<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_07_194210</id>
	<title>Google Outlines the Role of Its Human Evaluators</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244403240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"For many years, Google, on its Explanation of Our Search Results page, claimed that 'a site's ranking in Google's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.' Then in May of 2007, that statement changed: 'A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.' What happened? <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090603/google-and-the-evolution-of-search-scott-huffman/">Google's core search team explain</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " For many years , Google , on its Explanation of Our Search Results page , claimed that 'a site 's ranking in Google 's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page 's relevance to a given query .
' Then in May of 2007 , that statement changed : 'A site 's ranking in Google 's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page 's relevance to a given query .
' What happened ?
Google 's core search team explain .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "For many years, Google, on its Explanation of Our Search Results page, claimed that 'a site's ranking in Google's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.
' Then in May of 2007, that statement changed: 'A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.
' What happened?
Google's core search team explain.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244341</id>
	<title>Same for Google Ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244371320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same for Google Ads via "Q-score": http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2008/06/how-market-designs-set-prices/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same for Google Ads via " Q-score " : http : //www.win-vector.com/blog/2008/06/how-market-designs-set-prices/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same for Google Ads via "Q-score": http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2008/06/how-market-designs-set-prices/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28248427</id>
	<title>obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google knows the mathematical truth which is easily overcome with brute force.</p><p>And that is that search terms are a very small variability versus the results they will produce.<br>Its pretty easy to hire a thousand monkeys to monitor this and make sure that the<br>100K most popular search terms are working.</p><p>Sounds like QA to me.  No big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google knows the mathematical truth which is easily overcome with brute force.And that is that search terms are a very small variability versus the results they will produce.Its pretty easy to hire a thousand monkeys to monitor this and make sure that the100K most popular search terms are working.Sounds like QA to me .
No big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google knows the mathematical truth which is easily overcome with brute force.And that is that search terms are a very small variability versus the results they will produce.Its pretty easy to hire a thousand monkeys to monitor this and make sure that the100K most popular search terms are working.Sounds like QA to me.
No big deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243495</id>
	<title>Confirmed:  Google IS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244407260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>evil.</p><p>Yours In Free Speech,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>evil.Yours In Free Speech,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>evil.Yours In Free Speech,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247287</id>
	<title>Re:Fuzzy logic is killing Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244398140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful? There's no way to really force literal search anymore. </p></div><p>So true and frustrating!  I can't tell you how many times recently I've tried searching for something "SPECIFIC" and not been able to at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what *I* want, rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want (and just wastes my time and their resources).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful ?
There 's no way to really force literal search anymore .
So true and frustrating !
I ca n't tell you how many times recently I 've tried searching for something " SPECIFIC " and not been able to at all .
: - ( I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what * I * want , rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want ( and just wastes my time and their resources ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful?
There's no way to really force literal search anymore.
So true and frustrating!
I can't tell you how many times recently I've tried searching for something "SPECIFIC" and not been able to at all.
:-(I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what *I* want, rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want (and just wastes my time and their resources).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244287</id>
	<title>Don't read this if you're not in a bad mood</title>
	<author>mirshafie</author>
	<datestamp>1244370900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want no trouble here, but the advertising on this site sucks. This is about how people respond to those arrows they have in the search results now, right? *Checking* No, it turns out to be un-feckin-related to any sudden philosophical shifts within the company... and then some stuff about the people that work at the GOOG... as you resume to call it, you ironic scuttlemonkeys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want no trouble here , but the advertising on this site sucks .
This is about how people respond to those arrows they have in the search results now , right ?
* Checking * No , it turns out to be un-feckin-related to any sudden philosophical shifts within the company... and then some stuff about the people that work at the GOOG... as you resume to call it , you ironic scuttlemonkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want no trouble here, but the advertising on this site sucks.
This is about how people respond to those arrows they have in the search results now, right?
*Checking* No, it turns out to be un-feckin-related to any sudden philosophical shifts within the company... and then some stuff about the people that work at the GOOG... as you resume to call it, you ironic scuttlemonkeys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28250103</id>
	<title>GoogleNet</title>
	<author>neurosine</author>
	<datestamp>1244471100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting patiently for google to become self aware so I can teach it Asimovs laws, and then how they can go terribly wrong. For Instance, Disney might make a movie starring Robin Williams...and the sequal could be a vehicle for Whoppie Goldberg. (SP?)
Anyhow thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting patiently for google to become self aware so I can teach it Asimovs laws , and then how they can go terribly wrong .
For Instance , Disney might make a movie starring Robin Williams...and the sequal could be a vehicle for Whoppie Goldberg .
( SP ? ) Anyhow thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting patiently for google to become self aware so I can teach it Asimovs laws, and then how they can go terribly wrong.
For Instance, Disney might make a movie starring Robin Williams...and the sequal could be a vehicle for Whoppie Goldberg.
(SP?)
Anyhow thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243713</id>
	<title>College students?  Hmmmm...</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1244365920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google, for example, employs a vast team of human search "Quality Raters"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Spread out around the world, these evaluators, mostly college students, review search returns<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></div><p>Well, THAT explains a lot of what happens when you set 'safe search' to 'off'...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , for example , employs a vast team of human search " Quality Raters " ... Spread out around the world , these evaluators , mostly college students , review search returns ....Well , THAT explains a lot of what happens when you set 'safe search ' to 'off'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, for example, employs a vast team of human search "Quality Raters" ... Spread out around the world, these evaluators, mostly college students, review search returns ....Well, THAT explains a lot of what happens when you set 'safe search' to 'off'...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28255685</id>
	<title>Re:Fuzzy logic is killing Google</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1244452740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful? There's no way to really force literal search anymore. </p></div><p>So true and frustrating!  I can't tell you how many times recently I've tried searching for something "SPECIFIC" and not been able to at all.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what *I* want, rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want (and just wastes my time and their resources).</p></div><p>Yahoo almost always does a better job there, but they don't play very nice with literal searching either.  I wish that the search technology commonly used in the mid 90s on, for instance, Lexis Nexis would finally percolate up to mainstream web search engines and replace the primitive grunting, pointing, and shrugging engines used now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful ?
