<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_26_0137220</id>
	<title>Simplifying Search For a Younger Audience</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261854600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An article in the NY Times discusses <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/technology/internet/26kidsearch.html">how kids interact with search engines</a>, which are primarily designed for adult users who are familiar with basic internet concepts. From the article:
<i>"When considering children, search engines had long focused on filtering out explicit material from results. But now, because increasing numbers of children are using search as a starting point for homework, exploration or entertainment, more engineers are looking to children for guidance on how to improve their tools. ... Stefan Weitz, director of Bing, said that for certain types of tasks, like finding a list of American presidents, people found answers 28 percent faster with a search of images rather than of text. He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children. ... Children also tend to want to ask questions like 'Who is the president?' rather than type in a keyword. Scott Kim, chief technology officer at Ask.com, said that because as many as a third of search queries were entered as questions (up to 43 percent on Ask Kids, a variant designed for children), it had enlarged search boxes on both sites by almost 30 percent."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An article in the NY Times discusses how kids interact with search engines , which are primarily designed for adult users who are familiar with basic internet concepts .
From the article : " When considering children , search engines had long focused on filtering out explicit material from results .
But now , because increasing numbers of children are using search as a starting point for homework , exploration or entertainment , more engineers are looking to children for guidance on how to improve their tools .
... Stefan Weitz , director of Bing , said that for certain types of tasks , like finding a list of American presidents , people found answers 28 percent faster with a search of images rather than of text .
He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines , it attracted more children .
... Children also tend to want to ask questions like 'Who is the president ?
' rather than type in a keyword .
Scott Kim , chief technology officer at Ask.com , said that because as many as a third of search queries were entered as questions ( up to 43 percent on Ask Kids , a variant designed for children ) , it had enlarged search boxes on both sites by almost 30 percent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article in the NY Times discusses how kids interact with search engines, which are primarily designed for adult users who are familiar with basic internet concepts.
From the article:
"When considering children, search engines had long focused on filtering out explicit material from results.
But now, because increasing numbers of children are using search as a starting point for homework, exploration or entertainment, more engineers are looking to children for guidance on how to improve their tools.
... Stefan Weitz, director of Bing, said that for certain types of tasks, like finding a list of American presidents, people found answers 28 percent faster with a search of images rather than of text.
He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children.
... Children also tend to want to ask questions like 'Who is the president?
' rather than type in a keyword.
Scott Kim, chief technology officer at Ask.com, said that because as many as a third of search queries were entered as questions (up to 43 percent on Ask Kids, a variant designed for children), it had enlarged search boxes on both sites by almost 30 percent.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554690</id>
	<title>Adults</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261860360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that most adult users are "familiar with basic internet concepts" made me chuckle. If anything, I'd expect a kid to figure out how to use a search engine effectively (rephrase search terms; skip results that are obviously spammish SEO garbage) a lot faster than a typical adult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that most adult users are " familiar with basic internet concepts " made me chuckle .
If anything , I 'd expect a kid to figure out how to use a search engine effectively ( rephrase search terms ; skip results that are obviously spammish SEO garbage ) a lot faster than a typical adult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that most adult users are "familiar with basic internet concepts" made me chuckle.
If anything, I'd expect a kid to figure out how to use a search engine effectively (rephrase search terms; skip results that are obviously spammish SEO garbage) a lot faster than a typical adult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554988</id>
	<title>Re:Kids aren't stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261825140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional\_fixedness</p><p>The older you get the more often you look at things based on previous experience. This can be useful sometimes, but other times it can cause you to have difficulty grokking new tech.</p><p>Imagine if someone redesigned an interface in a completely different manner. How confused would we be if to "press" a button you had to waggle your left eyebrow at a rate of 2 waggles a second? Why hello <i>Rainbow's End</i> how are you doing?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I caught on fast in 1978, but very few of my contemporaries did. Later I wrongly presumed my niece, who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation, would become the 'IT support staff' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that. Didn't work out that way. Despite daily use, she's a decidedly non-technical average user. I've remained the 'tech' guy for family and friends, more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.</p></div><p>This may be due to specialization of labor. You know how to do the computer stuff so none of the others cared to learn it. Maybe one of them can bake awesome cupcakes which you yourself cannot.</p><p>Also, let's not forget that in 1978 computers were relatively new, and people with it were far more likely to study how it works. Look at cars. Back before or during the Model T era most people who owned an automobile would be hobbyists who'd work out all the kinks. As the automobile became more prevalent, now we've got people who can just figure out how to pump gas.</p><p>Hell, I barely understand how a light bulb works and those things are <i>everywhere</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional \ _fixednessThe older you get the more often you look at things based on previous experience .
