<?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: Technorati 100</title>
	<atom:link href="http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/03/03/technorati-100/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/03/03/technorati-100/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lemi4</title>
		<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/03/03/technorati-100/comment-page-1/#comment-85</link>
		<dc:creator>Lemi4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/03/03/technorati-100/#comment-85</guid>
		<description>How &#039;bout popularity by RSS subscription?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How &#8217;bout popularity by RSS subscription?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Finkelstein</title>
		<link>http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/03/03/technorati-100/comment-page-1/#comment-84</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Finkelstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/03/03/technorati-100/#comment-84</guid>
		<description>Except there were many flaws in the analysis, such as the notable error that TWO DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS WERE USED!!! That is, the conclusion can&#039;t follow, since the way the data was gathered changed radically in the time-period.

Sociological rebuttal:
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000979.html

Technical rebuttal:
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000980.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Except there were many flaws in the analysis, such as the notable error that TWO DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS WERE USED!!! That is, the conclusion can&#8217;t follow, since the way the data was gathered changed radically in the time-period.</p>
<p>Sociological rebuttal:<br />
<a href="http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000979.html" rel="nofollow">http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000979.html</a></p>
<p>Technical rebuttal:<br />
<a href="http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000980.html" rel="nofollow">http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000980.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

