<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_1512228</id>
	<title>Yes, Google Does De-List Pages; But When?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261159440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes <i>"Google finds itself inserting a disclaimer once again above some offensive search results.  But the disclaimer still leads many to believe (incorrectly) that Google doesn't tamper with search results even in cases of 'harmful' or 'offensive' material.  We know that Google has in fact de-listed some pages at the request of offended parties.  What is their real policy on the issue?"</i> Read on for Bennet's essay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes " Google finds itself inserting a disclaimer once again above some offensive search results .
But the disclaimer still leads many to believe ( incorrectly ) that Google does n't tamper with search results even in cases of 'harmful ' or 'offensive ' material .
We know that Google has in fact de-listed some pages at the request of offended parties .
What is their real policy on the issue ?
" Read on for Bennet 's essay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "Google finds itself inserting a disclaimer once again above some offensive search results.
But the disclaimer still leads many to believe (incorrectly) that Google doesn't tamper with search results even in cases of 'harmful' or 'offensive' material.
We know that Google has in fact de-listed some pages at the request of offended parties.
What is their real policy on the issue?
" Read on for Bennet's essay.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494074</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Muhammad</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1261135320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Nah, deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.</i> <br> <br>

The article writer, I think, was even-handed; mentioning a specific instance about Michelle Obama, and contrasting it with different handling of images of the 'opposing' political spectrum.  That's reasonable.  Now, the way Google and others <b>reacted</b> to the actual pictures isn't reasonable... how Michelle Obama's caricature was handled is a sad indication of a twisted form of racism; but it's a culturally approved racism, so they probably didn't have much choice.  It'll be embarrassing a few decades from now, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious .
The article writer , I think , was even-handed ; mentioning a specific instance about Michelle Obama , and contrasting it with different handling of images of the 'opposing ' political spectrum .
That 's reasonable .
Now , the way Google and others reacted to the actual pictures is n't reasonable... how Michelle Obama 's caricature was handled is a sad indication of a twisted form of racism ; but it 's a culturally approved racism , so they probably did n't have much choice .
It 'll be embarrassing a few decades from now , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.
The article writer, I think, was even-handed; mentioning a specific instance about Michelle Obama, and contrasting it with different handling of images of the 'opposing' political spectrum.
That's reasonable.
Now, the way Google and others reacted to the actual pictures isn't reasonable... how Michelle Obama's caricature was handled is a sad indication of a twisted form of racism; but it's a culturally approved racism, so they probably didn't have much choice.
It'll be embarrassing a few decades from now, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496304</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1261154100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunno who he is but I didn't think the essay was overly vague or rambling.  Certainly I found it more interesting than most of the articles I see on Slashdot these days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno who he is but I did n't think the essay was overly vague or rambling .
Certainly I found it more interesting than most of the articles I see on Slashdot these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno who he is but I didn't think the essay was overly vague or rambling.
Certainly I found it more interesting than most of the articles I see on Slashdot these days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490854</id>
	<title>Re:Then make users vote for content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261165320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0mg HaX</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0mg HaX</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0mg HaX</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494164</id>
	<title>Who was Aramark's mob connected CEO during 1996</title>
	<author>Thrustworthy</author>
	<datestamp>1261135740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who was Aramark's mob connected CEO during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. In spite of Aramark taking out back cover ads in Time Magazine that summer there is no trace on the internet of him ever being associated with Aramark or the Olympics.

That's one example of Google's mysterious delisting practices and The Way Back Machine's as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who was Aramark 's mob connected CEO during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta .
In spite of Aramark taking out back cover ads in Time Magazine that summer there is no trace on the internet of him ever being associated with Aramark or the Olympics .
That 's one example of Google 's mysterious delisting practices and The Way Back Machine 's as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who was Aramark's mob connected CEO during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.
In spite of Aramark taking out back cover ads in Time Magazine that summer there is no trace on the internet of him ever being associated with Aramark or the Olympics.
That's one example of Google's mysterious delisting practices and The Way Back Machine's as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491426</id>
	<title>Re:How do they rank pages to begin with?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1261167480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's page rank is <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html" title="google.com">part proprietary</a> [google.com], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" title="wikipedia.org">part public</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>There are, of course, many who believe <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=4VvOLL4KIesC&amp;pg=PT304&amp;lpg=PT304&amp;dq=pagerank+algorithm+seo+site:google.com&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=esuqns6-jd&amp;sig=5zxkY7EL4beamJ3\_tU3bTq2-HBc&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=bdUrS5HPPMmztgf2juH5CA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=pagerank\%20algorithm\%20seo\%20site\%3Agoogle.com&amp;f=false" title="google.com">they've found ways to exploit it</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's page rank is part proprietary [ google.com ] , part public [ wikipedia.org ] .There are , of course , many who believe they 've found ways to exploit it [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's page rank is part proprietary [google.com], part public [wikipedia.org].There are, of course, many who believe they've found ways to exploit it [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490508</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261164000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>they why did you read the article &amp; post your inane commentary?</htmltext>
<tokenext>they why did you read the article &amp; post your inane commentary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they why did you read the article &amp; post your inane commentary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492432</id>
	<title>Re:Meh. Call me when they've stopped keyword spam</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1261127820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or can automatically filter out the ExpertSexchange site from my technical queries (yes, I can -expertsexchange tyvm).</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or can automatically filter out the ExpertSexchange site from my technical queries ( yes , I can -expertsexchange tyvm ) .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or can automatically filter out the ExpertSexchange site from my technical queries (yes, I can -expertsexchange tyvm).
[John]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492368</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1261127640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And whom may I ask was forcing you to read it? Over hear at my terminal, there is nobody with a gun to my head, and so I am able to choose which articles I find interesting, and which I'd rather ignore. I recommend this strategy, it saves time not only in not reading articles I don't want to read, but also in not having to make comments about how I didn't want to read the article I read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And whom may I ask was forcing you to read it ?
Over hear at my terminal , there is nobody with a gun to my head , and so I am able to choose which articles I find interesting , and which I 'd rather ignore .
I recommend this strategy , it saves time not only in not reading articles I do n't want to read , but also in not having to make comments about how I did n't want to read the article I read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And whom may I ask was forcing you to read it?
Over hear at my terminal, there is nobody with a gun to my head, and so I am able to choose which articles I find interesting, and which I'd rather ignore.
I recommend this strategy, it saves time not only in not reading articles I don't want to read, but also in not having to make comments about how I didn't want to read the article I read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490466</id>
	<title>TL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DR</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DR</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494490</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1261137360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?</p></div></blockquote><p>Certainly you are not alone. AFAICT he's a self-appointed pundit who's in love with his own rather murky ideas. No doubt it's all about the ad sense dollars.</p></div><p>I read that he likes to pick up little girls, but Google blacklisted that information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is , I have no interest in his vague ramblings ? Certainly you are not alone .
AFAICT he 's a self-appointed pundit who 's in love with his own rather murky ideas .
No doubt it 's all about the ad sense dollars.I read that he likes to pick up little girls , but Google blacklisted that information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?Certainly you are not alone.
AFAICT he's a self-appointed pundit who's in love with his own rather murky ideas.
No doubt it's all about the ad sense dollars.I read that he likes to pick up little girls, but Google blacklisted that information.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491056</id>
	<title>Re:Neutral Party</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1261166040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a couple of good points. I completely agree that the slippery slope that Google has to tread carefully on is not one of censorship, but one of liability. Many people seem to think that Google has a moral imperative to objectively reflect the "reality" of the web. They don't. Anyone who feels that Google does or should act in way that is not in their best interest is going to be disappointed.</p><p>Google does what they must in each country to remain the dominant search engine. That means abide by local censorship laws, bow to public opinion and avoid becoming liable for search results. Google will always do what will funnel the most money into their coffers but so far they have been very clever to recognize that neutrality and openness can accomplish that goal very well. The debate of "should Google censor results?" hinges on only one criterion: profitability. That goal, in turn, depends on what will preserve the largest possible ad revenue while mitigating liability.</p><p>Google is not a public service, it is a publicly traded corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a couple of good points .
I completely agree that the slippery slope that Google has to tread carefully on is not one of censorship , but one of liability .
Many people seem to think that Google has a moral imperative to objectively reflect the " reality " of the web .
They do n't .
Anyone who feels that Google does or should act in way that is not in their best interest is going to be disappointed.Google does what they must in each country to remain the dominant search engine .
That means abide by local censorship laws , bow to public opinion and avoid becoming liable for search results .
Google will always do what will funnel the most money into their coffers but so far they have been very clever to recognize that neutrality and openness can accomplish that goal very well .
The debate of " should Google censor results ?
" hinges on only one criterion : profitability .
That goal , in turn , depends on what will preserve the largest possible ad revenue while mitigating liability.Google is not a public service , it is a publicly traded corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a couple of good points.
I completely agree that the slippery slope that Google has to tread carefully on is not one of censorship, but one of liability.
Many people seem to think that Google has a moral imperative to objectively reflect the "reality" of the web.
They don't.
Anyone who feels that Google does or should act in way that is not in their best interest is going to be disappointed.Google does what they must in each country to remain the dominant search engine.
That means abide by local censorship laws, bow to public opinion and avoid becoming liable for search results.
Google will always do what will funnel the most money into their coffers but so far they have been very clever to recognize that neutrality and openness can accomplish that goal very well.
The debate of "should Google censor results?
" hinges on only one criterion: profitability.
That goal, in turn, depends on what will preserve the largest possible ad revenue while mitigating liability.Google is not a public service, it is a publicly traded corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491318</id>
	<title>SSNs and Credit Cards vs. Addresses</title>
	<author>AllenL</author>
	<datestamp>1261167060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main difference here is that listing people's social security numbers, credit card numbers, etc. make Google a one-stop source for identity theft on a large scale.  Indeed, there's almost no other use for these types of personally identifying numbers.  On the other hand, millions of people do want their addresses published in order to conduct business or maintain correspondence, and millions of other people want to find those same addresses for perfectly legitimate reasons.  Since Google can't economically deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis, their policy seems like the only option they have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main difference here is that listing people 's social security numbers , credit card numbers , etc .
make Google a one-stop source for identity theft on a large scale .