This can be useful sometimes , but other times it can cause you to have difficulty grokking new tech.Imagine if someone redesigned an interface in a completely different manner .
How confused would we be if to " press " a button you had to waggle your left eyebrow at a rate of 2 waggles a second ?
Why hello Rainbow 's End how are you doing ? I caught on fast in 1978 , but very few of my contemporaries did .
Later I wrongly presumed my niece , who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation , would become the 'IT support staff ' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that .
Did n't work out that way .
Despite daily use , she 's a decidedly non-technical average user .
I 've remained the 'tech ' guy for family and friends , more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.This may be due to specialization of labor .
You know how to do the computer stuff so none of the others cared to learn it .
Maybe one of them can bake awesome cupcakes which you yourself can not.Also , let 's not forget that in 1978 computers were relatively new , and people with it were far more likely to study how it works .
Look at cars .
Back before or during the Model T era most people who owned an automobile would be hobbyists who 'd work out all the kinks .
As the automobile became more prevalent , now we 've got people who can just figure out how to pump gas.Hell , I barely understand how a light bulb works and those things are everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional\_fixednessThe older you get the more often you look at things based on previous experience.
This can be useful sometimes, but other times it can cause you to have difficulty grokking new tech.Imagine if someone redesigned an interface in a completely different manner.
How confused would we be if to "press" a button you had to waggle your left eyebrow at a rate of 2 waggles a second?
Why hello Rainbow's End how are you doing?I caught on fast in 1978, but very few of my contemporaries did.
Later I wrongly presumed my niece, who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation, would become the 'IT support staff' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that.
Didn't work out that way.
Despite daily use, she's a decidedly non-technical average user.
I've remained the 'tech' guy for family and friends, more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.This may be due to specialization of labor.
You know how to do the computer stuff so none of the others cared to learn it.
Maybe one of them can bake awesome cupcakes which you yourself cannot.Also, let's not forget that in 1978 computers were relatively new, and people with it were far more likely to study how it works.
Look at cars.
Back before or during the Model T era most people who owned an automobile would be hobbyists who'd work out all the kinks.
As the automobile became more prevalent, now we've got people who can just figure out how to pump gas.Hell, I barely understand how a light bulb works and those things are everywhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555142</id>
	<title>Re:Stop thinking of the children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261828920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some words have become almost unsearchable because search engines keep "generalizing" them to words so generic that they hardly filter anything anymore</p></div><p>Quote the words (i.e. "foobar" instead of just foobar), that disables the generalization and spelling fixes, at least for Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some words have become almost unsearchable because search engines keep " generalizing " them to words so generic that they hardly filter anything anymoreQuote the words ( i.e .
" foobar " instead of just foobar ) , that disables the generalization and spelling fixes , at least for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some words have become almost unsearchable because search engines keep "generalizing" them to words so generic that they hardly filter anything anymoreQuote the words (i.e.
"foobar" instead of just foobar), that disables the generalization and spelling fixes, at least for Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554926</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1261823700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to say... How can you be 28\% faster with an image search, when you type "list of am" into google, it predicts you want american presidents, and then comes up with wikipedia's list as it's first result... That seems pretty hard to beat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say... How can you be 28 \ % faster with an image search , when you type " list of am " into google , it predicts you want american presidents , and then comes up with wikipedia 's list as it 's first result... That seems pretty hard to beat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say... How can you be 28\% faster with an image search, when you type "list of am" into google, it predicts you want american presidents, and then comes up with wikipedia's list as it's first result... That seems pretty hard to beat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555026</id>
	<title>Predictive</title>
	<author>Smivs</author>
	<datestamp>1261825860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Now every search engine keeps second-guessing me. "Did you mean...? </p></div><p>Yeah, it's great. I can type any old s**t into Google and it knows exactly what I mean!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now every search engine keeps second-guessing me .
" Did you mean... ?
Yeah , it 's great .
I can type any old s * * t into Google and it knows exactly what I mean !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now every search engine keeps second-guessing me.
"Did you mean...?
Yeah, it's great.
I can type any old s**t into Google and it knows exactly what I mean!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30557226</id>
	<title>been there done that</title>
	<author>GregNorc</author>
	<datestamp>1261856100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19991115055254/http://www.yahooligans.com/index.html" title="archive.org">Yahooligans?</a> [archive.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember Yahooligans ?
