/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BT Yahoo Portal Chooses Google To Power Search</title>
		<link>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/bt-yahoo-portal-chooses-google-to-power-search/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/bt-yahoo-portal-chooses-google-to-power-search/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BluelightSEO</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yahoo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/?p=116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The BT Yahoo portal has recently changed natural search provider to Google. It appears that a deal between the 3 companies has permitted BT to use Google results.<br />
Although BT has a deal with Yahoo to provide portal services until 2011, it appears that a deal has been done to allow Google to gain a bigger market share in the UK market. <br />
A BT...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fbt-yahoo-portal-chooses-google-to-power-search%2F"><img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fbt-yahoo-portal-chooses-google-to-power-search%2F" height="61" width="51" /></a></div><p>The BT Yahoo portal has recently changed natural search provider to Google. It appears that a deal between the 3 companies has permitted BT to use Google results.</p>
<p>Although BT has a deal with Yahoo to provide portal services until 2011, it appears that a deal has been done to allow Google to gain a bigger market share in the UK market. </p>
<p>A BT spokesman said: “We are delighted that we are continuing to work with Yahoo! through to 2011. As part of this new agreement BT Yahoo!’s web search will be provided by Google. We made this decision based on the fact that Google is the most popular search engine in the UK.</p>
<p>“The combination of Google’s search engine with Yahoo’s leading content and email services offers customers the ultimate broadband experience.”</p>
<p>It would be interesting to hear Yahoo and Googles comments on this deal.</p>
<p>35% of all UK Broadband users use BT Broadband, and I am sure a lot of those will have the BT Yahoo portal as their homepage, it will be interesting to see what affect this will have on both Google and Yahoo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/bt-yahoo-portal-chooses-google-to-power-search/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Spam Reports- How are they prioritised?</title>
		<link>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-spam-reports/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-spam-reports/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BluelightSEO</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Cutts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/?p=100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google released a video this week detailing how they deal with spam reports.<br />
Every time someone send a spam report to Google it is prioritised based on how popular a keyword is, or how popular a site is.<br />
Matt Cutts says in the video that spam reports from lower ranking sites and less popular keywords will most likely be left to the bottom of the...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fgoogle-spam-reports%2F"><img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fgoogle-spam-reports%2F" height="61" width="51" /></a></div><p>Google released a video this week detailing how they deal with spam reports.</p>
<p>Every time someone send a spam report to Google it is prioritised based on how popular a keyword is, or how popular a site is.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mattcutts.com">Matt Cutts</a> says in the video that spam reports from lower ranking sites and less popular keywords will most likely be left to the bottom of the pile, wheras a popular keyword/website it will be looked into straight away.</p>
<p><object width="560" height="340" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/fvlS12bJnF0&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fvlS12bJnF0&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18" />This video was embedded using the YouTuber plugin by <a href="http://www.roytanck.com">Roy Tanck</a>. Adobe Flash Player is required to view the video.</object></p>
<p>Although I don&#8217;t submit spam reports myself, it would be intersting to know if anyone has had experience of how quickly reports are being dealt with!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-spam-reports/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google UK SERPS- How Relevant Are They?</title>
		<link>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-uk-serps-conspiracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-uk-serps-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BluelightSEO</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SERPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/?p=84</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over the past few month’s I have noticed irrelevant results appearing in the Google.co.uk SERPS! Many of the sites are US sites and some are even Canadian, Australian or Even Korean. There’s no question that some of these sites are irrelevant to searchers.<br />
One example I took a look at is “LG Laptop Battery”<br />
The first 2 results are great, both .co.uk domains and both...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fgoogle-uk-serps-conspiracy%2F"><img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fgoogle-uk-serps-conspiracy%2F" height="61" width="51" /></a></div><p><img src="http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/google-uk-serps.jpg" alt="google-uk-serps" title="google-uk-serps" width="238" height="138" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-87" />Over the past few month’s I have noticed irrelevant results appearing in the Google.co.uk SERPS! Many of the sites are US sites and some are even Canadian, Australian or Even Korean. There’s no question that some of these sites are irrelevant to searchers.</p>
<p>One example I took a look at is <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&#038;source=hp&#038;q=lg+laptop+battery">“LG Laptop Battery”</a></p>
<p>The first 2 results are great, both .co.uk domains and both UK sites. However the next result is a .au site, an Australian site. The next is a US site, then another Australian site and 3 more US sites, lastly is a .co.kr.</p>
<p>Now I don’t have a problem with buying product from another country, sometime you can get great bargains, however the shipping fee is bound to be high, especially from Australia, not to mention it will take a while to get here.</p>
<p>I have noticed similar results to these when searching for other products, and to me these searches should be mostly UK, as that is where I want to buy from.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/conspiracy-theories-google.html">Dave Naylor</a> had looked at the possibility of this being a conspiracy to promote US sites, however I think it’s purely a problem with the algorithm, especially as it’s not all US sites appearing.</p>
