<?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: Problogging is both passive &amp; active income</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/</link>
	<description>The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:30:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: mr.denali</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/comment-page-1/#comment-154055</link>
		<dc:creator>mr.denali</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/#comment-154055</guid>
		<description>Can you still consider a blog network to be something like this:

blog1.domain.com
blog2.domain.com

Assuming the 2 are independent of each other relating to content and the users/authors.  


I think even the second type of blogging (pay per post etc.) can still be passive if the arrangement is there.  For example, if you get paid 5$ per post from company X, and only write 5 posts per month, you would be expecting a 25$ paycheck right?  What about ads though?  If you are part of an Adsense rev share plan as well, then you could expect a little more there too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you still consider a blog network to be something like this:</p>
<p>blog1.domain.com<br />
blog2.domain.com</p>
<p>Assuming the 2 are independent of each other relating to content and the users/authors.  </p>
<p>I think even the second type of blogging (pay per post etc.) can still be passive if the arrangement is there.  For example, if you get paid 5$ per post from company X, and only write 5 posts per month, you would be expecting a 25$ paycheck right?  What about ads though?  If you are part of an Adsense rev share plan as well, then you could expect a little more there too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abe Olandres</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/comment-page-1/#comment-154051</link>
		<dc:creator>Abe Olandres</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/#comment-154051</guid>
		<description>David: Unless you get some VC money. ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David: Unless you get some VC money. ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Krug</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/comment-page-1/#comment-154049</link>
		<dc:creator>David Krug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/29/problogging-is-both-passive-active-income/#comment-154049</guid>
		<description>Try owning a network, passive income is generally a fallacy considering the amount of man hours you spend and not getting paid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try owning a network, passive income is generally a fallacy considering the amount of man hours you spend and not getting paid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