[ archive.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember Yahooligans?
[archive.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644</id>
	<title>Kids aren't stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261859220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now look, the moment new tech comes onto the field, it's usually kids or other youths who, after <i>somehow</i> obtaining it, are the ones most comfortable with it.</p><p>You don't hear a lot of stories about kids going "Well this newfangled contraption is far too complicated. No sirree, back to the cosmombulating gizmotron 3000 which has worked for me for the last 30 years."</p><p>You don't need to make a "kiddy" version of the search engine. Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future. If we force them to use dumbed down versions, eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now look , the moment new tech comes onto the field , it 's usually kids or other youths who , after somehow obtaining it , are the ones most comfortable with it.You do n't hear a lot of stories about kids going " Well this newfangled contraption is far too complicated .
No sirree , back to the cosmombulating gizmotron 3000 which has worked for me for the last 30 years .
" You do n't need to make a " kiddy " version of the search engine .
Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future .
If we force them to use dumbed down versions , eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now look, the moment new tech comes onto the field, it's usually kids or other youths who, after somehow obtaining it, are the ones most comfortable with it.You don't hear a lot of stories about kids going "Well this newfangled contraption is far too complicated.
No sirree, back to the cosmombulating gizmotron 3000 which has worked for me for the last 30 years.
"You don't need to make a "kiddy" version of the search engine.
Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future.
If we force them to use dumbed down versions, eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554620</id>
	<title>Wolfram Alpha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261858740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Wolfram Alpha seems to be a good step in this very direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wolfram Alpha seems to be a good step in this very direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Wolfram Alpha seems to be a good step in this very direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555280</id>
	<title>Re:URLs?</title>
	<author>BrentH</author>
	<datestamp>1261833780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because the whole concept of TLD's is unnatural because its not part of the name. Gmail is gmail, nog gmail.com. I think a lot of problems would be solved if we'd drop TLD's (and the www prefix!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the whole concept of TLD 's is unnatural because its not part of the name .
Gmail is gmail , nog gmail.com .
I think a lot of problems would be solved if we 'd drop TLD 's ( and the www prefix !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the whole concept of TLD's is unnatural because its not part of the name.
Gmail is gmail, nog gmail.com.
I think a lot of problems would be solved if we'd drop TLD's (and the www prefix!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559528</id>
	<title>Re:Stop thinking of the children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261832040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, if you glance down three enties in the results, you see you actual search anyway... *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , if you glance down three enties in the results , you see you actual search anyway... * sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, if you glance down three enties in the results, you see you actual search anyway... *sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554812</id>
	<title>Ask.com</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1261820880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think their search boxes not being big enough is the main improvement they need to work on. How about improving search results by 30\% instead?</p><p>And they've been doing this for a while too. In an <a href="http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/697-Interview-Ask-com-Search-Results-Are-Different-" title="practicalecommerce.com">interview last year</a> [practicalecommerce.com], their exec mainly droned on about Ask3D, one of their many hare-brained attempts to make an "Ask X", where X is some stupid representation of results for gimmicky or audience-targeting purposes.</p><p>In some ways, it's not totally stupid from a business point of view. Google has pretty good results (though the web's increasing noisiness and the arms race with SEO is making them maybe worse than they once were), and it's hard to beat them at that game. So competitors are inevitably trying to find other angles on which to compete, like trying to come up with results presentation that's snazzier than Google's list of links (though Google's list of links is getting more complicated in graphically subtle but quite useful ways), or special versions like "Ask Kids" to try to convince niche audiences that they need something special for them rather than a general-purpose search engine. But I'm not really convinced there's anything to these attempts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think their search boxes not being big enough is the main improvement they need to work on .
How about improving search results by 30 \ % instead ? And they 've been doing this for a while too .
In an interview last year [ practicalecommerce.com ] , their exec mainly droned on about Ask3D , one of their many hare-brained attempts to make an " Ask X " , where X is some stupid representation of results for gimmicky or audience-targeting purposes.In some ways , it 's not totally stupid from a business point of view .
Google has pretty good results ( though the web 's increasing noisiness and the arms race with SEO is making them maybe worse than they once were ) , and it 's hard to beat them at that game .
So competitors are inevitably trying to find other angles on which to compete , like trying to come up with results presentation that 's snazzier than Google 's list of links ( though Google 's list of links is getting more complicated in graphically subtle but quite useful ways ) , or special versions like " Ask Kids " to try to convince niche audiences that they need something special for them rather than a general-purpose search engine .
