<?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: Who are you Google?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seo-jerusalem.com/why-optimize-a-site-for-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seo-jerusalem.com/why-optimize-a-site-for-google/</link>
	<description>SEO and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:51:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-jerusalem.com/why-optimize-a-site-for-google/comment-page-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-jerusalem.com/?p=258#comment-32</guid>
		<description>You are right that computers &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; read some text in images, but it is unlikely that search bots &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt;.  It takes a significant amount computer power to process an image for text, and since most images don&#039;t contain any text at all, and many that do, contain the same text that is in the alt tag or text unrelated to the essence of the image, scanning images for text isn&#039;t worth it.  This may change in the future as computing power grows, but do not assume that just because they &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; do something that they actually &lt;em&gt;do&lt;/em&gt; it.  (As an interesting aside, Google &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; scan images for some information such as whether there is a face in it, whether it is photo or drawing, and whether it is in black and white.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right that computers <em>can</em> read some text in images, but it is unlikely that search bots <em>do</em>.  It takes a significant amount computer power to process an image for text, and since most images don&#8217;t contain any text at all, and many that do, contain the same text that is in the alt tag or text unrelated to the essence of the image, scanning images for text isn&#8217;t worth it.  This may change in the future as computing power grows, but do not assume that just because they <em>can</em> do something that they actually <em>do</em> it.  (As an interesting aside, Google <em>does</em> scan images for some information such as whether there is a face in it, whether it is photo or drawing, and whether it is in black and white.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hank</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-jerusalem.com/why-optimize-a-site-for-google/comment-page-1/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Hank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seo-jerusalem.com/?p=258#comment-31</guid>
		<description>Can&#039;t bots read simple text in images?  Isn&#039;t that why they need to make convoluted and bent images to use as captchas because computers can figure out simple text in an image?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t bots read simple text in images?  Isn&#8217;t that why they need to make convoluted and bent images to use as captchas because computers can figure out simple text in an image?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