Indeed , there 's almost no other use for these types of personally identifying numbers .
On the other hand , millions of people do want their addresses published in order to conduct business or maintain correspondence , and millions of other people want to find those same addresses for perfectly legitimate reasons .
Since Google ca n't economically deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis , their policy seems like the only option they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main difference here is that listing people's social security numbers, credit card numbers, etc.
make Google a one-stop source for identity theft on a large scale.
Indeed, there's almost no other use for these types of personally identifying numbers.
On the other hand, millions of people do want their addresses published in order to conduct business or maintain correspondence, and millions of other people want to find those same addresses for perfectly legitimate reasons.
Since Google can't economically deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis, their policy seems like the only option they have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30502990</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Muhammad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261306980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.</p></div><p>Only the black side, not the white side of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.Only the black side , not the white side of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.Only the black side, not the white side of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?</p></div></blockquote><p>Certainly you are not alone. AFAICT he's a self-appointed pundit who's in love with his own rather murky ideas. No doubt it's all about the ad sense dollars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is , I have no interest in his vague ramblings ? Certainly you are not alone .
AFAICT he 's a self-appointed pundit who 's in love with his own rather murky ideas .
No doubt it 's all about the ad sense dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?Certainly you are not alone.
AFAICT he's a self-appointed pundit who's in love with his own rather murky ideas.
No doubt it's all about the ad sense dollars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491542</id>
	<title>Re:Meh. Call me when they've stopped keyword spam</title>
	<author>base3</author>
	<datestamp>1261168020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.optimizegoogle.com/" title="optimizegoogle.com" rel="nofollow">OptimizeGoogle</a> [optimizegoogle.com] does this for Firefox, at least on a domain by domain basis. It <b>would</b> be nice if Google would do it. Another thing I've found useful is to minus out the spammy search terms (e.g. -"direct download" -"full version" -keygen).</htmltext>
<tokenext>OptimizeGoogle [ optimizegoogle.com ] does this for Firefox , at least on a domain by domain basis .
It would be nice if Google would do it .
Another thing I 've found useful is to minus out the spammy search terms ( e.g .
- " direct download " - " full version " -keygen ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OptimizeGoogle [optimizegoogle.com] does this for Firefox, at least on a domain by domain basis.
It would be nice if Google would do it.
Another thing I've found useful is to minus out the spammy search terms (e.g.
-"direct download" -"full version" -keygen).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490946</id>
	<title>Re:Then make users vote for content</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1261165620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, I had mod points, and considered using them to show a point, but it seemed in apropriate.  I'm not sure if my pesonal restraint disproves the point.  Still, I think without the ability to restrain a user's modding ability (like M2) you could get swarm modding on sites directed by interest groups.  I think it probably has all the issues that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. modding has, but far too many users to implement an M2.  Additionally, there's the possibility of owners of large numbers of IP's simply using their block vote to overwhelm the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I had mod points , and considered using them to show a point , but it seemed in apropriate .
I 'm not sure if my pesonal restraint disproves the point .
Still , I think without the ability to restrain a user 's modding ability ( like M2 ) you could get swarm modding on sites directed by interest groups .
I think it probably has all the issues that / .
modding has , but far too many users to implement an M2 .
Additionally , there 's the possibility of owners of large numbers of IP 's simply using their block vote to overwhelm the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I had mod points, and considered using them to show a point, but it seemed in apropriate.
I'm not sure if my pesonal restraint disproves the point.
Still, I think without the ability to restrain a user's modding ability (like M2) you could get swarm modding on sites directed by interest groups.
I think it probably has all the issues that /.
modding has, but far too many users to implement an M2.
Additionally, there's the possibility of owners of large numbers of IP's simply using their block vote to overwhelm the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491260</id>
	<title>No blacklists needed</title>
	<author>FrankSchwab</author>
	<datestamp>1261166820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is a business.  It is giving users a service (useful search results), and selling your eyeballs to advertisers (customers). I have no problem with that.</p><p>If I searched for "Chester's Guide" because I was planning a trip to England and got a link to (even in-jest) pedophilia, that's not a search result that I would be looking for - it's a failure for Google's search engine.  Frankly, if I were Google, I would want people to tell me when they think my search results weren't working well, so I could update my algorithms to serve the users better so I could get more money from the customers.</p><p>This doesn't need to involve blacklists - all it requires is Google rejiggering it's algorithms to move more relevant links higher in the returned results, and less relevant links lower.  They must do that on a regular basis anyway - heck they already (claim to) do it in cases of detected SEO abuse.  Now, if its the case that a book on Pedophilia is more relevant given the search terms than a guide to a city in England, not only is Western Civilization in serious jeopardy, a certain city in England has its own issues of irrelevance.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/frank</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is a business .
It is giving users a service ( useful search results ) , and selling your eyeballs to advertisers ( customers ) .
I have no problem with that.If I searched for " Chester 's Guide " because I was planning a trip to England and got a link to ( even in-jest ) pedophilia , that 's not a search result that I would be looking for - it 's a failure for Google 's search engine .
Frankly , if I were Google , I would want people to tell me when they think my search results were n't working well , so I could update my algorithms to serve the users better so I could get more money from the customers.This does n't need to involve blacklists - all it requires is Google rejiggering it 's algorithms to move more relevant links higher in the returned results , and less relevant links lower .
They must do that on a regular basis anyway - heck they already ( claim to ) do it in cases of detected SEO abuse .
Now , if its the case that a book on Pedophilia is more relevant given the search terms than a guide to a city in England , not only is Western Civilization in serious jeopardy , a certain city in England has its own issues of irrelevance .
/frank</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is a business.
It is giving users a service (useful search results), and selling your eyeballs to advertisers (customers).
I have no problem with that.If I searched for "Chester's Guide" because I was planning a trip to England and got a link to (even in-jest) pedophilia, that's not a search result that I would be looking for - it's a failure for Google's search engine.
Frankly, if I were Google, I would want people to tell me when they think my search results weren't working well, so I could update my algorithms to serve the users better so I could get more money from the customers.This doesn't need to involve blacklists - all it requires is Google rejiggering it's algorithms to move more relevant links higher in the returned results, and less relevant links lower.
They must do that on a regular basis anyway - heck they already (claim to) do it in cases of detected SEO abuse.
Now, if its the case that a book on Pedophilia is more relevant given the search terms than a guide to a city in England, not only is Western Civilization in serious jeopardy, a certain city in England has its own issues of irrelevance.
/frank</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30493538</id>
	<title>Delisting vs. algorithm changes</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1261132380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google may have delisted a few pages. I wonder if it happens in situations where they could have been concerned about (or maybe faced) legal action. Note that the Chester example is a person in the UK, about whom were written harmful things that are untrue. I believe the UK has libel laws that strongly favor the complainant.</p><p>In many cases what Google has done is updated their algorithm. This is not the same as delisting, as the content is still findable. For instance it was not long before the monkey image of Michelle Obama was no longer on the first page for a GIS of "Michelle Obama." However if you searched "Michelle Obama monkey," it was the very first result. From the point of view of Google, this is probably an improvement to their product. IIRC when they defused the "miserable failure" Googlebomb of George W. Bush, many Googlebombs were shuffled out of the top spots as well.</p><p>Google says their mission is to organize the world's information and make it findable. My guess is that they are firmly on the side of "search represents general relevance" rather than "search reflects online popularity at that moment in time." I think people too easily fall into thinking about how Google works, rather than what its ideal results should be. If I opened a history book 30 years from now and looked up "Michelle Obama" in the index, it would not make sense for that monkey image to be the illustration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google may have delisted a few pages .
I wonder if it happens in situations where they could have been concerned about ( or maybe faced ) legal action .
Note that the Chester example is a person in the UK , about whom were written harmful things that are untrue .
I believe the UK has libel laws that strongly favor the complainant.In many cases what Google has done is updated their algorithm .
This is not the same as delisting , as the content is still findable .
For instance it was not long before the monkey image of Michelle Obama was no longer on the first page for a GIS of " Michelle Obama .
" However if you searched " Michelle Obama monkey , " it was the very first result .
From the point of view of Google , this is probably an improvement to their product .
IIRC when they defused the " miserable failure " Googlebomb of George W. Bush , many Googlebombs were shuffled out of the top spots as well.Google says their mission is to organize the world 's information and make it findable .
My guess is that they are firmly on the side of " search represents general relevance " rather than " search reflects online popularity at that moment in time .
" I think people too easily fall into thinking about how Google works , rather than what its ideal results should be .
If I opened a history book 30 years from now and looked up " Michelle Obama " in the index , it would not make sense for that monkey image to be the illustration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google may have delisted a few pages.
I wonder if it happens in situations where they could have been concerned about (or maybe faced) legal action.
Note that the Chester example is a person in the UK, about whom were written harmful things that are untrue.
I believe the UK has libel laws that strongly favor the complainant.In many cases what Google has done is updated their algorithm.
This is not the same as delisting, as the content is still findable.
For instance it was not long before the monkey image of Michelle Obama was no longer on the first page for a GIS of "Michelle Obama.
" However if you searched "Michelle Obama monkey," it was the very first result.
From the point of view of Google, this is probably an improvement to their product.
IIRC when they defused the "miserable failure" Googlebomb of George W. Bush, many Googlebombs were shuffled out of the top spots as well.Google says their mission is to organize the world's information and make it findable.
My guess is that they are firmly on the side of "search represents general relevance" rather than "search reflects online popularity at that moment in time.
" I think people too easily fall into thinking about how Google works, rather than what its ideal results should be.