But I 'm not really convinced there 's anything to these attempts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think their search boxes not being big enough is the main improvement they need to work on.
How about improving search results by 30\% instead?And they've been doing this for a while too.
In an interview last year [practicalecommerce.com], their exec mainly droned on about Ask3D, one of their many hare-brained attempts to make an "Ask X", where X is some stupid representation of results for gimmicky or audience-targeting purposes.In some ways, it's not totally stupid from a business point of view.
Google has pretty good results (though the web's increasing noisiness and the arms race with SEO is making them maybe worse than they once were), and it's hard to beat them at that game.
So competitors are inevitably trying to find other angles on which to compete, like trying to come up with results presentation that's snazzier than Google's list of links (though Google's list of links is getting more complicated in graphically subtle but quite useful ways), or special versions like "Ask Kids" to try to convince niche audiences that they need something special for them rather than a general-purpose search engine.
But I'm not really convinced there's anything to these attempts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554924</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, make it more image-oriented</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261823640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A "Troll" mod for mentioning a Microsoft failure?
<p>
I really hate how low Slashdot has sunk.
</p><p>
How are we going to de-infest this place of all the Reputation Managers? It really sucks having most of the interesting comments modded to invisibility and all the "I love Linux, but [Microsoft product] is way better" posts on +5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " Troll " mod for mentioning a Microsoft failure ?
I really hate how low Slashdot has sunk .
How are we going to de-infest this place of all the Reputation Managers ?
It really sucks having most of the interesting comments modded to invisibility and all the " I love Linux , but [ Microsoft product ] is way better " posts on + 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "Troll" mod for mentioning a Microsoft failure?
I really hate how low Slashdot has sunk.
How are we going to de-infest this place of all the Reputation Managers?
It really sucks having most of the interesting comments modded to invisibility and all the "I love Linux, but [Microsoft product] is way better" posts on +5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554802</id>
	<title>A better search</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1261820460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop.</p><p>
- Dr. Walter Gibbs</p></div></blockquote><p>
With apologies, but the wisdom of TRON seems so appropriate right about now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't that be grand ?
Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop .
- Dr. Walter Gibbs With apologies , but the wisdom of TRON seems so appropriate right about now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't that be grand?
Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop.
- Dr. Walter Gibbs
With apologies, but the wisdom of TRON seems so appropriate right about now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554790</id>
	<title>Yes, make it more image-oriented</title>
	<author>hwyhobo</author>
	<datestamp>1261820040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, "Bob" was a great success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , " Bob " was a great success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, "Bob" was a great success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554984</id>
	<title>Oops.</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1261825080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried to simply search for a younger audience, now I think I'm on some FBI watch list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to simply search for a younger audience , now I think I 'm on some FBI watch list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to simply search for a younger audience, now I think I'm on some FBI watch list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555246</id>
	<title>Re:URLs?</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1261832520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My son types whatever he wants into google. He doesn't know how to type URLs. My wife and her sister are the same. If home didn't go to a search engine they would be lost. If home didn't go to google they would search for google first.</p></div><p>I'm surprised at the number of people I have worked with who are the same way and many of them use Yahoo instead of Google.  They tend to be the same people who are astonished at my use of keyboard commands.

Happy Boxing Day!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My son types whatever he wants into google .
He does n't know how to type URLs .
My wife and her sister are the same .
If home did n't go to a search engine they would be lost .
If home did n't go to google they would search for google first.I 'm surprised at the number of people I have worked with who are the same way and many of them use Yahoo instead of Google .
They tend to be the same people who are astonished at my use of keyboard commands .
Happy Boxing Day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son types whatever he wants into google.
He doesn't know how to type URLs.
My wife and her sister are the same.
If home didn't go to a search engine they would be lost.
If home didn't go to google they would search for google first.I'm surprised at the number of people I have worked with who are the same way and many of them use Yahoo instead of Google.
They tend to be the same people who are astonished at my use of keyboard commands.
Happy Boxing Day!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559576</id>
	<title>Wolfram|Alpha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261832520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question mentioned in the article: Which day would the vice president&rsquo;s birthday fall on the next year?</p><p>This seemed like a perfectly reasonable question for the self-proclaimed "computational knowledge engine". Sadly it fails as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question mentioned in the article : Which day would the vice president    s birthday fall on the next year ? This seemed like a perfectly reasonable question for the self-proclaimed " computational knowledge engine " .
