<?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: Correct linking techniques for newspapers and blogs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/2009/02/18/correct-linking-techniques-for-blogs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/2009/02/18/correct-linking-techniques-for-blogs/</link>
	<description>internet mischief</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Spalpeen :: Guardian.co.uk&#8217;s poor linking practices continue, Guardian video fixed (a bit)</title>
		<link>http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/2009/02/18/correct-linking-techniques-for-blogs/#comment-637</link>
		<dc:creator>Spalpeen :: Guardian.co.uk&#8217;s poor linking practices continue, Guardian video fixed (a bit)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/?p=315#comment-637</guid>
		<description>[...] The Guardian&#8217;s poor linking practices (which I&#8217;ve blogged about previously) continue to cripple the www.guardian.co.uk&#8217;s usefulness. At time of writing, the story [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Guardian&#8217;s poor linking practices (which I&#8217;ve blogged about previously) continue to cripple the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk&#8217;s" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk&#8217;s</a> usefulness. At time of writing, the story [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spalpeen :: More on The Guardian&#8217;s linking practices</title>
		<link>http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/2009/02/18/correct-linking-techniques-for-blogs/#comment-595</link>
		<dc:creator>Spalpeen :: More on The Guardian&#8217;s linking practices</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/?p=315#comment-595</guid>
		<description>[...] other month I wrote a post about The Guardian&#8217;s poor linking practices. I&#8217;ve since heard that this issue has been raised internally at some level, but haven&#8217;t [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] other month I wrote a post about The Guardian&#8217;s poor linking practices. I&#8217;ve since heard that this issue has been raised internally at some level, but haven&#8217;t [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C.K. Sample III</title>
		<link>http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/2009/02/18/correct-linking-techniques-for-blogs/#comment-563</link>
		<dc:creator>C.K. Sample III</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:06:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spalpeen.co.uk/?p=315#comment-563</guid>
		<description>Yes, Engadget always links to the source, but only via the Read link. All the other links in the posts normally link to unhelpful and confusing tag pages. I inevitably forget that they do this and I inevitably click off to one of those pages when I'm looking for the source of the story.

To be fair, Gizmodo does this too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Engadget always links to the source, but only via the Read link. All the other links in the posts normally link to unhelpful and confusing tag pages. I inevitably forget that they do this and I inevitably click off to one of those pages when I&#8217;m looking for the source of the story.</p>
<p>To be fair, Gizmodo does this too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.246 seconds -->