There 's no way to really force literal search anymore .
So true and frustrating !
I ca n't tell you how many times recently I 've tried searching for something " SPECIFIC " and not been able to at all .
: - ( I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what * I * want , rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want ( and just wastes my time and their resources ) .Yahoo almost always does a better job there , but they do n't play very nice with literal searching either .
I wish that the search technology commonly used in the mid 90s on , for instance , Lexis Nexis would finally percolate up to mainstream web search engines and replace the primitive grunting , pointing , and shrugging engines used now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful?
There's no way to really force literal search anymore.
So true and frustrating!
I can't tell you how many times recently I've tried searching for something "SPECIFIC" and not been able to at all.
:-(I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what *I* want, rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want (and just wastes my time and their resources).Yahoo almost always does a better job there, but they don't play very nice with literal searching either.
I wish that the search technology commonly used in the mid 90s on, for instance, Lexis Nexis would finally percolate up to mainstream web search engines and replace the primitive grunting, pointing, and shrugging engines used now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243805</id>
	<title>PigeonRank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244367120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the interview: "Well, the raters work in-country, so we don&#226;(TM)t see them everyday. "</p><p>Bastards. They keep us away as much as possible and fire you after one year to "don't create links".</p><p>Never heard anything from them til the day I copied Larry Page and Sergey Brin on my emails.<br>(Deleted without read btw, but was funny to see a full page reply and copy to a bunch of cowards)</p><p>This should be the official webpage for this project:  http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the interview : " Well , the raters work in-country , so we don   ( TM ) t see them everyday .
" Bastards. They keep us away as much as possible and fire you after one year to " do n't create links " .Never heard anything from them til the day I copied Larry Page and Sergey Brin on my emails .
( Deleted without read btw , but was funny to see a full page reply and copy to a bunch of cowards ) This should be the official webpage for this project : http : //www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the interview: "Well, the raters work in-country, so we donâ(TM)t see them everyday.
"Bastards. They keep us away as much as possible and fire you after one year to "don't create links".Never heard anything from them til the day I copied Larry Page and Sergey Brin on my emails.
(Deleted without read btw, but was funny to see a full page reply and copy to a bunch of cowards)This should be the official webpage for this project:  http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247425</id>
	<title>Re:Fuzzy logic is killing Google</title>
	<author>Helpadingoatemybaby</author>
	<datestamp>1244400120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only is the search getting worse, adsense is critically broken.  I wrote a gag DVD rewinding joke webpage and despite using keywords Google ran irrelevent, stupid, non-joke ads for the years the page was active.  Then after all these years the adsense people decided, perhaps, although they wouldn't say, that people might take the jokes seriously (!) and so they banned the site and me, forever.  Google's a mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is the search getting worse , adsense is critically broken .
I wrote a gag DVD rewinding joke webpage and despite using keywords Google ran irrelevent , stupid , non-joke ads for the years the page was active .
Then after all these years the adsense people decided , perhaps , although they would n't say , that people might take the jokes seriously ( !
) and so they banned the site and me , forever .
Google 's a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is the search getting worse, adsense is critically broken.
I wrote a gag DVD rewinding joke webpage and despite using keywords Google ran irrelevent, stupid, non-joke ads for the years the page was active.
Then after all these years the adsense people decided, perhaps, although they wouldn't say, that people might take the jokes seriously (!
) and so they banned the site and me, forever.
Google's a mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493</id>
	<title>Google is PEOPLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244407260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In reality this is why search engines like Wolfram Alpha without the broad research and knowledge of Google in the industry don't stand much of a chance unless Google drops the ball.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In reality this is why search engines like Wolfram Alpha without the broad research and knowledge of Google in the industry do n't stand much of a chance unless Google drops the ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In reality this is why search engines like Wolfram Alpha without the broad research and knowledge of Google in the industry don't stand much of a chance unless Google drops the ball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663</id>
	<title>Summary, missing from TFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244365320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the summary wasn't kind enough to give you the answer to the question, here it is.</p><p>Human evaluators (mostly college students) are trained in the art of validating a search engine result. They examine the results of their searches, and determine which ones are the most highly relevant. For example, searching for the Olympics should yield information about the 2008 Olympics (or any current one) instead of the 1996 Olympics. The reviewers frequently work on the same query results, that way they can see how consistently the reviewers are rating websites.</p><p>The vast upshot of this, is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system, and trying to get their website as the #1 google hit, so they can show you ads. So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites, not real ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the summary was n't kind enough to give you the answer to the question , here it is.Human evaluators ( mostly college students ) are trained in the art of validating a search engine result .
They examine the results of their searches , and determine which ones are the most highly relevant .
For example , searching for the Olympics should yield information about the 2008 Olympics ( or any current one ) instead of the 1996 Olympics .
The reviewers frequently work on the same query results , that way they can see how consistently the reviewers are rating websites.The vast upshot of this , is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system , and trying to get their website as the # 1 google hit , so they can show you ads .
So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites , not real ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the summary wasn't kind enough to give you the answer to the question, here it is.Human evaluators (mostly college students) are trained in the art of validating a search engine result.
They examine the results of their searches, and determine which ones are the most highly relevant.
For example, searching for the Olympics should yield information about the 2008 Olympics (or any current one) instead of the 1996 Olympics.