If I opened a history book 30 years from now and looked up "Michelle Obama" in the index, it would not make sense for that monkey image to be the illustration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491450</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261167600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who's in love with his own rather murky ideas. No doubt it's all about the ad sense dollars.</p></div><p>You already said that when you said:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>AFAICT he's a self-appointed pundit</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who 's in love with his own rather murky ideas .
No doubt it 's all about the ad sense dollars.You already said that when you said : AFAICT he 's a self-appointed pundit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who's in love with his own rather murky ideas.
No doubt it's all about the ad sense dollars.You already said that when you said:AFAICT he's a self-appointed pundit
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492420</id>
	<title>Only the people of China... :-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261127820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"only the People of China have any say in their governments decision " Ha Ha Ha<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I think you got that wrong. China is a one party state with a habit of putting dissenters in prison.</p><p>Save your, "it's up to the people of China" for some other chump.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" only the People of China have any say in their governments decision " Ha Ha Ha : - ) I think you got that wrong .
China is a one party state with a habit of putting dissenters in prison.Save your , " it 's up to the people of China " for some other chump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"only the People of China have any say in their governments decision " Ha Ha Ha :-)I think you got that wrong.
China is a one party state with a habit of putting dissenters in prison.Save your, "it's up to the people of China" for some other chump.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490780</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261165020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, I sort-of nodded off around the third paragraph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , I sort-of nodded off around the third paragraph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, I sort-of nodded off around the third paragraph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30500908</id>
	<title>Algorithm changes ? Remember the Turing test!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261222680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone suggested algorithm changes to bring the "relevant" links on top.</p><p>Imagine a company X which produces really bad products/services. Naturally company X gets bad reviews from consumers. They complain to Google and Google says, we just search the web.</p><p>Now company X gets smarter and set up blogs and web sites and PR release postings to various sites (astroturf) full of praise for their products and services.</p><p>Presto... these sites get higher up in the Google's ranking. Company X likes it, but the result is bad for the "public good".</p><p>Isn't this realistic ?</p><p>Google's ranking has no way of discovering the "truth". But the problem is they just can't !</p><p>If you say Google should change the algorithms, there is no algorithm out there which can follow a conversation and figure out whether it is relevant, or has any merit. Isn't that what Turing's test was about ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone suggested algorithm changes to bring the " relevant " links on top.Imagine a company X which produces really bad products/services .
Naturally company X gets bad reviews from consumers .
They complain to Google and Google says , we just search the web.Now company X gets smarter and set up blogs and web sites and PR release postings to various sites ( astroturf ) full of praise for their products and services.Presto... these sites get higher up in the Google 's ranking .
Company X likes it , but the result is bad for the " public good " .Is n't this realistic ? Google 's ranking has no way of discovering the " truth " .
But the problem is they just ca n't ! If you say Google should change the algorithms , there is no algorithm out there which can follow a conversation and figure out whether it is relevant , or has any merit .
Is n't that what Turing 's test was about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone suggested algorithm changes to bring the "relevant" links on top.Imagine a company X which produces really bad products/services.
Naturally company X gets bad reviews from consumers.
They complain to Google and Google says, we just search the web.Now company X gets smarter and set up blogs and web sites and PR release postings to various sites (astroturf) full of praise for their products and services.Presto... these sites get higher up in the Google's ranking.
Company X likes it, but the result is bad for the "public good".Isn't this realistic ?Google's ranking has no way of discovering the "truth".
But the problem is they just can't !If you say Google should change the algorithms, there is no algorithm out there which can follow a conversation and figure out whether it is relevant, or has any merit.
Isn't that what Turing's test was about ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492190</id>
	<title>Why Jew?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261127100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And not kike? Or for that matter, nigger, faggot and chink. None of these hold that warning and yet they're more likely to produce "distributing" results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And not kike ?
Or for that matter , nigger , faggot and chink .
None of these hold that warning and yet they 're more likely to produce " distributing " results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And not kike?
Or for that matter, nigger, faggot and chink.
None of these hold that warning and yet they're more likely to produce "distributing" results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496142</id>
	<title>Re:Neutral Party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261152000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google BOOSTS search results from the rip off report, which is a site that not only uses major SEO (SEO that goes against Google's policy) but also is an extortion scheme masquarading as a consumer activist site. Anyone can go on that site and talk shit about anyone else in the world - even if they're not a business. Even if they don't have anything to do with the person. And entirely ruin their reputation -- because google boosts the results to the top couple results for the person's name (Yahoo and other sites actually DEMOTE the site's results). Of course the rip off report will work with the person being complained about and remove the results... for a few thousand dollars of a "business associate fee". And GOOGLE PROMOTES THIS.</p><p>SO.. really. Fuck google. Google ACTIVELY PROMOTES these results. As they do wikipedia and others. So don't give me the "google is just a carrier and has nothing to do with the results... really!" bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google BOOSTS search results from the rip off report , which is a site that not only uses major SEO ( SEO that goes against Google 's policy ) but also is an extortion scheme masquarading as a consumer activist site .
Anyone can go on that site and talk shit about anyone else in the world - even if they 're not a business .
Even if they do n't have anything to do with the person .
And entirely ruin their reputation -- because google boosts the results to the top couple results for the person 's name ( Yahoo and other sites actually DEMOTE the site 's results ) .
Of course the rip off report will work with the person being complained about and remove the results... for a few thousand dollars of a " business associate fee " .
And GOOGLE PROMOTES THIS.SO.. really. Fuck google .
Google ACTIVELY PROMOTES these results .
As they do wikipedia and others .
So do n't give me the " google is just a carrier and has nothing to do with the results.. .
really ! " bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google BOOSTS search results from the rip off report, which is a site that not only uses major SEO (SEO that goes against Google's policy) but also is an extortion scheme masquarading as a consumer activist site.
Anyone can go on that site and talk shit about anyone else in the world - even if they're not a business.
Even if they don't have anything to do with the person.
And entirely ruin their reputation -- because google boosts the results to the top couple results for the person's name (Yahoo and other sites actually DEMOTE the site's results).
Of course the rip off report will work with the person being complained about and remove the results... for a few thousand dollars of a "business associate fee".
And GOOGLE PROMOTES THIS.SO.. really. Fuck google.
Google ACTIVELY PROMOTES these results.
As they do wikipedia and others.
So don't give me the "google is just a carrier and has nothing to do with the results...
really!" bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496342</id>
	<title>I think you are not interested in the subject.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1261154760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are just not interested in the subject. He's not writing to entertain you. He is writing about very complicated social problems. His thinking is in progress.

<br> <br>Someone must think about the issues. The investigation will certainly continue to be messy. Only when the solutions are found will everything seem clear.

<br> <br>If you think you can do better, please write your ideas here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are just not interested in the subject .
He 's not writing to entertain you .
He is writing about very complicated social problems .
His thinking is in progress .
Someone must think about the issues .
The investigation will certainly continue to be messy .
Only when the solutions are found will everything seem clear .
If you think you can do better , please write your ideas here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are just not interested in the subject.
He's not writing to entertain you.
He is writing about very complicated social problems.
His thinking is in progress.
Someone must think about the issues.
The investigation will certainly continue to be messy.
Only when the solutions are found will everything seem clear.
If you think you can do better, please write your ideas here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491540</id>
	<title>Google does censor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:  "All of this punditry is starting from a premise that's wrong. Google has actually removed pages from their search results -- not because the pages were illegal or because the webmasters were search engine spamming, but because of the page's "offensive" content."</p><p>Search on certain child porn terms - and you'll find that Google does censor pages and remove them from their index because of illegal content.  They even serve you up a link to the third party that requested the page be taken down because of illegal content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " All of this punditry is starting from a premise that 's wrong .
Google has actually removed pages from their search results -- not because the pages were illegal or because the webmasters were search engine spamming , but because of the page 's " offensive " content .
" Search on certain child porn terms - and you 'll find that Google does censor pages and remove them from their index because of illegal content .
They even serve you up a link to the third party that requested the page be taken down because of illegal content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:  "All of this punditry is starting from a premise that's wrong.
Google has actually removed pages from their search results -- not because the pages were illegal or because the webmasters were search engine spamming, but because of the page's "offensive" content.
"Search on certain child porn terms - and you'll find that Google does censor pages and remove them from their index because of illegal content.
They even serve you up a link to the third party that requested the page be taken down because of illegal content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30505114</id>
	<title>Re:Rambles on but does raise some points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In regards to the Chester Guide, I'm open to debate on whether the page should have been removed from the index<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... This means the information is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... censored<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... worldwide as happened with the "Chester Guide".</p></div><p>  (I <i>believe</i> I have quoted fast turtle's meaning fairly - my deepest apologies if I've misunderstood.)</p><p>I just did the unpleasant work of searching <i>with more precision</i> in Google for this fabled guide (via Tor + Private Browsing - I don't trust my (Canadian) ISP <i>that</i> much).  I confirm, as SharpFang noted above, that the Chester Guide has <b>not</b> been removed from Google's index, or at least not from the Google <i>Denmark</i> index.  The page is now just at what most would likely agree is a more appropriate level of prominence now.  (It is a classic example of early '90s text-only Internet humor in rather questionable taste - the sort of stuff it was hard for an active Internet user <i>not</i> to stumble across back in those latter USENET + FTP days.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In regards to the Chester Guide , I 'm open to debate on whether the page should have been removed from the index ... This means the information is ... censored ... worldwide as happened with the " Chester Guide " .
( I believe I have quoted fast turtle 's meaning fairly - my deepest apologies if I 've misunderstood .
) I just did the unpleasant work of searching with more precision in Google for this fabled guide ( via Tor + Private Browsing - I do n't trust my ( Canadian ) ISP that much ) .
I confirm , as SharpFang noted above , that the Chester Guide has not been removed from Google 's index , or at least not from the Google Denmark index .
The page is now just at what most would likely agree is a more appropriate level of prominence now .