Sadly it fails as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question mentioned in the article: Which day would the vice president’s birthday fall on the next year?This seemed like a perfectly reasonable question for the self-proclaimed "computational knowledge engine".
Sadly it fails as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556688</id>
	<title>Re:Kids aren't stupid</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1261851240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now look, the moment new tech comes onto the field, it's usually kids or other youths who, after somehow obtaining it, are the ones most comfortable with it.</p></div></blockquote><p>So the folklore has it.  But like all folklore, it's only partly truth.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>You don't need to make a "kiddy" version of the search engine. Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future. If we force them to use dumbed down versions, eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it.</p></div></blockquote><p>If 'searching' were a technology - you'd have a point.  But searching is only the first step, then you need to evaluate the search results to determine if they really do hold the answer you seek.  This, like any intellectual activity, requires a certain amount of experience and education, something kids lack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now look , the moment new tech comes onto the field , it 's usually kids or other youths who , after somehow obtaining it , are the ones most comfortable with it.So the folklore has it .
But like all folklore , it 's only partly truth .
  You do n't need to make a " kiddy " version of the search engine .
Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future .
If we force them to use dumbed down versions , eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it.If 'searching ' were a technology - you 'd have a point .
But searching is only the first step , then you need to evaluate the search results to determine if they really do hold the answer you seek .
This , like any intellectual activity , requires a certain amount of experience and education , something kids lack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now look, the moment new tech comes onto the field, it's usually kids or other youths who, after somehow obtaining it, are the ones most comfortable with it.So the folklore has it.
But like all folklore, it's only partly truth.
  You don't need to make a "kiddy" version of the search engine.
Children will learn to use the adult tools easily and will be prepared for the future.
If we force them to use dumbed down versions, eventually dumbed down versions will be the norm since the next generation will be against changing it.If 'searching' were a technology - you'd have a point.
But searching is only the first step, then you need to evaluate the search results to determine if they really do hold the answer you seek.
This, like any intellectual activity, requires a certain amount of experience and education, something kids lack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554916</id>
	<title>Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1261823340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, I used to be the kid that learned everything by himself and taught my parents how computers and programs work.
<br>
Microsoft, the nanny company?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I used to be the kid that learned everything by himself and taught my parents how computers and programs work .
Microsoft , the nanny company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I used to be the kid that learned everything by himself and taught my parents how computers and programs work.
Microsoft, the nanny company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556918</id>
	<title>Re:clunky interfaces</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261853160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Microsoft has just decided to take ownership of their most devoted userbase: stupid fucktards who can't read. They love Bing, because it flashes pretty pictures in front of them, like Boobah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Microsoft has just decided to take ownership of their most devoted userbase : stupid fucktards who ca n't read .
They love Bing , because it flashes pretty pictures in front of them , like Boobah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Microsoft has just decided to take ownership of their most devoted userbase: stupid fucktards who can't read.
They love Bing, because it flashes pretty pictures in front of them, like Boobah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555554</id>
	<title>URLs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261840260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My son types whatever he wants into google. He doesn't know how to type URLs. My wife and her sister are the same. If home didn't go to a search engine they would be lost. If home didn't go to google they would search for google first.</p></div><p>But if they do not know how to type URLs, as you just stated, then how would they search for Google to search whatever it was they wanted to search for in the first place? You failed logic, please hand in your membership card.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My son types whatever he wants into google .
He does n't know how to type URLs .
My wife and her sister are the same .
If home did n't go to a search engine they would be lost .
If home did n't go to google they would search for google first.But if they do not know how to type URLs , as you just stated , then how would they search for Google to search whatever it was they wanted to search for in the first place ?
You failed logic , please hand in your membership card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son types whatever he wants into google.
He doesn't know how to type URLs.
My wife and her sister are the same.
If home didn't go to a search engine they would be lost.
If home didn't go to google they would search for google first.But if they do not know how to type URLs, as you just stated, then how would they search for Google to search whatever it was they wanted to search for in the first place?
You failed logic, please hand in your membership card.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662</id>
	<title>Stop thinking of the children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261859580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And stop dumbing everything down. It used to be that entering a couple of words into a search engine gave a somewhat predictable result. Now every search engine keeps second-guessing me. "Did you mean...? We've already included the suggested results." No, if I had meant that, then I would have typed it. Some words have become almost unsearchable because search engines keep "generalizing" them to words so generic that they hardly filter anything anymore (which happens easily considering there are more languages than English and similar looking words can mean very different things). Until computers become sentient and can actually "do what I mean", I want them to do what I tell them to do, got it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And stop dumbing everything down .