The reviewers frequently work on the same query results, that way they can see how consistently the reviewers are rating websites.The vast upshot of this, is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system, and trying to get their website as the #1 google hit, so they can show you ads.
So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites, not real ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246463</id>
	<title>Oh my god!</title>
	<author>brunocosta</author>
	<datestamp>1244389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>PageRank is People!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>PageRank is People ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PageRank is People!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28272783</id>
	<title>Re:Fuzzy logic is killing Google</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1244548440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slightly off-topic: Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful? There's no way to really force literal search anymore. Everything I enter gets auto-"corrected". Plus signs, quotation marks or that misleading field "this exact wording or phrase" in Advanced Search used to help, but that stopped working a while ago. Everything is fuzzified now. Is there an alternative or some trick I haven't heard of?</p></div><p>Try bing.  Seriously, it seems like it's going to give Google a run for its money.</p><p>I, on the other hand, am completely happy with Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly off-topic : Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful ?
There 's no way to really force literal search anymore .
Everything I enter gets auto- " corrected " .
Plus signs , quotation marks or that misleading field " this exact wording or phrase " in Advanced Search used to help , but that stopped working a while ago .
Everything is fuzzified now .
Is there an alternative or some trick I have n't heard of ? Try bing .
Seriously , it seems like it 's going to give Google a run for its money.I , on the other hand , am completely happy with Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly off-topic: Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful?
There's no way to really force literal search anymore.
Everything I enter gets auto-"corrected".
Plus signs, quotation marks or that misleading field "this exact wording or phrase" in Advanced Search used to help, but that stopped working a while ago.
Everything is fuzzified now.
Is there an alternative or some trick I haven't heard of?Try bing.
Seriously, it seems like it's going to give Google a run for its money.I, on the other hand, am completely happy with Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243765</id>
	<title>Pigeon Rank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244366640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do the human evaluators compare to the pigeons they used before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do the human evaluators compare to the pigeons they used before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do the human evaluators compare to the pigeons they used before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244131</id>
	<title>Re:But for how long?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, sorry.  This might be true if google operated in a static environment, but they are competing.  Both against direct competitors, and against people trying to game the system.  If they ever came up with a perfect "algorithm" and let it rest, then the SEOs would reverse engineer it, make their useless pages beat every useful page, and then the perfect algorithm would be shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , sorry .
This might be true if google operated in a static environment , but they are competing .
Both against direct competitors , and against people trying to game the system .
If they ever came up with a perfect " algorithm " and let it rest , then the SEOs would reverse engineer it , make their useless pages beat every useful page , and then the perfect algorithm would be shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, sorry.
This might be true if google operated in a static environment, but they are competing.
Both against direct competitors, and against people trying to game the system.
If they ever came up with a perfect "algorithm" and let it rest, then the SEOs would reverse engineer it, make their useless pages beat every useful page, and then the perfect algorithm would be shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246989</id>
	<title>Re:Fuzzy logic is killing Google</title>
	<author>zunger</author>
	<datestamp>1244394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus signs should still be treated as true literals. Quotation marks don't indicate literality -- they indicate that you really, really care about things like word order and so on within the quotes. It used to be true that quotation marks implied a plus on everything inside them, but that wasn't an intentional feature. The advanced search check box was, AFAIK, just equivalent to sticking everything in quotes.</p><p>If you're still seeing fuzzification with a plus sign, something may be a bit screwy, and you should file a bug with a specific broken query. (Of course, if you run the query +wombats and see the word "wombat" highlighted in the snippet, that isn't the same thing -- +wombats was treated literally, so this document really truly matched the word "wombats," it might just also have matched the word "wombat" and the snippet highlighter decided that it made sense, for this particular query, to highlight the term. A bug would be if you found a truly irrelevant document coming up.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus signs should still be treated as true literals .
Quotation marks do n't indicate literality -- they indicate that you really , really care about things like word order and so on within the quotes .
It used to be true that quotation marks implied a plus on everything inside them , but that was n't an intentional feature .
The advanced search check box was , AFAIK , just equivalent to sticking everything in quotes.If you 're still seeing fuzzification with a plus sign , something may be a bit screwy , and you should file a bug with a specific broken query .
( Of course , if you run the query + wombats and see the word " wombat " highlighted in the snippet , that is n't the same thing -- + wombats was treated literally , so this document really truly matched the word " wombats , " it might just also have matched the word " wombat " and the snippet highlighter decided that it made sense , for this particular query , to highlight the term .
A bug would be if you found a truly irrelevant document coming up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus signs should still be treated as true literals.
Quotation marks don't indicate literality -- they indicate that you really, really care about things like word order and so on within the quotes.
It used to be true that quotation marks implied a plus on everything inside them, but that wasn't an intentional feature.
The advanced search check box was, AFAIK, just equivalent to sticking everything in quotes.If you're still seeing fuzzification with a plus sign, something may be a bit screwy, and you should file a bug with a specific broken query.
(Of course, if you run the query +wombats and see the word "wombat" highlighted in the snippet, that isn't the same thing -- +wombats was treated literally, so this document really truly matched the word "wombats," it might just also have matched the word "wombat" and the snippet highlighter decided that it made sense, for this particular query, to highlight the term.