( It is a classic example of early '90s text-only Internet humor in rather questionable taste - the sort of stuff it was hard for an active Internet user not to stumble across back in those latter USENET + FTP days .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In regards to the Chester Guide, I'm open to debate on whether the page should have been removed from the index ... This means the information is ... censored ... worldwide as happened with the "Chester Guide".
(I believe I have quoted fast turtle's meaning fairly - my deepest apologies if I've misunderstood.
)I just did the unpleasant work of searching with more precision in Google for this fabled guide (via Tor + Private Browsing - I don't trust my (Canadian) ISP that much).
I confirm, as SharpFang noted above, that the Chester Guide has not been removed from Google's index, or at least not from the Google Denmark index.
The page is now just at what most would likely agree is a more appropriate level of prominence now.
(It is a classic example of early '90s text-only Internet humor in rather questionable taste - the sort of stuff it was hard for an active Internet user not to stumble across back in those latter USENET + FTP days.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494220</id>
	<title>Gee...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1261135980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, I always assumed Google simply ranked 1st page search results depending on who paid them the most, with people that COST them money simply disappearing.</p><p>They do otherwise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , I always assumed Google simply ranked 1st page search results depending on who paid them the most , with people that COST them money simply disappearing.They do otherwise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, I always assumed Google simply ranked 1st page search results depending on who paid them the most, with people that COST them money simply disappearing.They do otherwise?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494520</id>
	<title>Alternative?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1261137480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am curious why the submitter of this article did not include a link to his own search engine, that works as well as Google does but does not abide by any laws and actively breaks them as he suggests search engines should do.</p><p>I'd definitely use it for the few hours it was in operation before the owner was hauled through court and the servers confiscated...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious why the submitter of this article did not include a link to his own search engine , that works as well as Google does but does not abide by any laws and actively breaks them as he suggests search engines should do.I 'd definitely use it for the few hours it was in operation before the owner was hauled through court and the servers confiscated.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious why the submitter of this article did not include a link to his own search engine, that works as well as Google does but does not abide by any laws and actively breaks them as he suggests search engines should do.I'd definitely use it for the few hours it was in operation before the owner was hauled through court and the servers confiscated...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490944</id>
	<title>Obama and  Muhammad</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1261165620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty much convinced they delist more than the author suspects.  Many court orders have gone out in cases where the resolution was sealed and I would expect those related to internet postings could be buried the same way.  Of course nothing stops the listing of material faster than leaving it out for all to see and having aggrieved parties (direct or indirect) going after hosting sites if not the actual people who generated the offensive content.  Still much of this has to do with what side of you political spectrum you are in.</p><p>As in I find it amusing authors examples of questionable photos/links about people associated with conservatives while using the most obnoxious example in regards to the current Administration.  I am quite many can remember the all similarly racist and hate based pictures of Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell.  Yet where was the outrage?  I guess its OK if one side improperly credited with doing the most for minorities in turn is most likely to turn a blind eye to those minorities if they leave the "plantation".</p><p>Nah, deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty much convinced they delist more than the author suspects .
Many court orders have gone out in cases where the resolution was sealed and I would expect those related to internet postings could be buried the same way .
Of course nothing stops the listing of material faster than leaving it out for all to see and having aggrieved parties ( direct or indirect ) going after hosting sites if not the actual people who generated the offensive content .
Still much of this has to do with what side of you political spectrum you are in.As in I find it amusing authors examples of questionable photos/links about people associated with conservatives while using the most obnoxious example in regards to the current Administration .
I am quite many can remember the all similarly racist and hate based pictures of Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell .
Yet where was the outrage ?
I guess its OK if one side improperly credited with doing the most for minorities in turn is most likely to turn a blind eye to those minorities if they leave the " plantation " .Nah , deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty much convinced they delist more than the author suspects.
Many court orders have gone out in cases where the resolution was sealed and I would expect those related to internet postings could be buried the same way.
Of course nothing stops the listing of material faster than leaving it out for all to see and having aggrieved parties (direct or indirect) going after hosting sites if not the actual people who generated the offensive content.
Still much of this has to do with what side of you political spectrum you are in.As in I find it amusing authors examples of questionable photos/links about people associated with conservatives while using the most obnoxious example in regards to the current Administration.
I am quite many can remember the all similarly racist and hate based pictures of Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell.
Yet where was the outrage?
I guess its OK if one side improperly credited with doing the most for minorities in turn is most likely to turn a blind eye to those minorities if they leave the "plantation".Nah, deification of elected officials is dangerous and now I bet any picture which distorts Obama or members of his families appearance is automatically sacrilegious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490426</id>
	<title>How do they rank pages to begin with?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a firm algorithm for how Google ranks relevant pages, or is that a proprietary black box?  Because if it is, I don't understand the problem - we are already unsure what they're doing behind the curtain, so who cares if they follow their usual algorithm for a page or treat it specially because someone finds it offensive?

Incidentally, it'd be nice if Google kept their inner workings a mystery so we didn't have companies devoted entirely to increasing websites' rankings for more page views.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a firm algorithm for how Google ranks relevant pages , or is that a proprietary black box ?
Because if it is , I do n't understand the problem - we are already unsure what they 're doing behind the curtain , so who cares if they follow their usual algorithm for a page or treat it specially because someone finds it offensive ?
Incidentally , it 'd be nice if Google kept their inner workings a mystery so we did n't have companies devoted entirely to increasing websites ' rankings for more page views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a firm algorithm for how Google ranks relevant pages, or is that a proprietary black box?
Because if it is, I don't understand the problem - we are already unsure what they're doing behind the curtain, so who cares if they follow their usual algorithm for a page or treat it specially because someone finds it offensive?
Incidentally, it'd be nice if Google kept their inner workings a mystery so we didn't have companies devoted entirely to increasing websites' rankings for more page views.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226</id>
	<title>Rambles on but does raise some points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261166700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first point that needs to be thought about is the U.S Privacy laws regarding Health/Medical Records. There is absolutely no reason for any pages from those two topics to be in the search results, particularly as Google is a United States Corporation. Means they can be sued/fined heavily under HIPPIA for violations.</p><p>Another is the censorship issue in general. I'll agree that I don't like the Idea of them Caving in to China's demands but only the People of China have any say in their governments decision unless you are willing to declare war and attempt to enforce those requirements upon them by force of arms.</p><p>In regards to the Chester Guide, I'm open to debate on whether the page should have been removed from the index or simply gotten the disclaimer? It's important to note that Censorship of any kind is the beginning of a very slippery slope and who's to say that Google hasn't already started the long slide into irrevelency by caving in to both China and Germany's demands and that's the bigger issue. Google has stated that they want to make all known information available but if they're censoring pages at the request of governments, who's to say they aren't censoring pages that governments have not requested? On the China and German Censorhip issues, keep in mind that the censorship only applies within the country that asked for it. Outside still gets access to it. This means the information is only censored on a regional level instead of worldwide as happened with the "Chester Guide".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first point that needs to be thought about is the U.S Privacy laws regarding Health/Medical Records .
There is absolutely no reason for any pages from those two topics to be in the search results , particularly as Google is a United States Corporation .
Means they can be sued/fined heavily under HIPPIA for violations.Another is the censorship issue in general .
I 'll agree that I do n't like the Idea of them Caving in to China 's demands but only the People of China have any say in their governments decision unless you are willing to declare war and attempt to enforce those requirements upon them by force of arms.In regards to the Chester Guide , I 'm open to debate on whether the page should have been removed from the index or simply gotten the disclaimer ?
It 's important to note that Censorship of any kind is the beginning of a very slippery slope and who 's to say that Google has n't already started the long slide into irrevelency by caving in to both China and Germany 's demands and that 's the bigger issue .
Google has stated that they want to make all known information available but if they 're censoring pages at the request of governments , who 's to say they are n't censoring pages that governments have not requested ?
On the China and German Censorhip issues , keep in mind that the censorship only applies within the country that asked for it .
Outside still gets access to it .
This means the information is only censored on a regional level instead of worldwide as happened with the " Chester Guide " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first point that needs to be thought about is the U.S Privacy laws regarding Health/Medical Records.
There is absolutely no reason for any pages from those two topics to be in the search results, particularly as Google is a United States Corporation.
Means they can be sued/fined heavily under HIPPIA for violations.Another is the censorship issue in general.
I'll agree that I don't like the Idea of them Caving in to China's demands but only the People of China have any say in their governments decision unless you are willing to declare war and attempt to enforce those requirements upon them by force of arms.In regards to the Chester Guide, I'm open to debate on whether the page should have been removed from the index or simply gotten the disclaimer?
It's important to note that Censorship of any kind is the beginning of a very slippery slope and who's to say that Google hasn't already started the long slide into irrevelency by caving in to both China and Germany's demands and that's the bigger issue.
Google has stated that they want to make all known information available but if they're censoring pages at the request of governments, who's to say they aren't censoring pages that governments have not requested?
On the China and German Censorhip issues, keep in mind that the censorship only applies within the country that asked for it.
Outside still gets access to it.
This means the information is only censored on a regional level instead of worldwide as happened with the "Chester Guide".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492242</id>
	<title>Re:Neutral Party</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1261127220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It seems to me like it would be in Google's interest to remain neutral regarding search results</p></div></blockquote><p>No, because if they did that, no one would ever use Google.  When you search for "foo" you want a page about foo, not the page that says the word "foo" the greatest number of times.  They have to analyze for true relevance and utility.</p><p>But <em>that</em> can't be done <em>objectively</em>.  When programmers create heuristics, they're really (in a roundabout way) stating personal opinions, about what works "best."  And "look it up in the human-maintained blacklist" is actually a pretty damn useful heuristic sometimes.</p><p>When you search for Michelle Obama images, <em>is</em> a caricature relevant?  How relevant?  There is no "neutral" answer to that; it comes down to whether you're looking for the most referenced image, or the image that happens to look the most like her, or some other criteria.</p><p>When you use Google, you don't know what that criteria is.  But it's not "neutral" and it never will be, because 0\% of users want neutral.  They want "best" but can't even formally describe what "best" is, because if they could do that, then they would <em>be</em> Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me like it would be in Google 's interest to remain neutral regarding search resultsNo , because if they did that , no one would ever use Google .
