<?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: 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>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<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 "fascinated" 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>