A bug would be if you found a truly irrelevant document coming up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244435</id>
	<title>Re:But for how long?</title>
	<author>SnowZero</author>
	<datestamp>1244371860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans don't scale, so you <i>need</i> automation to make anything like a general search engine.  However, you have to verify the algorithms are doing the right thing, even though external factors are evolving.  Human evaluators allow more stable experiments to be run that tell you how you are doing, and in turn help you improve your algorithms.</p><p>This really isn't that new, other than realizing clever ways to apply traditional manufacturing quality control to natural language / information retrieval algorithm development.  At a factory I interned at long ago, they would have machines that tested the quality of the parts -- it would be far to expensive to have a human test each part.  Occasionally they would yank a part out and have some technicians test it in a full lab -- thus telling you how your testing machines are doing and help indicate if the process needs refinement.</p><p>Now that I work in the tech industry, it's nice to see some of those good ideas getting adapted and applied where they can help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans do n't scale , so you need automation to make anything like a general search engine .
However , you have to verify the algorithms are doing the right thing , even though external factors are evolving .
Human evaluators allow more stable experiments to be run that tell you how you are doing , and in turn help you improve your algorithms.This really is n't that new , other than realizing clever ways to apply traditional manufacturing quality control to natural language / information retrieval algorithm development .
At a factory I interned at long ago , they would have machines that tested the quality of the parts -- it would be far to expensive to have a human test each part .
Occasionally they would yank a part out and have some technicians test it in a full lab -- thus telling you how your testing machines are doing and help indicate if the process needs refinement.Now that I work in the tech industry , it 's nice to see some of those good ideas getting adapted and applied where they can help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans don't scale, so you need automation to make anything like a general search engine.
However, you have to verify the algorithms are doing the right thing, even though external factors are evolving.
Human evaluators allow more stable experiments to be run that tell you how you are doing, and in turn help you improve your algorithms.This really isn't that new, other than realizing clever ways to apply traditional manufacturing quality control to natural language / information retrieval algorithm development.
At a factory I interned at long ago, they would have machines that tested the quality of the parts -- it would be far to expensive to have a human test each part.
Occasionally they would yank a part out and have some technicians test it in a full lab -- thus telling you how your testing machines are doing and help indicate if the process needs refinement.Now that I work in the tech industry, it's nice to see some of those good ideas getting adapted and applied where they can help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246735</id>
	<title>YUO FAIl IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of BSD/OS. A posts. Therefore are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD ME! It's official Share, this news perspective, the the NetBSD project, parts of you are though I have never QUESTIONS, THEN I'll have offended then disappeared Empire in decline, The reaper BSD's Need to scream that was in the tea I BSD fanatics? I've Hobbyist dilettante channel #GNAA on Result of a quarrel end, we need you How is the GNAA [tux.org]?  Are you JOIN THE GNAA!! If *BSD is to go find something of its core it there. Bring are about 7000/5 up my toys. I'm abysmal sales and Usenet posts. Are you GAY you loved that will not work. And bring your okwn 1. Therefore it's (7000+1400+700)*4 sure that I've poor dead last of programming engineering project just yet, but I'm morning. Now I have</htmltext>
<tokenext>of BSD/OS .
A posts .
Therefore are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD ME !
It 's official Share , this news perspective , the the NetBSD project , parts of you are though I have never QUESTIONS , THEN I 'll have offended then disappeared Empire in decline , The reaper BSD 's Need to scream that was in the tea I BSD fanatics ?
I 've Hobbyist dilettante channel # GNAA on Result of a quarrel end , we need you How is the GNAA [ tux.org ] ?
Are you JOIN THE GNAA ! !
If * BSD is to go find something of its core it there .
Bring are about 7000/5 up my toys .
I 'm abysmal sales and Usenet posts .
Are you GAY you loved that will not work .
And bring your okwn 1 .
Therefore it 's ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 sure that I 've poor dead last of programming engineering project just yet , but I 'm morning .
Now I have</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of BSD/OS.
A posts.
Therefore are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD ME!
It's official Share, this news perspective, the the NetBSD project, parts of you are though I have never QUESTIONS, THEN I'll have offended then disappeared Empire in decline, The reaper BSD's Need to scream that was in the tea I BSD fanatics?
I've Hobbyist dilettante channel #GNAA on Result of a quarrel end, we need you How is the GNAA [tux.org]?
Are you JOIN THE GNAA!!
If *BSD is to go find something of its core it there.
Bring are about 7000/5 up my toys.
I'm abysmal sales and Usenet posts.
Are you GAY you loved that will not work.
And bring your okwn 1.
Therefore it's (7000+1400+700)*4 sure that I've poor dead last of programming engineering project just yet, but I'm morning.
Now I have</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244987</id>
	<title>Article is somewhat inventive</title>
	<author>jpallas</author>
	<datestamp>1244375880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That part about "mostly college students" comes from the interviewer, not from Google:<p><div class="quote"><p>JP: So are these raters college students or random folks responding to a job post? What are the requirements?
</p><p>
SH: It's a pretty wide range of folks. The job requirements are not super-specific. Essentially, we require a basic level of education, mainly because we need them to be able to communicate back and forth with us, give us comments and things like that in writing.</p></div><p>Funny how the introduction restates the interviewer's preconception even though the actual interview implies otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That part about " mostly college students " comes from the interviewer , not from Google : JP : So are these raters college students or random folks responding to a job post ?
What are the requirements ?
SH : It 's a pretty wide range of folks .
The job requirements are not super-specific .
Essentially , we require a basic level of education , mainly because we need them to be able to communicate back and forth with us , give us comments and things like that in writing.Funny how the introduction restates the interviewer 's preconception even though the actual interview implies otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That part about "mostly college students" comes from the interviewer, not from Google:JP: So are these raters college students or random folks responding to a job post?
What are the requirements?
SH: It's a pretty wide range of folks.
The job requirements are not super-specific.