When you search for " foo " you want a page about foo , not the page that says the word " foo " the greatest number of times .
They have to analyze for true relevance and utility.But that ca n't be done objectively .
When programmers create heuristics , they 're really ( in a roundabout way ) stating personal opinions , about what works " best .
" And " look it up in the human-maintained blacklist " is actually a pretty damn useful heuristic sometimes.When you search for Michelle Obama images , is a caricature relevant ?
How relevant ?
There is no " neutral " answer to that ; it comes down to whether you 're looking for the most referenced image , or the image that happens to look the most like her , or some other criteria.When you use Google , you do n't know what that criteria is .
But it 's not " neutral " and it never will be , because 0 \ % of users want neutral .
They want " best " but ca n't even formally describe what " best " is , because if they could do that , then they would be Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me like it would be in Google's interest to remain neutral regarding search resultsNo, because if they did that, no one would ever use Google.
When you search for "foo" you want a page about foo, not the page that says the word "foo" the greatest number of times.
They have to analyze for true relevance and utility.But that can't be done objectively.
When programmers create heuristics, they're really (in a roundabout way) stating personal opinions, about what works "best.
"  And "look it up in the human-maintained blacklist" is actually a pretty damn useful heuristic sometimes.When you search for Michelle Obama images, is a caricature relevant?
How relevant?
There is no "neutral" answer to that; it comes down to whether you're looking for the most referenced image, or the image that happens to look the most like her, or some other criteria.When you use Google, you don't know what that criteria is.
But it's not "neutral" and it never will be, because 0\% of users want neutral.
They want "best" but can't even formally describe what "best" is, because if they could do that, then they would be Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498010</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261231500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple <b>OF</b> paragraphs.
<br> <br>You wouldn't ask for "a glass water", would you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple OF paragraphs .
You would n't ask for " a glass water " , would you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple OF paragraphs.
You wouldn't ask for "a glass water", would you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490934</id>
	<title>Bennett Haselton is a careful thinker.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1261165560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps you have a short attention span.

<br> <br>It seems to me that Bennett Haselton is a careful thinker and an excellent writer. It is people like him who help cause the social advances that later benefit everyone else.

<br> <br>My opinion is that Google should hire him. Google has been imperfect in its public relations. Bennett Haselton could help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you have a short attention span .
It seems to me that Bennett Haselton is a careful thinker and an excellent writer .
It is people like him who help cause the social advances that later benefit everyone else .
My opinion is that Google should hire him .
Google has been imperfect in its public relations .
Bennett Haselton could help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you have a short attention span.
It seems to me that Bennett Haselton is a careful thinker and an excellent writer.
It is people like him who help cause the social advances that later benefit everyone else.
My opinion is that Google should hire him.
Google has been imperfect in its public relations.
Bennett Haselton could help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491002</id>
	<title>Sometimes Google makes the wrong call</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261165800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know of one web site that was un-indexed for over a year because the site allegedly hosted illegal activity or encouraged it.</p><p>The site categorically did not host illegal content.  In fact it used both technical and human screening to keep illegal activity off the site.</p><p>Whether it encouraged illegal activity or not is a matter of opinion.  It categorically prohibited blatant or even *wink wink* encouragement of illegal activity.  However the nature of the site was such that Google might have thought it's very existence encouraged illegal activity. If so, that would be Google's opinion.</p><p>If Google wants to remove all web sites that they think encourage illegal activity that is their prerogative but to single out one while leaving many similar web sites as well as web sites that were equally encouraging different illegal activities is playing favorites.  Playing favorites when you are the biggest web search engine on the planet is being evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of one web site that was un-indexed for over a year because the site allegedly hosted illegal activity or encouraged it.The site categorically did not host illegal content .
In fact it used both technical and human screening to keep illegal activity off the site.Whether it encouraged illegal activity or not is a matter of opinion .
It categorically prohibited blatant or even * wink wink * encouragement of illegal activity .
However the nature of the site was such that Google might have thought it 's very existence encouraged illegal activity .
If so , that would be Google 's opinion.If Google wants to remove all web sites that they think encourage illegal activity that is their prerogative but to single out one while leaving many similar web sites as well as web sites that were equally encouraging different illegal activities is playing favorites .
Playing favorites when you are the biggest web search engine on the planet is being evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of one web site that was un-indexed for over a year because the site allegedly hosted illegal activity or encouraged it.The site categorically did not host illegal content.
In fact it used both technical and human screening to keep illegal activity off the site.Whether it encouraged illegal activity or not is a matter of opinion.
It categorically prohibited blatant or even *wink wink* encouragement of illegal activity.
However the nature of the site was such that Google might have thought it's very existence encouraged illegal activity.
If so, that would be Google's opinion.If Google wants to remove all web sites that they think encourage illegal activity that is their prerogative but to single out one while leaving many similar web sites as well as web sites that were equally encouraging different illegal activities is playing favorites.
Playing favorites when you are the biggest web search engine on the planet is being evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494268</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261136280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he reached the end of the article here:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If Google's purpose is to return the most useful results, then it made sense to remove the link</p></div><p>Everything after that was pointless rambling, one justified removal of a site != a change in policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he reached the end of the article here : If Google 's purpose is to return the most useful results , then it made sense to remove the linkEverything after that was pointless rambling , one justified removal of a site ! = a change in policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he reached the end of the article here:If Google's purpose is to return the most useful results, then it made sense to remove the linkEverything after that was pointless rambling, one justified removal of a site != a change in policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492354</id>
	<title>What's racist?</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1261127640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pictures and articles depicting George W. Bush as a monkey: not racist.
<br>
Pictures and articles depicting Barack or Michelle Obama as a monkey: racist.
<br>
Why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pictures and articles depicting George W. Bush as a monkey : not racist .
Pictures and articles depicting Barack or Michelle Obama as a monkey : racist .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pictures and articles depicting George W. Bush as a monkey: not racist.
Pictures and articles depicting Barack or Michelle Obama as a monkey: racist.
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</id>
	<title>Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1261163280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is , I have no interest in his vague ramblings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376</id>
	<title>Then make users vote for content</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1261163580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If each IP adress can give a mark to each web page based on if they think the result is relevant and useful enough, then that should filter the "problems". On the other side... bye bye anonymity!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If each IP adress can give a mark to each web page based on if they think the result is relevant and useful enough , then that should filter the " problems " .
On the other side... bye bye anonymity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If each IP adress can give a mark to each web page based on if they think the result is relevant and useful enough, then that should filter the "problems".
On the other side... bye bye anonymity!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490690</id>
	<title>robots.txt</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1261164660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for a new format of robots.txt:</p><p>User-agent: *<br>Allow: /<br>Conditions: only\_when\_delist\_possible<br>Remarks: please\_leave\_your\_name\_when\_done</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for a new format of robots.txt : User-agent : * Allow : /Conditions : only \ _when \ _delist \ _possibleRemarks : please \ _leave \ _your \ _name \ _when \ _done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for a new format of robots.txt:User-agent: *Allow: /Conditions: only\_when\_delist\_possibleRemarks: please\_leave\_your\_name\_when\_done</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491908</id>
	<title>Re:Bennett Haselton is not a good writer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261169280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps you have a short attention span.</p></div><p>Or perhaps he's just not a very good writer.  I got several paragraphs in, and had no idea where he was going or what point he was trying to make.  He presented some interesting facts, then started to recap them, and showed no signs of drawing any conclusions, so I skimmed ahead a little, and it still didn't seem like he was adding anything more.  It was interesting till it started to ramble aimlessly, at which point, I gave up.  I read extensively, and polish off several books a week usually.  I read Knuth for fun.  I plowed my way through Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy, and even managed to enjoy parts of it.  I don't think anyone could accuse me of having a short attention span.  But I couldn't finish this--or, more precisely, I had no interest in finishing this.  The topic seemed interesting, but if he had a conclusion, it was lost in the noise.</p><p>The man seems to be in love with his own words, but, unfortunately, has no idea who his audience is.  If he's writing for anyone but himself, it doesn't show.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you have a short attention span.Or perhaps he 's just not a very good writer .
I got several paragraphs in , and had no idea where he was going or what point he was trying to make .
He presented some interesting facts , then started to recap them , and showed no signs of drawing any conclusions , so I skimmed ahead a little , and it still did n't seem like he was adding anything more .
It was interesting till it started to ramble aimlessly , at which point , I gave up .
I read extensively , and polish off several books a week usually .
I read Knuth for fun .
I plowed my way through Stephenson 's Baroque Trilogy , and even managed to enjoy parts of it .
I do n't think anyone could accuse me of having a short attention span .
But I could n't finish this--or , more precisely , I had no interest in finishing this .
The topic seemed interesting , but if he had a conclusion , it was lost in the noise.The man seems to be in love with his own words , but , unfortunately , has no idea who his audience is .
If he 's writing for anyone but himself , it does n't show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you have a short attention span.Or perhaps he's just not a very good writer.
I got several paragraphs in, and had no idea where he was going or what point he was trying to make.
He presented some interesting facts, then started to recap them, and showed no signs of drawing any conclusions, so I skimmed ahead a little, and it still didn't seem like he was adding anything more.
It was interesting till it started to ramble aimlessly, at which point, I gave up.
I read extensively, and polish off several books a week usually.
I read Knuth for fun.
I plowed my way through Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy, and even managed to enjoy parts of it.
I don't think anyone could accuse me of having a short attention span.
But I couldn't finish this--or, more precisely, I had no interest in finishing this.
The topic seemed interesting, but if he had a conclusion, it was lost in the noise.The man seems to be in love with his own words, but, unfortunately, has no idea who his audience is.
