<?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: Google Adwords Quality Score Screenshots</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/</link>
	<description>A cynical look at Pay Per Click (PPC)</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Magicdan</title>
		<link>http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/#comment-1153</link>
		<dc:creator>Magicdan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/#comment-1153</guid>
		<description>I think we are going to see ever more nastier increments to the quality score next year. Pretty interesting point made over at webmasterworld about a new patent for phrase indexing that someone said might already being used on landing pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we are going to see ever more nastier increments to the quality score next year. Pretty interesting point made over at webmasterworld about a new patent for phrase indexing that someone said might already being used on landing pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PPCblogger</title>
		<link>http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/#comment-1126</link>
		<dc:creator>PPCblogger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/#comment-1126</guid>
		<description>Agreed. 

If you have a huge minimum cpc or your paying through the nose for a term you should know that your QS sucks already. 

But its nice to have the confirmation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>If you have a huge minimum cpc or your paying through the nose for a term you should know that your QS sucks already. </p>
<p>But its nice to have the confirmation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PPC Keyword Tool</title>
		<link>http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/#comment-1118</link>
		<dc:creator>PPC Keyword Tool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ppcblog.co.uk/ppc/google-adwords-quality-score-screenshots/#comment-1118</guid>
		<description>Yeah I followed that thread too. The way I see it, it helps people starting out, if they're unsure whats happening with their PPC ads, but experienced users of Adwords will gain very little from this addition - they will already know when their ads are considered "great" or "no go" 

Matt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah I followed that thread too. The way I see it, it helps people starting out, if they&#8217;re unsure whats happening with their PPC ads, but experienced users of Adwords will gain very little from this addition - they will already know when their ads are considered &#8220;great&#8221; or &#8220;no go&#8221; </p>
<p>Matt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