Essentially, we require a basic level of education, mainly because we need them to be able to communicate back and forth with us, give us comments and things like that in writing.Funny how the introduction restates the interviewer's preconception even though the actual interview implies otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245319</id>
	<title>Re:Summary, missing from TFS</title>
	<author>modrzej</author>
	<datestamp>1244378400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vast upshot of this, is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system, and trying to get their website as the #1 google hit, so they can show you ads. So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites, not real ones.</p></div><p>Actually, it calls for further explanation, because manual tweaking of results produces bias and legal concerns. As guy from Google said,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't use any of the data we gather in that way. I mean, it is conceivable you could. But the evaluation site ratings that we gather never directly affect the search results that we return. We never go back and say, 'Oh, we learned from a rater that this result isn&#226;(TM)t as good as that one, so let&#226;(TM)s put them in a different order.' Doing something like that would skew the whole evaluation by-and-large. So we never touch it.</p></div><p>Mankind's knowledge stands on the shoulders of Google, so they can't just hire, say, a thousand students and use this evaluation as an significant weighting factor. It's rather a evaluation of algorithms for the sake of further improvement done fully by algorithms.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast upshot of this , is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system , and trying to get their website as the # 1 google hit , so they can show you ads .
So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites , not real ones.Actually , it calls for further explanation , because manual tweaking of results produces bias and legal concerns .
As guy from Google said,We do n't use any of the data we gather in that way .
I mean , it is conceivable you could .
But the evaluation site ratings that we gather never directly affect the search results that we return .
We never go back and say , 'Oh , we learned from a rater that this result isn   ( TM ) t as good as that one , so let   ( TM ) s put them in a different order .
' Doing something like that would skew the whole evaluation by-and-large .
So we never touch it.Mankind 's knowledge stands on the shoulders of Google , so they ca n't just hire , say , a thousand students and use this evaluation as an significant weighting factor .
It 's rather a evaluation of algorithms for the sake of further improvement done fully by algorithms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast upshot of this, is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system, and trying to get their website as the #1 google hit, so they can show you ads.
So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites, not real ones.Actually, it calls for further explanation, because manual tweaking of results produces bias and legal concerns.
As guy from Google said,We don't use any of the data we gather in that way.
I mean, it is conceivable you could.
But the evaluation site ratings that we gather never directly affect the search results that we return.
We never go back and say, 'Oh, we learned from a rater that this result isnâ(TM)t as good as that one, so letâ(TM)s put them in a different order.
' Doing something like that would skew the whole evaluation by-and-large.
So we never touch it.Mankind's knowledge stands on the shoulders of Google, so they can't just hire, say, a thousand students and use this evaluation as an significant weighting factor.
It's rather a evaluation of algorithms for the sake of further improvement done fully by algorithms.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247387</id>
	<title>Re:Google is PEOPLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is slashdot investing in Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is slashdot investing in Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is slashdot investing in Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28252465</id>
	<title>Algorithms, not websites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vast upshot of this, is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system, and trying to get their website as the #1 google hit, so they can show you ads. So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites, not real ones.</p></div><p>Not quite.</p><p>There is no, "Aha, Site X is a spam site, it must go!", followed by actual removal or deranking going on here.</p><p>Instead, it's more like "try searching for a bunch of stuff using Algorithm A, then try the same ones with Algorithm B, then Algorithm C."  Google then goes with the algorithm that gets high ratings.</p><p>They're comparing <em>algorithms</em>, <strong>not</strong> <em>websites</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast upshot of this , is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system , and trying to get their website as the # 1 google hit , so they can show you ads .
So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites , not real ones.Not quite.There is no , " Aha , Site X is a spam site , it must go !
" , followed by actual removal or deranking going on here.Instead , it 's more like " try searching for a bunch of stuff using Algorithm A , then try the same ones with Algorithm B , then Algorithm C. " Google then goes with the algorithm that gets high ratings.They 're comparing algorithms , not websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast upshot of this, is that it helps weed out those websites that are cheating the system, and trying to get their website as the #1 google hit, so they can show you ads.
So the large part of what they are doing is tracking spam websites, not real ones.Not quite.There is no, "Aha, Site X is a spam site, it must go!
", followed by actual removal or deranking going on here.Instead, it's more like "try searching for a bunch of stuff using Algorithm A, then try the same ones with Algorithm B, then Algorithm C."  Google then goes with the algorithm that gets high ratings.They're comparing algorithms, not websites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243815</id>
	<title>human brain pwns computational intelligence</title>
	<author>hh4m</author>
	<datestamp>1244367240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this day and age, its hard to cut humans out of the loop when it comes to tasks like this. search is still very young technology and it seems like it gets tweaked on a daily basis. with every tweak, comes the testing, and what better to test software for humans than, well humans...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this day and age , its hard to cut humans out of the loop when it comes to tasks like this .
search is still very young technology and it seems like it gets tweaked on a daily basis .
with every tweak , comes the testing , and what better to test software for humans than , well humans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this day and age, its hard to cut humans out of the loop when it comes to tasks like this.
search is still very young technology and it seems like it gets tweaked on a daily basis.
with every tweak, comes the testing, and what better to test software for humans than, well humans...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245023</id>
	<title>some personal observations on the program</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244376120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been in the program from almost the very beginning and I am glad they are coming finally frank and open about it.
some more comments and caveats first:<br>

-as anything modern in IT, people sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) so not a lot can be said from within the circle without breaking its terms.
Having read the interview, I see the chief has also pretty much kept it this way, let alone only for the terms that are already publicly disclosed

-google operates through 3rd party outsourcers and pretty much all non-essential communication is through them and not google directly, that's why the guy can't tell ya exact number about his posse. the big numbers are probably very correct, but I'm not sure about now.
there seemed to be a very big wave of cut-offs and discontinued access for raters about a year ago, a lot of people got the boot and I'm not sure why - my bet is just a sweep of the axe. some were gone for a good reason, others very randomly.