If he's writing for anyone but himself, it doesn't show.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491998</id>
	<title>Why couldn't he just say,</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1261169640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Google probably de-lists anybody who doesn't offer to install a google toolbar or other similar junk(ad)ware like Earth, or Chrome." Maybe he did, but who could tell in that mess? I get as little as five results on searching for common errors messages. Google is not a search engine in the way most people think it is. Guess I gotta send out my own droids if I want it done right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Google probably de-lists anybody who does n't offer to install a google toolbar or other similar junk ( ad ) ware like Earth , or Chrome .
" Maybe he did , but who could tell in that mess ?
I get as little as five results on searching for common errors messages .
Google is not a search engine in the way most people think it is .
Guess I got ta send out my own droids if I want it done right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Google probably de-lists anybody who doesn't offer to install a google toolbar or other similar junk(ad)ware like Earth, or Chrome.
" Maybe he did, but who could tell in that mess?
I get as little as five results on searching for common errors messages.
Google is not a search engine in the way most people think it is.
Guess I gotta send out my own droids if I want it done right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490512</id>
	<title>I suppose that asking Google to delist info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261164000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>is just one step prior to suing them if someone obtained your credit card info via google and used it to rip you off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is just one step prior to suing them if someone obtained your credit card info via google and used it to rip you off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is just one step prior to suing them if someone obtained your credit card info via google and used it to rip you off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491420</id>
	<title>Re:Meh. Call me when they've stopped keyword spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try the CustomizeGoogle addon for Firefox.</p><p>captcha: succor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try the CustomizeGoogle addon for Firefox.captcha : succor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try the CustomizeGoogle addon for Firefox.captcha: succor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492582</id>
	<title>Re:Rambles on but does raise some points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261128360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy on the HIPPA quotes dude - the responsibility for protecting the records does not come under Google's problem, but rather under the organizations that collect and maintain the data - hospital, doctor office, lab. If those companies screw up how your PHI is protected, they are liable, not Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy on the HIPPA quotes dude - the responsibility for protecting the records does not come under Google 's problem , but rather under the organizations that collect and maintain the data - hospital , doctor office , lab .
If those companies screw up how your PHI is protected , they are liable , not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy on the HIPPA quotes dude - the responsibility for protecting the records does not come under Google's problem, but rather under the organizations that collect and maintain the data - hospital, doctor office, lab.
If those companies screw up how your PHI is protected, they are liable, not Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490808</id>
	<title>The problem</title>
	<author>Ziekheid</author>
	<datestamp>1261165140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not google that is hosting the questionable content so why should anyone sue google for it? The problem is though, if you would sue the hoster or webmaster instead you might run into problems of websites being hosted in certain countries with almost no jurisdiction on this area or countries that simply don't give a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not google that is hosting the questionable content so why should anyone sue google for it ?
The problem is though , if you would sue the hoster or webmaster instead you might run into problems of websites being hosted in certain countries with almost no jurisdiction on this area or countries that simply do n't give a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not google that is hosting the questionable content so why should anyone sue google for it?
The problem is though, if you would sue the hoster or webmaster instead you might run into problems of websites being hosted in certain countries with almost no jurisdiction on this area or countries that simply don't give a damn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</id>
	<title>Neutral Party</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1261163700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me like it would be in Google's interest to remain neutral regarding search results. Now that Google has started censoring sites at their discretion I would think this forces them to take responsibility for all the results they provide. They are no longer simply a neutral party providing indexed results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me like it would be in Google 's interest to remain neutral regarding search results .
Now that Google has started censoring sites at their discretion I would think this forces them to take responsibility for all the results they provide .
They are no longer simply a neutral party providing indexed results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me like it would be in Google's interest to remain neutral regarding search results.
Now that Google has started censoring sites at their discretion I would think this forces them to take responsibility for all the results they provide.
They are no longer simply a neutral party providing indexed results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496088</id>
	<title>Re:Neutral Party</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1261151280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google shouldn't 'blacklist' pages, that's for sure. No altering the reality - if the page contains a keyword, it should be listed, period.</p><p>Now, as for -where- the page should be listed, this is sole discretion of Google. They are the authors of the ranking algorithm and they can tamper with it as they see fit. And manually reducing rank of a site down to oblivion seems like a very reasonable option. So if I want to find Chester's guide to picking little girls, I'll have to either dig through all the guides to Chester city and guide dogs called Chester, or make my request more precise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should n't 'blacklist ' pages , that 's for sure .
No altering the reality - if the page contains a keyword , it should be listed , period.Now , as for -where- the page should be listed , this is sole discretion of Google .
They are the authors of the ranking algorithm and they can tamper with it as they see fit .
And manually reducing rank of a site down to oblivion seems like a very reasonable option .
So if I want to find Chester 's guide to picking little girls , I 'll have to either dig through all the guides to Chester city and guide dogs called Chester , or make my request more precise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google shouldn't 'blacklist' pages, that's for sure.
No altering the reality - if the page contains a keyword, it should be listed, period.Now, as for -where- the page should be listed, this is sole discretion of Google.
They are the authors of the ranking algorithm and they can tamper with it as they see fit.
And manually reducing rank of a site down to oblivion seems like a very reasonable option.
So if I want to find Chester's guide to picking little girls, I'll have to either dig through all the guides to Chester city and guide dogs called Chester, or make my request more precise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261166280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think he had some interesting points, but it could've been summed up in a couple paragraphs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he had some interesting points , but it could 've been summed up in a couple paragraphs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he had some interesting points, but it could've been summed up in a couple paragraphs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112</id>
	<title>Meh. Call me when they've stopped keyword spam</title>
	<author>TomXP411</author>
	<datestamp>1261166220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting for the Google Labs option that automatically filters out the "direct download" sites that don't actually offer any added value, things like "freewareseeker.com" and "findyourdownload.net". You can drop individual search results, but where's the "never show me this domain or any other domain from this company ever again" button?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for the Google Labs option that automatically filters out the " direct download " sites that do n't actually offer any added value , things like " freewareseeker.com " and " findyourdownload.net " .
You can drop individual search results , but where 's the " never show me this domain or any other domain from this company ever again " button ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for the Google Labs option that automatically filters out the "direct download" sites that don't actually offer any added value, things like "freewareseeker.com" and "findyourdownload.net".
You can drop individual search results, but where's the "never show me this domain or any other domain from this company ever again" button?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491524</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1261167960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're not alone, but you (plural) are missing out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're not alone , but you ( plural ) are missing out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're not alone, but you (plural) are missing out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490928</id>
	<title>What is their real policy on the issue?"</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261165560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is their real policy on the issue?</p></div><p>I thought it was obvious simply because they're a publicly-traded company: Protect their own asses first. If Google could be subjected to substantially negative press, delist the site. Rationalizations come later in the form of policies, laws, rules, and procedures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is their real policy on the issue ? I thought it was obvious simply because they 're a publicly-traded company : Protect their own asses first .
If Google could be subjected to substantially negative press , delist the site .
Rationalizations come later in the form of policies , laws , rules , and procedures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is their real policy on the issue?I thought it was obvious simply because they're a publicly-traded company: Protect their own asses first.
If Google could be subjected to substantially negative press, delist the site.
Rationalizations come later in the form of policies, laws, rules, and procedures.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491442</id>
	<title>tl;dr</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1261167540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell?  This is Slashdot!  If I wanted to read an article then I would have gone somewhere else!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell ?
This is Slashdot !
If I wanted to read an article then I would have gone somewhere else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell?
This is Slashdot!
If I wanted to read an article then I would have gone somewhere else!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495748</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually so could most things. An observation made famous by Mark Twain when he wrote "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead." And even before that, there was Blaise Pascal in his Lettres Provinciales (1656-1657), no. 16, in which he wrote "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte," or "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short."</p><p>So maybe he just has a day job, a family, friends, and/or a hobby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually so could most things .
An observation made famous by Mark Twain when he wrote " I did n't have time to write a short letter , so I 've written a long one instead .
" And even before that , there was Blaise Pascal in his Lettres Provinciales ( 1656-1657 ) , no .
16 , in which he wrote " Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte , " or " I have made this letter longer than usual , because I lack the time to make it short .
" So maybe he just has a day job , a family , friends , and/or a hobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually so could most things.
An observation made famous by Mark Twain when he wrote "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead.
" And even before that, there was Blaise Pascal in his Lettres Provinciales (1656-1657), no.
16, in which he wrote "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte," or "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short.
"So maybe he just has a day job, a family, friends, and/or a hobby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490904</id>
	<title>SS on Google</title>
	<author>greymond</author>
	<datestamp>1261165500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder I couldn't find Lloyd C. Blankfein SS on Google...I guess I'll have to try finding it via Bing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder I could n't find Lloyd C. Blankfein SS on Google...I guess I 'll have to try finding it via Bing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder I couldn't find Lloyd C. Blankfein SS on Google...I guess I'll have to try finding it via Bing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494494</id>
	<title>Visit Chilling Effects</title>
	<author>efalk</author>
	<datestamp>1261137360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can go to Chilling Effects and read up on many, many cases of Google censorship.  The bottom line is that Google gets something like 1000 C&amp;D notices per week, and they just can't afford to fight them, so in most cases, Google just immediately rolls over and complies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go to Chilling Effects and read up on many , many cases of Google censorship .
The bottom line is that Google gets something like 1000 C&amp;D notices per week , and they just ca n't afford to fight them , so in most cases , Google just immediately rolls over and complies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go to Chilling Effects and read up on many, many cases of Google censorship.
The bottom line is that Google gets something like 1000 C&amp;D notices per week, and they just can't afford to fight them, so in most cases, Google just immediately rolls over and complies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490954</id>
	<title>Re:I suppose that asking Google to delist info</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1261165620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. I think though, the resulting searched info would be from a web admins carelessness. A log file, or non-validated input variables for example.<br> <br>As such, liability is easily passed to that web admin.<br> <br>The exception might be if google tries "mini brute force" in its searches. <br> <br>Someone setting a honey pot for google...there is a risk for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I think though , the resulting searched info would be from a web admins carelessness .
