<?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: Beeblogs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/31/beeblogs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/31/beeblogs/</link>
	<description>by Jeff Jarvis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:06:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Trial and Error &#171; Brett&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/31/beeblogs/#comment-362633</link>
		<dc:creator>Trial and Error &#171; Brett&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:28:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/31/beeblogs/#comment-362633</guid>
		<description>[...] why this post over at Buzz Machine is so spot-on. Be sure to hit all the links, but the knockout punch of the whole post is the quote [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] why this post over at Buzz Machine is so spot-on. Be sure to hit all the links, but the knockout punch of the whole post is the quote [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Tyndall</title>
		<link>http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/31/beeblogs/#comment-362628</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Tyndall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/31/beeblogs/#comment-362628</guid>
		<description>Jarvis -- point of clarification, please:

When you say you were &quot;fascinated&quot; by the metrics the BBC selected, did you mean you approved or you were incredulous? Do you believe those to be valuable criteria to measure a blog? Or, like so much other research, are they things that were counted just because they were easy to count -- not because they reflect underlying quality?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jarvis &#8212; point of clarification, please:</p>
<p>When you say you were &#8220;fascinated&#8221; by the metrics the BBC selected, did you mean you approved or you were incredulous? Do you believe those to be valuable criteria to measure a blog? Or, like so much other research, are they things that were counted just because they were easy to count &#8212; not because they reflect underlying quality?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
