<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Algorithmic VS Manual SE spam detection</title>
	<link>http://www.vdgraaf.info/algorithmic-vs-manual-se-spam-detection.html</link>
	<description>Search engine marketing blog by Peter van der Graaf</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Harvey Kane</title>
		<link>http://www.vdgraaf.info/algorithmic-vs-manual-se-spam-detection.html#comment-655</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.vdgraaf.info/algorithmic-vs-manual-se-spam-detection.html#comment-655</guid>
					<description>All makes sense to me.

Where does the user-submitted spam report fit in I wonder? Surely wading through these spam reports is a human process, and I'm sure the spam report form gets spammed by people trying to ban their competetion.

I wouldn't want to be the one writing the spam detection algos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Where does the user-submitted spam report fit in I wonder? Surely wading through these spam reports is a human process, and I&#8217;m sure the spam report form gets spammed by people trying to ban their competetion.</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t want to be the one writing the spam detection algos.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Roy</title>
		<link>http://www.vdgraaf.info/algorithmic-vs-manual-se-spam-detection.html#comment-69</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.vdgraaf.info/algorithmic-vs-manual-se-spam-detection.html#comment-69</guid>
					<description>Excellent article! Maybe you should post the damn thing on Digg!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article! Maybe you should post the damn thing on Digg!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