A log file , or non-validated input variables for example .
As such , liability is easily passed to that web admin .
The exception might be if google tries " mini brute force " in its searches .
Someone setting a honey pot for google...there is a risk for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I think though, the resulting searched info would be from a web admins carelessness.
A log file, or non-validated input variables for example.
As such, liability is easily passed to that web admin.
The exception might be if google tries "mini brute force" in its searches.
Someone setting a honey pot for google...there is a risk for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491022</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1261165920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bennett is the founder of Peacefire.org. He's been involved in things against spammers, censorware, etc. <br> And I agree, some of his rants do ramble a bit long, but they tend to make me think about something I may not have otherwise.<br>
<br>
For more information, try the wikipedia page on<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett\_Haselton" title="wikipedia.org">  him </a> [wikipedia.org] and or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacefire" title="wikipedia.org"> Peacefire </a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bennett is the founder of Peacefire.org .
He 's been involved in things against spammers , censorware , etc .
And I agree , some of his rants do ramble a bit long , but they tend to make me think about something I may not have otherwise .
For more information , try the wikipedia page on him [ wikipedia.org ] and or Peacefire [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bennett is the founder of Peacefire.org.
He's been involved in things against spammers, censorware, etc.
And I agree, some of his rants do ramble a bit long, but they tend to make me think about something I may not have otherwise.
For more information, try the wikipedia page on  him  [wikipedia.org] and or  Peacefire  [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490480</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1261163940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>30+ links?  I don't know if his inflated self worth offends me more than his tainted view of the average<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er, or visa versa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>30 + links ?
I do n't know if his inflated self worth offends me more than his tainted view of the average /.er , or visa versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>30+ links?
I don't know if his inflated self worth offends me more than his tainted view of the average /.er, or visa versa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494600</id>
	<title>wtf over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261138020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bennet has an interesting article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bennet has an interesting article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bennet has an interesting article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495658</id>
	<title>Er, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not even sure what he's suggesting.</p><p>I own a site that had some old IRC chat stats. Somewhere along the line, Google's spiders reached it and indexed it. Not a big problem, there was nothing really suggestive or problematic...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except that if you knew certain things about me, and certain things about another online alias of mine, you could piece the two together and discover quite a bit about the real me.</p><p>I realized the problem, submitted it to be delisted. I checked back a few weeks later and it was properly delisted, and I haven't seen the page on a search since.</p><p>Is that not how it works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not even sure what he 's suggesting.I own a site that had some old IRC chat stats .
Somewhere along the line , Google 's spiders reached it and indexed it .
Not a big problem , there was nothing really suggestive or problematic... ... except that if you knew certain things about me , and certain things about another online alias of mine , you could piece the two together and discover quite a bit about the real me.I realized the problem , submitted it to be delisted .
I checked back a few weeks later and it was properly delisted , and I have n't seen the page on a search since.Is that not how it works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not even sure what he's suggesting.I own a site that had some old IRC chat stats.
Somewhere along the line, Google's spiders reached it and indexed it.
Not a big problem, there was nothing really suggestive or problematic... ... except that if you knew certain things about me, and certain things about another online alias of mine, you could piece the two together and discover quite a bit about the real me.I realized the problem, submitted it to be delisted.
I checked back a few weeks later and it was properly delisted, and I haven't seen the page on a search since.Is that not how it works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495054</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>LrdDimwit</author>
	<datestamp>1261141200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did he just say Google is more powerful than the Governor of Califoria?  The Governor of California can call up the national guard.  I admit I haven't checked recently, but I don't recall there being a "click here to deploy National Guard troops to this address" button on Google Maps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did he just say Google is more powerful than the Governor of Califoria ?
The Governor of California can call up the national guard .
I admit I have n't checked recently , but I do n't recall there being a " click here to deploy National Guard troops to this address " button on Google Maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did he just say Google is more powerful than the Governor of Califoria?
The Governor of California can call up the national guard.
I admit I haven't checked recently, but I don't recall there being a "click here to deploy National Guard troops to this address" button on Google Maps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492258</id>
	<title>Re:Meh. Call me when they've stopped keyword spam</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1261127280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, please!
<br> <br>
I do like that you can remove a site from results which I've used to remove those god awful rose india sites that pop-up in Java results. But then you slightly tweak your search and the site is back in that result. I'd love to just wipe sites completely from all searches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , please !
I do like that you can remove a site from results which I 've used to remove those god awful rose india sites that pop-up in Java results .
But then you slightly tweak your search and the site is back in that result .
I 'd love to just wipe sites completely from all searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, please!
I do like that you can remove a site from results which I've used to remove those god awful rose india sites that pop-up in Java results.
But then you slightly tweak your search and the site is back in that result.
I'd love to just wipe sites completely from all searches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491440</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>retchdog</author>
	<datestamp>1261167540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Manually altering the eigenvectors of a link matrix, is like cutting warm butter..."</p><p>"I'll be back, Bennett!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Manually altering the eigenvectors of a link matrix , is like cutting warm butter... " " I 'll be back , Bennett !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Manually altering the eigenvectors of a link matrix, is like cutting warm butter...""I'll be back, Bennett!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491278</id>
	<title>Re:Then make users vote for content</title>
	<author>Magic5Ball</author>
	<datestamp>1261166880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logged in users already have this option for their own search results. It's unclear how personal choices affect search results for everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logged in users already have this option for their own search results .
It 's unclear how personal choices affect search results for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logged in users already have this option for their own search results.
It's unclear how personal choices affect search results for everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491904</id>
	<title>Federal Standards</title>
	<author>Dinatius</author>
	<datestamp>1261169280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that at least the latter half of this post is missing one huge piece of information. How can you be sure that it is Google that is defining public/private data. A lot of organizations are required to follow federal standards which in themselves define what is public and private. Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers are always at the top of every one of those lists.

For reference look at PCI DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI\_DSS), FERPA (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html), and HIPPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_Insurance\_Portability\_and\_Accountability\_Act). Now while FERPA and HIPPA might not have anything talking about SS#s and CC#s take this excerpt from FERPA:

"Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance."

If a school can publicly disclose addresses without consent which they collect mandatorily, why can't Google, who is just indexing information that was already public not link to it?

The problem with the private data online isn't Google, they are just the biggest target that happens to have been hit by this guy's particular wild shooting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that at least the latter half of this post is missing one huge piece of information .
How can you be sure that it is Google that is defining public/private data .
A lot of organizations are required to follow federal standards which in themselves define what is public and private .
Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers are always at the top of every one of those lists .
For reference look at PCI DSS ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI \ _DSS ) , FERPA ( http : //www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html ) , and HIPPA ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health \ _Insurance \ _Portability \ _and \ _Accountability \ _Act ) .
Now while FERPA and HIPPA might not have anything talking about SS # s and CC # s take this excerpt from FERPA : " Schools may disclose , without consent , " directory " information such as a student 's name , address , telephone number , date and place of birth , honors and awards , and dates of attendance .
" If a school can publicly disclose addresses without consent which they collect mandatorily , why ca n't Google , who is just indexing information that was already public not link to it ?
The problem with the private data online is n't Google , they are just the biggest target that happens to have been hit by this guy 's particular wild shooting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that at least the latter half of this post is missing one huge piece of information.
How can you be sure that it is Google that is defining public/private data.
A lot of organizations are required to follow federal standards which in themselves define what is public and private.
Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers are always at the top of every one of those lists.
For reference look at PCI DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI\_DSS), FERPA (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html), and HIPPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_Insurance\_Portability\_and\_Accountability\_Act).
Now while FERPA and HIPPA might not have anything talking about SS#s and CC#s take this excerpt from FERPA:

"Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance.
"

If a school can publicly disclose addresses without consent which they collect mandatorily, why can't Google, who is just indexing information that was already public not link to it?
The problem with the private data online isn't Google, they are just the biggest target that happens to have been hit by this guy's particular wild shooting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492410</id>
	<title>use an open index engine</title>
	<author>davek</author>
	<datestamp>1261127760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google may not be evil, but they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/are/ a corporation, which means they are primarily concerned with their own persistence.  If you actually want an index engine that "just reflects reality, [and doesn't] create it," I would suggest using a more open search plugin, such as <a href="http://www.majesticseo.com/" title="majesticseo.com">majestic</a> [majesticseo.com]</p><p>And BTW,  kdawson, well written article.  I'd like more of these.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google may not be evil , but they /are/ a corporation , which means they are primarily concerned with their own persistence .
If you actually want an index engine that " just reflects reality , [ and does n't ] create it , " I would suggest using a more open search plugin , such as majestic [ majesticseo.com ] And BTW , kdawson , well written article .
I 'd like more of these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google may not be evil, but they /are/ a corporation, which means they are primarily concerned with their own persistence.
If you actually want an index engine that "just reflects reality, [and doesn't] create it," I would suggest using a more open search plugin, such as majestic [majesticseo.com]And BTW,  kdawson, well written article.
I'd like more of these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30500680</id>
	<title>Googles Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261219260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine Google's dilemma when someone asks them to delist a page from a Google group or a Blogger-hosted blog or a Google-Pages site.</p><p>Or a popular page carrying lucrative AdSense ads on that page ?</p><p>Google rather happily hand over the identity of the page owner to any complainants. I know at least one case in which Google has handed over the IP address of a blogger to Indian Police. And the blogger was not based in India.  Google may have their own reasons, after all they are a commercial company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine Google 's dilemma when someone asks them to delist a page from a Google group or a Blogger-hosted blog or a Google-Pages site.Or a popular page carrying lucrative AdSense ads on that page ? Google rather happily hand over the identity of the page owner to any complainants .
I know at least one case in which Google has handed over the IP address of a blogger to Indian Police .