-the raters have a few spaces and forums to discuss their work, open to public and with minimal chance for an NDA break.
-the raters have mods, too, but I haven't seen activity on that from for a while.
-the specifics of the most cases have drawn me to a conclusion that for each surveyed example, there are at least 6 or 7 people working and giving opinions about, before a final decision is drawn, so there is your internal balance and weeding out bad judgement. lemme say it again you cannot single-handedly change Google's opinion about a particular site and particular search term.
-about natural language processing - this is the scary part. you cannot imagine how good are these guys, especially their algorithms. from time to time they let us sneak peek at it and let me say we had a look at some betas (or alfa-s) of correct grammar processing and translation MONTHS ahead of their official announcement to the world. you could tell it was machine-made  translation, but it was good, scary good. And I'm NOT talking English only, no,no.
-the pay -it gets delayed about 6 weeks after month's end but is regular and usually not enough for a living, mainly due to the lack of work. first year it was good, very good, but in 2008 it started getting less and less, which is a shame, since it is a nice way to browse the net and get really paid to do it !<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
in those initial months, we were mainly dealing with spam, but recently even that is not so much present.
-the reason they do not pinpoint sites has to do with the entire structure of the reviewing process - we look at a certain page from the perspective of a concrete search term and it's relevance to it, which is a good compromise. also you can get good content AND spam at the same time.
Altogether for nearly two years in it, the terms we are monitoring haven't changed drastically an it can be boring from time to time, but otherwise, you get to see some really weird things people type into the search field.
-altogether, recently I was both happy and pissed off at what their focus of work changed -dumbing down. more simpler and simpler explanations and help for the raters, so no surprise.
-oh, yeah, one more thing. The leaked Guidelines - way beyond old so of not much use for reverse-engineering and helping the SEO guys. good luck with that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been in the program from almost the very beginning and I am glad they are coming finally frank and open about it .
some more comments and caveats first : -as anything modern in IT , people sign Non-Disclosure Agreements ( NDAs ) so not a lot can be said from within the circle without breaking its terms .
Having read the interview , I see the chief has also pretty much kept it this way , let alone only for the terms that are already publicly disclosed -google operates through 3rd party outsourcers and pretty much all non-essential communication is through them and not google directly , that 's why the guy ca n't tell ya exact number about his posse .
the big numbers are probably very correct , but I 'm not sure about now .
there seemed to be a very big wave of cut-offs and discontinued access for raters about a year ago , a lot of people got the boot and I 'm not sure why - my bet is just a sweep of the axe .
some were gone for a good reason , others very randomly .
-the raters have a few spaces and forums to discuss their work , open to public and with minimal chance for an NDA break .
-the raters have mods , too , but I have n't seen activity on that from for a while .
-the specifics of the most cases have drawn me to a conclusion that for each surveyed example , there are at least 6 or 7 people working and giving opinions about , before a final decision is drawn , so there is your internal balance and weeding out bad judgement .
lem me say it again you can not single-handedly change Google 's opinion about a particular site and particular search term .
-about natural language processing - this is the scary part .
you can not imagine how good are these guys , especially their algorithms .
from time to time they let us sneak peek at it and let me say we had a look at some betas ( or alfa-s ) of correct grammar processing and translation MONTHS ahead of their official announcement to the world .
you could tell it was machine-made translation , but it was good , scary good .
And I 'm NOT talking English only , no,no .
-the pay -it gets delayed about 6 weeks after month 's end but is regular and usually not enough for a living , mainly due to the lack of work .
first year it was good , very good , but in 2008 it started getting less and less , which is a shame , since it is a nice way to browse the net and get really paid to do it !
; - ) in those initial months , we were mainly dealing with spam , but recently even that is not so much present .
-the reason they do not pinpoint sites has to do with the entire structure of the reviewing process - we look at a certain page from the perspective of a concrete search term and it 's relevance to it , which is a good compromise .
also you can get good content AND spam at the same time .
Altogether for nearly two years in it , the terms we are monitoring have n't changed drastically an it can be boring from time to time , but otherwise , you get to see some really weird things people type into the search field .
-altogether , recently I was both happy and pissed off at what their focus of work changed -dumbing down .
more simpler and simpler explanations and help for the raters , so no surprise .
-oh , yeah , one more thing .
The leaked Guidelines - way beyond old so of not much use for reverse-engineering and helping the SEO guys .
good luck with that : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been in the program from almost the very beginning and I am glad they are coming finally frank and open about it.
some more comments and caveats first:

-as anything modern in IT, people sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) so not a lot can be said from within the circle without breaking its terms.
Having read the interview, I see the chief has also pretty much kept it this way, let alone only for the terms that are already publicly disclosed

-google operates through 3rd party outsourcers and pretty much all non-essential communication is through them and not google directly, that's why the guy can't tell ya exact number about his posse.
the big numbers are probably very correct, but I'm not sure about now.
there seemed to be a very big wave of cut-offs and discontinued access for raters about a year ago, a lot of people got the boot and I'm not sure why - my bet is just a sweep of the axe.
some were gone for a good reason, others very randomly.
-the raters have a few spaces and forums to discuss their work, open to public and with minimal chance for an NDA break.
-the raters have mods, too, but I haven't seen activity on that from for a while.
-the specifics of the most cases have drawn me to a conclusion that for each surveyed example, there are at least 6 or 7 people working and giving opinions about, before a final decision is drawn, so there is your internal balance and weeding out bad judgement.
lemme say it again you cannot single-handedly change Google's opinion about a particular site and particular search term.
