<?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: Quick Test: Facebook vs. Twitter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://evbart.com/2009/06/quick-test-facebook-vs-twitter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://evbart.com/2009/06/quick-test-facebook-vs-twitter/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:39:07 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Facebook vs. Twitter: Round two with URL shorteners as the judge at Evan Bartlett &#8217;s blog</title>
		<link>http://evbart.com/2009/06/quick-test-facebook-vs-twitter/#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>Facebook vs. Twitter: Round two with URL shorteners as the judge at Evan Bartlett &#8217;s blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://evbart.com/?p=551#comment-105</guid>
		<description>[...] My previous &#8220;quick test&#8221; yielded similar results.  Though the facebook link had more clicks in the end, its not enough to account for the huge difference in the size of the audience (6k twitter vs 44k facebook).  Twitter still seems to be driving a disproportionate amount of engagement compared to Facebook [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] My previous &#8220;quick test&#8221; yielded similar results.  Though the facebook link had more clicks in the end, its not enough to account for the huge difference in the size of the audience (6k twitter vs 44k facebook).  Twitter still seems to be driving a disproportionate amount of engagement compared to Facebook [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