And the blogger was not based in India .
Google may have their own reasons , after all they are a commercial company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine Google's dilemma when someone asks them to delist a page from a Google group or a Blogger-hosted blog or a Google-Pages site.Or a popular page carrying lucrative AdSense ads on that page ?Google rather happily hand over the identity of the page owner to any complainants.
I know at least one case in which Google has handed over the IP address of a blogger to Indian Police.
And the blogger was not based in India.
Google may have their own reasons, after all they are a commercial company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492036</id>
	<title>Google? I am amazed</title>
	<author>robinstar1574</author>
	<datestamp>1261169760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh... why? I thought that google was this great big evil company that made me lots of money. But this thing just pointed makes me want to sell my share in google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh... why ? I thought that google was this great big evil company that made me lots of money .
But this thing just pointed makes me want to sell my share in google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh... why? I thought that google was this great big evil company that made me lots of money.
But this thing just pointed makes me want to sell my share in google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491356</id>
	<title>Re:Neutral Party</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1261167180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Now that Google has started censoring sites at their discretion"</p></div><p>Nope, I don't read anything above which in any way suggests that it's at their discretion. The only example that might imply that we have too little detail to know for sure (the local government official that got Google to delist a page, which Google initially refused, but then complied... implying that there's an intermediate conversation we're not privy to).</p><p>This all seems to run the usual route: when compelled to remove information by law, or when certain information presents an obvious legal and financial liability to Google (e.g. exposing credit card numbers), they delist pages as technical means of identification allow, as a matter of compliance.</p><p>This is exactly what Google and every other search engine have been doing since the dawn of Web search, and it's the only reasonably correct solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now that Google has started censoring sites at their discretion " Nope , I do n't read anything above which in any way suggests that it 's at their discretion .
The only example that might imply that we have too little detail to know for sure ( the local government official that got Google to delist a page , which Google initially refused , but then complied... implying that there 's an intermediate conversation we 're not privy to ) .This all seems to run the usual route : when compelled to remove information by law , or when certain information presents an obvious legal and financial liability to Google ( e.g .
exposing credit card numbers ) , they delist pages as technical means of identification allow , as a matter of compliance.This is exactly what Google and every other search engine have been doing since the dawn of Web search , and it 's the only reasonably correct solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now that Google has started censoring sites at their discretion"Nope, I don't read anything above which in any way suggests that it's at their discretion.
The only example that might imply that we have too little detail to know for sure (the local government official that got Google to delist a page, which Google initially refused, but then complied... implying that there's an intermediate conversation we're not privy to).This all seems to run the usual route: when compelled to remove information by law, or when certain information presents an obvious legal and financial liability to Google (e.g.
exposing credit card numbers), they delist pages as technical means of identification allow, as a matter of compliance.This is exactly what Google and every other search engine have been doing since the dawn of Web search, and it's the only reasonably correct solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498072</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Sir,</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1261232820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?</p></div><p>It does not matter if you are alone in having no interest in read this, what matters is if I am alone in finding it interesting reading. Nothing can appeal to everyone the best you can hope for is to appeal to some, maybe even a majority but not necessarily.</p><p>Most people are able to simply read what interests them and ignore what doesn't, why cant you? Must every article on slashdot go through your own personal approval?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is , I have no interest in his vague ramblings ? It does not matter if you are alone in having no interest in read this , what matters is if I am alone in finding it interesting reading .
Nothing can appeal to everyone the best you can hope for is to appeal to some , maybe even a majority but not necessarily.Most people are able to simply read what interests them and ignore what does n't , why cant you ?
Must every article on slashdot go through your own personal approval ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone in thinking that whoever Bennett is, I have no interest in his vague ramblings?It does not matter if you are alone in having no interest in read this, what matters is if I am alone in finding it interesting reading.
Nothing can appeal to everyone the best you can hope for is to appeal to some, maybe even a majority but not necessarily.Most people are able to simply read what interests them and ignore what doesn't, why cant you?
Must every article on slashdot go through your own personal approval?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498990</id>
	<title>Re:Neutral Party</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1261244040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do this by 'tweaking' their indexes to preference one thing over another thing in a results page, anyway. Granted, it's not as obvious or as overt, but it still happens. Many times, it seems they're doing it to de-emphasize "unpopular" data. People tend to not want to think about it, or even acknowledge it, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do this by 'tweaking ' their indexes to preference one thing over another thing in a results page , anyway .
Granted , it 's not as obvious or as overt , but it still happens .
Many times , it seems they 're doing it to de-emphasize " unpopular " data .
People tend to not want to think about it , or even acknowledge it , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do this by 'tweaking' their indexes to preference one thing over another thing in a results page, anyway.
Granted, it's not as obvious or as overt, but it still happens.
Many times, it seems they're doing it to de-emphasize "unpopular" data.
People tend to not want to think about it, or even acknowledge it, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30493520</id>
	<title>A few random comments...</title>
	<author>Restil</author>
	<datestamp>1261132260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, home addresses and phone numbers never used to be a private matter.  Everyone was always in the phone book, student directories with phone numbers AND addresses were passed out to all the students every year.  IF someone had an unlisted number, it seemed to be noteworthy for some reason.  Of course, I'm talking 20+ years ago.  Now, people seem to be much more cautious about having their home addresses and phone numbers listed.  Of course, now that you can be targeted for prank calls by anyone on the internet... perhaps hiding this information seems to make more sense.</p><p>As for medical information, how did that end up on the searchable internet to begin with?  Hospitals don't tend to create public webpages detailing the medical conditions of their patients, complete with real names.  About the only way news of her extreme toenail fungus would end up on the internet is if she were blogging about it....  or telling friends about it, who in turn feel the need to discuss it in front of a world audience.</p><p>As the post made clear, if you want something to disappear, the quickest way to do so is to STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.  Nothing stirs up popularity in the age of the internet more quickly than someone complaining about, and then posting a link to, offensive content.</p><p>Also, while Google can pretty much do whatever they want as far as delisting or rank adjusting, it's not in their best interests to censor information just because it's mildly offensive to someone, as it provides precedent and opens them up to potential lawsuits when they don't... or do...  Common carrier defense and all that.  However, in the<br>age of pedophile witch-hunts, they can pretty safely de-link something of that nature without getting anyone too upset about it.  Nobody is going to mount a strong opposition to the removal of that type of material, and anyone who supported it has no fight once it has been removed, so nobody talks about it.  No talking, no linking, and therefore no Googling.</p><p>-Restil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , home addresses and phone numbers never used to be a private matter .
Everyone was always in the phone book , student directories with phone numbers AND addresses were passed out to all the students every year .
IF someone had an unlisted number , it seemed to be noteworthy for some reason .
Of course , I 'm talking 20 + years ago .
Now , people seem to be much more cautious about having their home addresses and phone numbers listed .
Of course , now that you can be targeted for prank calls by anyone on the internet... perhaps hiding this information seems to make more sense.As for medical information , how did that end up on the searchable internet to begin with ?
Hospitals do n't tend to create public webpages detailing the medical conditions of their patients , complete with real names .
About the only way news of her extreme toenail fungus would end up on the internet is if she were blogging about it.... or telling friends about it , who in turn feel the need to discuss it in front of a world audience.As the post made clear , if you want something to disappear , the quickest way to do so is to STOP TALKING ABOUT IT .
Nothing stirs up popularity in the age of the internet more quickly than someone complaining about , and then posting a link to , offensive content.Also , while Google can pretty much do whatever they want as far as delisting or rank adjusting , it 's not in their best interests to censor information just because it 's mildly offensive to someone , as it provides precedent and opens them up to potential lawsuits when they do n't... or do... Common carrier defense and all that .
However , in theage of pedophile witch-hunts , they can pretty safely de-link something of that nature without getting anyone too upset about it .
Nobody is going to mount a strong opposition to the removal of that type of material , and anyone who supported it has no fight once it has been removed , so nobody talks about it .
No talking , no linking , and therefore no Googling.-Restil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, home addresses and phone numbers never used to be a private matter.
Everyone was always in the phone book, student directories with phone numbers AND addresses were passed out to all the students every year.
IF someone had an unlisted number, it seemed to be noteworthy for some reason.
Of course, I'm talking 20+ years ago.
Now, people seem to be much more cautious about having their home addresses and phone numbers listed.
Of course, now that you can be targeted for prank calls by anyone on the internet... perhaps hiding this information seems to make more sense.As for medical information, how did that end up on the searchable internet to begin with?
Hospitals don't tend to create public webpages detailing the medical conditions of their patients, complete with real names.
About the only way news of her extreme toenail fungus would end up on the internet is if she were blogging about it....  or telling friends about it, who in turn feel the need to discuss it in front of a world audience.As the post made clear, if you want something to disappear, the quickest way to do so is to STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.
Nothing stirs up popularity in the age of the internet more quickly than someone complaining about, and then posting a link to, offensive content.Also, while Google can pretty much do whatever they want as far as delisting or rank adjusting, it's not in their best interests to censor information just because it's mildly offensive to someone, as it provides precedent and opens them up to potential lawsuits when they don't... or do...  Common carrier defense and all that.
However, in theage of pedophile witch-hunts, they can pretty safely de-link something of that nature without getting anyone too upset about it.
Nobody is going to mount a strong opposition to the removal of that type of material, and anyone who supported it has no fight once it has been removed, so nobody talks about it.
No talking, no linking, and therefore no Googling.-Restil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491740</id>
	<title>fuck A 5ponge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261168740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>counter4art, where it was when those obligations. If you answered oveR to yet another</htmltext>
<tokenext>counter4art , where it was when those obligations .
If you answered oveR to yet another</tokentext>
<sentencetext>counter4art, where it was when those obligations.
If you answered oveR to yet another</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30502990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30505114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_1512228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30502990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30505114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_1512228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30495748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30498010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491908
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30494490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30491440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30496304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30490508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_1512228.30492368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
