<?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: BlogWorld Expo Recap: Day 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://outspokenmedia.com/internet-marketing-conferences/blogworld-expo-recap-day-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/internet-marketing-conferences/blogworld-expo-recap-day-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:32:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Barone</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/internet-marketing-conferences/blogworld-expo-recap-day-2/#comment-6422</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Barone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=3797#comment-6422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John:  RE: the formula. I&#039;m pretty sure that&#039;s what he said. But it was real-time, so I could have misheard.  I&#039;ll check and update later.

As for that same panel, the speakers did what they came to do. I&#039;m on a different knowledge level than most of the other bloggers in the room, so for me, the information was a bit basic, but for everyone else- they got exactly what they came for and then some. If I thought the panel was shit, I would have blogged that it was shit. I&#039;ve never had a problem doing that before.   This trip was in no way sponsored. I don&#039;t owe anyone &quot;gentle&quot; coverage.  I don&#039;t play that way.

It wasn&#039;t all rainbows:

http://twitter.com/LisaBarone/status/4927784865]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John:  RE: the formula. I&#8217;m pretty sure that&#8217;s what he said. But it was real-time, so I could have misheard.  I&#8217;ll check and update later.</p>
<p>As for that same panel, the speakers did what they came to do. I&#8217;m on a different knowledge level than most of the other bloggers in the room, so for me, the information was a bit basic, but for everyone else- they got exactly what they came for and then some. If I thought the panel was shit, I would have blogged that it was shit. I&#8217;ve never had a problem doing that before.   This trip was in no way sponsored. I don&#8217;t owe anyone &#8220;gentle&#8221; coverage.  I don&#8217;t play that way.</p>
<p>It wasn&#8217;t all rainbows:</p>
<p><a href="http://twitter.com/LisaBarone/status/4927784865" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/LisaBarone/status/4927784865</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john andrews</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/internet-marketing-conferences/blogworld-expo-recap-day-2/#comment-6420</link>
		<dc:creator>john andrews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=3797#comment-6420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love that 30 Rock episode where Jack says &quot;if I wanted to hear what I already knew, I&#039;d read Huffington Post&quot;. 

if I wanted to hear how awesome the blogworld speakers were when they &quot;brought it&quot; while simultaneously &quot;disappoint&quot;ing you  by delivering only the &quot;very basic of basics&quot;, I guess I could read this oh-so-gentle version of Lisa liveblogging.  

Seriously. It&#039;s like you&#039;re afraid to be critical of your new friends, cause maybe they won&#039;t like, like you as much? Welcome to BlogWorld? Were you like, sponsored or something?

C&#039;mon Lisa you can be honest... right?

Also I know I wasn&#039;t at that session, so I may not have learned the new blogger revenue math, but you might check your equation above. Those who need a formula to calculate &quot;revenue per thousand page views&quot; will also probably misread your mis-placed denominator. It works better as 1000 x Total Revenue/ Page Views . I&#039;m just sayin. Do the math wrong, and blogging might not pay too well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love that 30 Rock episode where Jack says &#8220;if I wanted to hear what I already knew, I&#8217;d read Huffington Post&#8221;. </p>
<p>if I wanted to hear how awesome the blogworld speakers were when they &#8220;brought it&#8221; while simultaneously &#8220;disappoint&#8221;ing you  by delivering only the &#8220;very basic of basics&#8221;, I guess I could read this oh-so-gentle version of Lisa liveblogging.  </p>
<p>Seriously. It&#8217;s like you&#8217;re afraid to be critical of your new friends, cause maybe they won&#8217;t like, like you as much? Welcome to BlogWorld? Were you like, sponsored or something?</p>
<p>C&#8217;mon Lisa you can be honest&#8230; right?</p>
<p>Also I know I wasn&#8217;t at that session, so I may not have learned the new blogger revenue math, but you might check your equation above. Those who need a formula to calculate &#8220;revenue per thousand page views&#8221; will also probably misread your mis-placed denominator. It works better as 1000 x Total Revenue/ Page Views . I&#8217;m just sayin. Do the math wrong, and blogging might not pay too well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matthew allen</title>
		<link>http://outspokenmedia.com/internet-marketing-conferences/blogworld-expo-recap-day-2/#comment-6419</link>
		<dc:creator>matthew allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outspokenmedia.com/?p=3797#comment-6419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice summation of the great first session - panel discussion about future of news; I thought the continuing saga of &#039;old media not getting it&#039; was captured completely by the comments from two old media types who shall remain nameless: first, that bloggers were wannabe journalists who had to realise there were not a lot of jobs (um, yeah right!); and second that social media would be cherrypicked by old media for the experts who would then become important on old media.  one question though: why is noone here talking about &#039;NOT media&#039; - by which I mean Google and other companies make their impact by be so not like the media that they don&#039;t even count as new media? (@netcrit)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice summation of the great first session &#8211; panel discussion about future of news; I thought the continuing saga of &#8216;old media not getting it&#8217; was captured completely by the comments from two old media types who shall remain nameless: first, that bloggers were wannabe journalists who had to realise there were not a lot of jobs (um, yeah right!); and second that social media would be cherrypicked by old media for the experts who would then become important on old media.  one question though: why is noone here talking about &#8216;NOT media&#8217; &#8211; by which I mean Google and other companies make their impact by be so not like the media that they don&#8217;t even count as new media? (@netcrit)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.443 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-03-22 20:01:03 -->