It used to be that entering a couple of words into a search engine gave a somewhat predictable result .
Now every search engine keeps second-guessing me .
" Did you mean... ?
We 've already included the suggested results .
" No , if I had meant that , then I would have typed it .
Some words have become almost unsearchable because search engines keep " generalizing " them to words so generic that they hardly filter anything anymore ( which happens easily considering there are more languages than English and similar looking words can mean very different things ) .
Until computers become sentient and can actually " do what I mean " , I want them to do what I tell them to do , got it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And stop dumbing everything down.
It used to be that entering a couple of words into a search engine gave a somewhat predictable result.
Now every search engine keeps second-guessing me.
"Did you mean...?
We've already included the suggested results.
" No, if I had meant that, then I would have typed it.
Some words have become almost unsearchable because search engines keep "generalizing" them to words so generic that they hardly filter anything anymore (which happens easily considering there are more languages than English and similar looking words can mean very different things).
Until computers become sentient and can actually "do what I mean", I want them to do what I tell them to do, got it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554972</id>
	<title>Simplifying searching?</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1261824720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or simplifying advertising and targeting results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or simplifying advertising and targeting results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or simplifying advertising and targeting results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554636</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261859040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, this reads more like the 'Mikey likes it!' life cereal commercial than research.</p><p>This must explain why google has such a slim market share</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this reads more like the 'Mikey likes it !
' life cereal commercial than research.This must explain why google has such a slim market share</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this reads more like the 'Mikey likes it!
' life cereal commercial than research.This must explain why google has such a slim market share</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554702</id>
	<title>Kids-friendly search engine</title>
	<author>halfey</author>
	<datestamp>1261860660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Filtering the explicit material from search result is one thing, but can any search engine be simpler than what we already have in Google or Bing? Adult content are already filtered by default and they're already simple enough that even my 5-year old nephew can use them with no fuss.

Perhaps what the people want is a schoolkid version of the existing search engines that will assist the kids in their homework right out of the box?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Filtering the explicit material from search result is one thing , but can any search engine be simpler than what we already have in Google or Bing ?
Adult content are already filtered by default and they 're already simple enough that even my 5-year old nephew can use them with no fuss .
Perhaps what the people want is a schoolkid version of the existing search engines that will assist the kids in their homework right out of the box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filtering the explicit material from search result is one thing, but can any search engine be simpler than what we already have in Google or Bing?
Adult content are already filtered by default and they're already simple enough that even my 5-year old nephew can use them with no fuss.
Perhaps what the people want is a schoolkid version of the existing search engines that will assist the kids in their homework right out of the box?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555488</id>
	<title>Bad example</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1261839180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kids who can type "who is the president?" (implied: "...of the US") into a search engine and get a result back probably already know the answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kids who can type " who is the president ?
" ( implied : " ...of the US " ) into a search engine and get a result back probably already know the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kids who can type "who is the president?
" (implied: "...of the US") into a search engine and get a result back probably already know the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556340</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261848180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try that on Google Square for slower, but way gooder results:</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=presidents" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=presidents</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try that on Google Square for slower , but way gooder results : http : //www.google.com/squared/search ? q = presidents [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try that on Google Square for slower, but way gooder results:http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=presidents [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554980</id>
	<title>Just watch them and learn how they solve things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261824960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two boys (age 2 and 4) and, by simply observing the way they learn, I can easily spot logical flaws in software or UI in general<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) For example, they tend to mix Google Earth and Network Connection panel on Win as they both use Earth-like \_icon\_. They can't find things on Win7 because UI and \_icons changed\_ (their first OS was XP). Furthermore, they manage to run application from Win Explorer by it's \_order\_ - not it's name since they can't read and English is not their native language anyways. They adopted multitouch UI last year in a \_day\_ (moving, resizing, running things) which tells more than tonns of studies. Younger boy adopts things faster because older one already "dumbs things down" to the level they can both understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two boys ( age 2 and 4 ) and , by simply observing the way they learn , I can easily spot logical flaws in software or UI in general : - ) For example , they tend to mix Google Earth and Network Connection panel on Win as they both use Earth-like \ _icon \ _ .
They ca n't find things on Win7 because UI and \ _icons changed \ _ ( their first OS was XP ) .
Furthermore , they manage to run application from Win Explorer by it 's \ _order \ _ - not it 's name since they ca n't read and English is not their native language anyways .