<p>Also with <a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/webhp?hl=en&#038;gl=uk" class="broken_link" >Google Caffeine</a> just around the corner you would expect a fix, however using the same <a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/search?hl=en&#038;gl=uk&#038;q=lg+laptop+battery&#038;aq=f&#038;oq=&#038;aqi=g1g-s1g3" class="broken_link" >search term</a>, although different results I am still getting US and Australian site, not good!</p>
<p>Google Caffeine might not be the pick me up after all.</p>
<p>P.S Here is a link to the <a href="http://www2.sandbox.google.com/webhp?hl=en&#038;gl=uk" class="broken_link" >UK version of Google Caffiene</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/google-uk-serps-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>W3C Validation, Is it worth it?</title>
		<link>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/w3c-validator/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/w3c-validator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BluelightSEO</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEO Techniques]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[optimisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search engines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[w3c]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://southernmedia.no-ip.org/bluelightseo/?p=32</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is often debate about the use  of the w3c validator for SEO. Is it really worth your time and effort  to get that green “Passed” sign on the w3c validator?<br />
<br />
<br />
On the whole…Yes<br />
In terms of SEO…No, not really.<br />
Rand Fishkin talks about w3c validation  in his interview with Mike McDonald at WebProNews.com, he states-<br />
“In terms of SEO...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a href="http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fw3c-validator%2F"><img src="http://api.tweetmeme.com/imagebutton.gif?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluelightseo.co.uk%2Fw3c-validator%2F" height="61" width="51" /></a></div><p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-33" title="img_post-01" src="http://bluelightseo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/img_post-011.jpg" alt="img_post-01" width="238" height="178" />There is often debate about the use  of the w3c validator for SEO. Is it really worth your time and effort  to get that green “Passed” sign on the w3c validator?</p>
<div style="margin: 1ex;">
<div>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">On the whole…Yes</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">In terms of SEO…No, not really.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Rand Fishkin talks about w3c validation  in his interview with Mike McDonald at WebProNews.com, he states-</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">“In terms of SEO and search engine  ranking, the simple reality is: IT DOESN’T MATTER.  It never has mattered  and I daresay it never will matter.  Can it hurt you to have valid code?   Certainly not.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">I would imagine that most of you would  agree with this statement, and with good reason. I have worked with  many sites that have hundreds of errors, and they still rank just as  well as they do with valid code.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Even Google, Bing and Twitter have  errors, that must tell you something? If Google are ignoring it, then  so should you? Right?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Perhaps not! Although Google isn’t  really bothered whether the validator shows up green or red for you,  there are often accessibility issues that can mean visitors cannot see  vital areas of your site. Although it may appear fine in your browser,  it may not appear correctly in another. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Fixing errors won’t necessarily affect  your SERP’s but it could ultimately affect your conversions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">There are 2 things I would suggest  fixing at the very least, and they are XML Parsing Errors and Missing  Alt Descriptions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">The more people that can view your  site correctly, the more conversions you will make</span></div>
</div>
<div id="_mcePaste" style="overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 678px; width: 1px; height: 1px;">
<div style="margin: 1ex;">
<div>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">W3C Validation, Is it worth it?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">There is often debate about the use  of the w3c validator for SEO. Is it really worth your time and effort  to get that green “Passed” sign on the w3c validator?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">On the whole…Yes</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">In terms of SEO…No, not really.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Rand Fishkin talks about w3c validation  in his interview with Mike McDonald at WebProNews.com, he states-</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">“In terms of SEO and search engine  ranking, the simple reality is: IT DOESN’T MATTER.  It never has mattered  and I daresay it never will matter.  Can it hurt you to have valid code?   Certainly not.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">I would imagine that most of you would  agree with this statement, and with good reason. I have worked with  many sites that have hundreds of errors, and they still rank just as  well as they do with valid code.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Even Google, Bing and Twitter have  errors, that must tell you something? If Google are ignoring it, then  so should you? Right?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Perhaps not! Although Google isn’t  really bothered whether the validator shows up green or red for you,  there are often accessibility issues that can mean visitors cannot see  vital areas of your site. Although it may appear fine in your browser,  it may not appear correctly in another. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">Fixing errors won’t necessarily affect  your SERP’s but it could ultimately affect your conversions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">There are 2 things I would suggest  fixing at the very least, and they are XML Parsing Errors and Missing  Alt Descriptions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">The more people that can view your  site correctly, the more conversions you will make</span></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bluelightseo.co.uk/w3c-validator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