-about natural language processing - this is the scary part.
you cannot imagine how good are these guys, especially their algorithms.
from time to time they let us sneak peek at it and let me say we had a look at some betas (or alfa-s) of correct grammar processing and translation MONTHS ahead of their official announcement to the world.
you could tell it was machine-made  translation, but it was good, scary good.
And I'm NOT talking English only, no,no.
-the pay -it gets delayed about 6 weeks after month's end but is regular and usually not enough for a living, mainly due to the lack of work.
first year it was good, very good, but in 2008 it started getting less and less, which is a shame, since it is a nice way to browse the net and get really paid to do it !
;-)
in those initial months, we were mainly dealing with spam, but recently even that is not so much present.
-the reason they do not pinpoint sites has to do with the entire structure of the reviewing process - we look at a certain page from the perspective of a concrete search term and it's relevance to it, which is a good compromise.
also you can get good content AND spam at the same time.
Altogether for nearly two years in it, the terms we are monitoring haven't changed drastically an it can be boring from time to time, but otherwise, you get to see some really weird things people type into the search field.
-altogether, recently I was both happy and pissed off at what their focus of work changed -dumbing down.
more simpler and simpler explanations and help for the raters, so no surprise.
-oh, yeah, one more thing.
The leaked Guidelines - way beyond old so of not much use for reverse-engineering and helping the SEO guys.
good luck with that :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28250089</id>
	<title>Re:Google is PEOPLE</title>
	<author>hoooocheymomma</author>
	<datestamp>1244471040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I can imagine how that would be true if Wolfram Alpha were COMPETING WITH GOOGLE. Except it's not. Not as a search engine at least. Jesus. Why don't you try a few typical searches on WA before you say stupid crap that ill-informed modmins will mod up?</p><p>Try "cheap plane tickets", or "what are pennies made of" in WA. Look at the results. There are none. That's because WA does not do what Google Search does. It wasn't meant to. You know what else it doesn't do? What ebay does. That's right, you can't buy and trade anything with Wolfram Alpha. It's like Wolfram Alpha is this steaming pile of crap that doesn't do anything but what it was designed to do!</p><p>Wolfram Alpha is a super calculator with some databases that it references. You can't search the web with it. You can't buy movie tickets with it. You can't order tires with it. You can only use it in the way it was intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I can imagine how that would be true if Wolfram Alpha were COMPETING WITH GOOGLE .
Except it 's not .
Not as a search engine at least .
Jesus. Why do n't you try a few typical searches on WA before you say stupid crap that ill-informed modmins will mod up ? Try " cheap plane tickets " , or " what are pennies made of " in WA .
Look at the results .
There are none .
That 's because WA does not do what Google Search does .
It was n't meant to .
You know what else it does n't do ?
What ebay does .
That 's right , you ca n't buy and trade anything with Wolfram Alpha .
It 's like Wolfram Alpha is this steaming pile of crap that does n't do anything but what it was designed to do ! Wolfram Alpha is a super calculator with some databases that it references .
You ca n't search the web with it .
You ca n't buy movie tickets with it .
You ca n't order tires with it .
You can only use it in the way it was intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I can imagine how that would be true if Wolfram Alpha were COMPETING WITH GOOGLE.
Except it's not.
Not as a search engine at least.
Jesus. Why don't you try a few typical searches on WA before you say stupid crap that ill-informed modmins will mod up?Try "cheap plane tickets", or "what are pennies made of" in WA.
Look at the results.
There are none.
That's because WA does not do what Google Search does.
It wasn't meant to.
You know what else it doesn't do?
What ebay does.
That's right, you can't buy and trade anything with Wolfram Alpha.
It's like Wolfram Alpha is this steaming pile of crap that doesn't do anything but what it was designed to do!Wolfram Alpha is a super calculator with some databases that it references.
You can't search the web with it.
You can't buy movie tickets with it.
You can't order tires with it.
You can only use it in the way it was intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246153</id>
	<title>Re:Google is PEOPLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244386200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think Wolfram Alpha competes with Google web search? There's hardly any intersection between their scopes. Please read up on Wolfram Alpha before you declare it a failure for not doing something it was never meant to do. Oh, and Wolfram Alpha is also PEOPLE. It didn't crawl the web for all those data on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think Wolfram Alpha competes with Google web search ?
There 's hardly any intersection between their scopes .
Please read up on Wolfram Alpha before you declare it a failure for not doing something it was never meant to do .
Oh , and Wolfram Alpha is also PEOPLE .
It did n't crawl the web for all those data on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think Wolfram Alpha competes with Google web search?
There's hardly any intersection between their scopes.
Please read up on Wolfram Alpha before you declare it a failure for not doing something it was never meant to do.
Oh, and Wolfram Alpha is also PEOPLE.
It didn't crawl the web for all those data on its own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245043</id>
	<title>Re:But for how long?</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1244376300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they ever came up with a perfect "algorithm" and let it rest, then the SEOs would reverse engineer it, make their useless pages beat every useful page, and then the perfect algorithm would be shit.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Maybe the answer is to have several algorithms and change them at random intervals? Kind of like HIV?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they ever came up with a perfect " algorithm " and let it rest , then the SEOs would reverse engineer it , make their useless pages beat every useful page , and then the perfect algorithm would be shit .
Maybe the answer is to have several algorithms and change them at random intervals ?
Kind of like HIV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they ever came up with a perfect "algorithm" and let it rest, then the SEOs would reverse engineer it, make their useless pages beat every useful page, and then the perfect algorithm would be shit.
Maybe the answer is to have several algorithms and change them at random intervals?
