<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Be Foxy - Latest Comments in Facebook cant do a Google!</title><link>http://befoxy.disqus.com/</link><description>Your Everyday Guide To Being Digitally, Creatively, and Aesthetically 'Foxy'</description><atom:link href="https://befoxy.disqus.com/facebook_cant_do_a_google/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:27:42 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Facebook cant do a Google!</title><link>http://www.befoxy.in/facebook-never-google#comment-269199187</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Now, it seem that Google+1 is trying to beat Facebook! I am fan of Facebook and enjoying all the features available on it. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">register website name</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:27:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook cant do a Google!</title><link>http://www.befoxy.in/facebook-never-google#comment-22462063</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The reason the "time on site" statistic is deceptive is primarily because there are many new users that are not avid users. They generally fall into older demographics and want to see what this Facebook thing is. If there was research done on a specific set of users (between 13 and 25) the results would be very different. You can't take a sample set of that size and expect clean results. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Anonymous</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:36:10 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>