They adopted multitouch UI last year in a \ _day \ _ ( moving , resizing , running things ) which tells more than tonns of studies .
Younger boy adopts things faster because older one already " dumbs things down " to the level they can both understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two boys (age 2 and 4) and, by simply observing the way they learn, I can easily spot logical flaws in software or UI in general :-) For example, they tend to mix Google Earth and Network Connection panel on Win as they both use Earth-like \_icon\_.
They can't find things on Win7 because UI and \_icons changed\_ (their first OS was XP).
Furthermore, they manage to run application from Win Explorer by it's \_order\_ - not it's name since they can't read and English is not their native language anyways.
They adopted multitouch UI last year in a \_day\_ (moving, resizing, running things) which tells more than tonns of studies.
Younger boy adopts things faster because older one already "dumbs things down" to the level they can both understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559794</id>
	<title>Re:URLs?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1261835460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, I even find myself doing this a lot. I's use I'm feeling luck except my spelling is awful most of the time. It doesn't help that I normally work across multiple machines with distinct bookmarks and no system to synch them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , I even find myself doing this a lot .
I 's use I 'm feeling luck except my spelling is awful most of the time .
It does n't help that I normally work across multiple machines with distinct bookmarks and no system to synch them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, I even find myself doing this a lot.
I's use I'm feeling luck except my spelling is awful most of the time.
It doesn't help that I normally work across multiple machines with distinct bookmarks and no system to synch them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556704</id>
	<title>Google's aggressive spelling correction</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1261851360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>On the other hand, it can be a pain if it's done wrong. </i>
</p><p>
Over the last year, Google's spelling correction has steadily become more aggressive. At first, Google just suggested "Did you mean X?", but gave you the results for what you'd specified.  Then they started displaying "Did you mean X", and gave you the results for X. Then they just gave you the results after spelling correction and don't even tell you they did.  Recently, they've backed that off a little, and now intermix results from the original query and the spelling-corrected form.
</p><p>
If you want literal search with Google, quote the words being searched.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , it can be a pain if it 's done wrong .
Over the last year , Google 's spelling correction has steadily become more aggressive .
At first , Google just suggested " Did you mean X ?
" , but gave you the results for what you 'd specified .
Then they started displaying " Did you mean X " , and gave you the results for X. Then they just gave you the results after spelling correction and do n't even tell you they did .
Recently , they 've backed that off a little , and now intermix results from the original query and the spelling-corrected form .
If you want literal search with Google , quote the words being searched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
On the other hand, it can be a pain if it's done wrong.
Over the last year, Google's spelling correction has steadily become more aggressive.
At first, Google just suggested "Did you mean X?
", but gave you the results for what you'd specified.
Then they started displaying "Did you mean X", and gave you the results for X. Then they just gave you the results after spelling correction and don't even tell you they did.
Recently, they've backed that off a little, and now intermix results from the original query and the spelling-corrected form.
If you want literal search with Google, quote the words being searched.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555210</id>
	<title>Re:Stop thinking of the children!</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1261831440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of guessing can be useful. If I am unsure about the spelling of a word, I search for it the way I recall, and Google will probably give me: <i>"Did you mean: [the correct spelling]".</i></p><p>On the other hand, it can be a pain if it's done wrong. In a certain auction site, I searched for 'Integris' (a computer accessories brand), and got <i>hundreds</i> of results that included "integrated", "integrator", "integral" -- everything that was vaguely similar, and I found no way around to search for the exact spelling only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of guessing can be useful .
If I am unsure about the spelling of a word , I search for it the way I recall , and Google will probably give me : " Did you mean : [ the correct spelling ] " .On the other hand , it can be a pain if it 's done wrong .
In a certain auction site , I searched for 'Integris ' ( a computer accessories brand ) , and got hundreds of results that included " integrated " , " integrator " , " integral " -- everything that was vaguely similar , and I found no way around to search for the exact spelling only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of guessing can be useful.
If I am unsure about the spelling of a word, I search for it the way I recall, and Google will probably give me: "Did you mean: [the correct spelling]".On the other hand, it can be a pain if it's done wrong.
In a certain auction site, I searched for 'Integris' (a computer accessories brand), and got hundreds of results that included "integrated", "integrator", "integral" -- everything that was vaguely similar, and I found no way around to search for the exact spelling only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556690</id>
	<title>unbelievable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261851300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are people that actually use Bing.

Whodathunkit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are people that actually use Bing .
Whodathunkit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are people that actually use Bing.