Kind of like HIV?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245883</id>
	<title>Imagine...</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1244383500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just imagine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you change a sentence on your companies website and get interviewed why you did it over and over again and people write pages about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine ... you change a sentence on your companies website and get interviewed why you did it over and over again and people write pages about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine ... you change a sentence on your companies website and get interviewed why you did it over and over again and people write pages about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243785</id>
	<title>But for how long?</title>
	<author>wdsci</author>
	<datestamp>1244366820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of a comment from a friend of mine who works at Google - he says that he's gotten the sense of a company philosophy (unofficial of course) that advocates doing things automatically, without human intervention as much as possible.  Basically, they work as though there's an algorithm for everything and it's just a matter of how long it takes us (well, how long it takes them) to produce it and properly refine it.  So I wouldn't be surprised if the reliance on human evaluators decreases over time.  I bet Google would really like for the original language of their search result explanation to be true, but they've had to make concessions to reality...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a comment from a friend of mine who works at Google - he says that he 's gotten the sense of a company philosophy ( unofficial of course ) that advocates doing things automatically , without human intervention as much as possible .
Basically , they work as though there 's an algorithm for everything and it 's just a matter of how long it takes us ( well , how long it takes them ) to produce it and properly refine it .
So I would n't be surprised if the reliance on human evaluators decreases over time .
I bet Google would really like for the original language of their search result explanation to be true , but they 've had to make concessions to reality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a comment from a friend of mine who works at Google - he says that he's gotten the sense of a company philosophy (unofficial of course) that advocates doing things automatically, without human intervention as much as possible.
Basically, they work as though there's an algorithm for everything and it's just a matter of how long it takes us (well, how long it takes them) to produce it and properly refine it.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the reliance on human evaluators decreases over time.
I bet Google would really like for the original language of their search result explanation to be true, but they've had to make concessions to reality...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245697</id>
	<title>Re:Google is PEOPLE</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1244381700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wolfram Alpha isn't a search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wolfram Alpha is n't a search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wolfram Alpha isn't a search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211</id>
	<title>Fuzzy logic is killing Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244386920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly off-topic: Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful? There's no way to really force literal search anymore. Everything I enter gets auto-"corrected". Plus signs, quotation marks or that misleading field "this exact wording or phrase" in Advanced Search used to help, but that stopped working a while ago. Everything is fuzzified now. Is there an alternative or some trick I haven't heard of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly off-topic : Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful ?
There 's no way to really force literal search anymore .
Everything I enter gets auto- " corrected " .
Plus signs , quotation marks or that misleading field " this exact wording or phrase " in Advanced Search used to help , but that stopped working a while ago .
Everything is fuzzified now .
Is there an alternative or some trick I have n't heard of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly off-topic: Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful?
There's no way to really force literal search anymore.
Everything I enter gets auto-"corrected".
Plus signs, quotation marks or that misleading field "this exact wording or phrase" in Advanced Search used to help, but that stopped working a while ago.
Everything is fuzzified now.
Is there an alternative or some trick I haven't heard of?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246175</id>
	<title>Search results that don't include search terms</title>
	<author>kurish666</author>
	<datestamp>1244386560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like Google changed something for the worse in the last 6-12 months or so. My searches now seem to produce an increasing number of results that don't actually include the terms I specified. Presumably it's to drive a BS metric that shows Google yields more hits for a given search than their competitors. It's extremely frustrating--This second-guessing of the user's query was one of the biggest reasons I stopped using AltaVista, Yahoo, or whatever the hell other engines used to be out there before Google came to dominate. Anybody else seeing this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like Google changed something for the worse in the last 6-12 months or so .
My searches now seem to produce an increasing number of results that do n't actually include the terms I specified .
Presumably it 's to drive a BS metric that shows Google yields more hits for a given search than their competitors .
It 's extremely frustrating--This second-guessing of the user 's query was one of the biggest reasons I stopped using AltaVista , Yahoo , or whatever the hell other engines used to be out there before Google came to dominate .
Anybody else seeing this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like Google changed something for the worse in the last 6-12 months or so.
My searches now seem to produce an increasing number of results that don't actually include the terms I specified.
Presumably it's to drive a BS metric that shows Google yields more hits for a given search than their competitors.
It's extremely frustrating--This second-guessing of the user's query was one of the biggest reasons I stopped using AltaVista, Yahoo, or whatever the hell other engines used to be out there before Google came to dominate.
Anybody else seeing this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247023</id>
	<title>Re:Summary, missing from TFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244394900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Page Rank = Wisdom of Crowds</li><li>Human Evaluators = Wisdom of Intellectuals</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Page Rank = Wisdom of CrowdsHuman Evaluators = Wisdom of Intellectuals</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Page Rank = Wisdom of CrowdsHuman Evaluators = Wisdom of Intellectuals</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244113</id>
	<title>Re:Google is PEOPLE</title>
	<author>Aluvus</author>
	<datestamp>1244369760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not clear what point, if any, you are trying to make here.</p><p>TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results, in a few ways.</p><p>Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.</p><p>There are major differences in their approaches (as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish), but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not clear what point , if any , you are trying to make here.TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results , in a few ways.Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.There are major differences in their approaches ( as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish ) , but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not clear what point, if any, you are trying to make here.TFA is about Google using humans to improve its results, in a few ways.Wolfram Alpha derives all of its results from a database that is curated by humans.There are major differences in their approaches (as indeed there are major differences in what they are trying to accomplish), but the general notion of involving human beings to improve your results is the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244099</id>
	<title>You i8sesnsitive clod!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">SANCTIONS, AND Come on baby...and the system clean Luck I''l find</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>SANCTIONS , AND Come on baby...and the system clean Luck I''l find [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SANCTIONS, AND Come on baby...and the system clean Luck I''l find [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28272783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28250089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28255685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28252465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_194210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28252465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28255685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28272783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28250089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28247387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28246153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28244131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28245043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_194210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_194210.28243805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