Whodathunkit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554610</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261858440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recommend they use google, then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recommend they use google , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recommend they use google, then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556298</id>
	<title>Re:Kids aren't stupid</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1261847820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I caught on fast in 1978, but very few of my contemporaries did. Later I wrongly presumed my niece, who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation, would become the 'IT support staff' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that. Didn't work out that way. Despite daily use, she's a decidedly non-technical average user. I've remained the 'tech' guy for family and friends, more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.</p></div></blockquote><p>How to stop being Tech Support:</p><p>a) Screw up their computers even worse than they were before you had to fix them.  Afterall, if they get to install every stupid thing without consequences, so should you.  Have the Russian National Anthem play on start up and a collection of sound effects (preferably labelled "wild and zany") accompany every little mouse click, starting an app, switching an app and so on.  If there are no children in the house, think about a "Best of Goatse" screen saver.  When asked how it got on there, give their typical answer "Idk, *I* didn't DO anything or download everything.  I swear!  Ooh, look at that, scamz-r-us.com is offering free mouse pointers!"</p><p>b)  Upload their Uncle Jim's and wife "personal homemade" picture and video collection to the pornographic versions of flickr and youtube, with it helpfully bookmarked.  Make their channel their homepage so they can track all the helpful comments and view counts.</p><p>c)  Suggest a Mac.  Let a mac "genius" take care of it and give them sticker shock (reality) at the same time.</p><p>d)  If a Mac is too expensive (it must be, they don't give you $20 worth of compensation for hours of work...) install LinuxFromScratch (Gentoo is far too user friendly).  Make sure not to get all the way into installing an X-server and any of those pesky window managers.  They should be comfortable with the commandline, afterall, it's what people were using 30 years ago and it will bring back a strong sense of nostalgia as they struggle reading the man page for mail.  Who knew email could be so fun!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I caught on fast in 1978 , but very few of my contemporaries did .
Later I wrongly presumed my niece , who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation , would become the 'IT support staff ' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that .
Did n't work out that way .
Despite daily use , she 's a decidedly non-technical average user .
I 've remained the 'tech ' guy for family and friends , more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.How to stop being Tech Support : a ) Screw up their computers even worse than they were before you had to fix them .
Afterall , if they get to install every stupid thing without consequences , so should you .
Have the Russian National Anthem play on start up and a collection of sound effects ( preferably labelled " wild and zany " ) accompany every little mouse click , starting an app , switching an app and so on .
If there are no children in the house , think about a " Best of Goatse " screen saver .
When asked how it got on there , give their typical answer " Idk , * I * did n't DO anything or download everything .
I swear !
Ooh , look at that , scamz-r-us.com is offering free mouse pointers !
" b ) Upload their Uncle Jim 's and wife " personal homemade " picture and video collection to the pornographic versions of flickr and youtube , with it helpfully bookmarked .
Make their channel their homepage so they can track all the helpful comments and view counts.c ) Suggest a Mac .
Let a mac " genius " take care of it and give them sticker shock ( reality ) at the same time.d ) If a Mac is too expensive ( it must be , they do n't give you $ 20 worth of compensation for hours of work... ) install LinuxFromScratch ( Gentoo is far too user friendly ) .
Make sure not to get all the way into installing an X-server and any of those pesky window managers .
They should be comfortable with the commandline , afterall , it 's what people were using 30 years ago and it will bring back a strong sense of nostalgia as they struggle reading the man page for mail .
Who knew email could be so fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I caught on fast in 1978, but very few of my contemporaries did.
Later I wrongly presumed my niece, who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation, would become the 'IT support staff' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that.
Didn't work out that way.
Despite daily use, she's a decidedly non-technical average user.
I've remained the 'tech' guy for family and friends, more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.How to stop being Tech Support:a) Screw up their computers even worse than they were before you had to fix them.
Afterall, if they get to install every stupid thing without consequences, so should you.
Have the Russian National Anthem play on start up and a collection of sound effects (preferably labelled "wild and zany") accompany every little mouse click, starting an app, switching an app and so on.
If there are no children in the house, think about a "Best of Goatse" screen saver.
When asked how it got on there, give their typical answer "Idk, *I* didn't DO anything or download everything.
I swear!
Ooh, look at that, scamz-r-us.com is offering free mouse pointers!
"b)  Upload their Uncle Jim's and wife "personal homemade" picture and video collection to the pornographic versions of flickr and youtube, with it helpfully bookmarked.
Make their channel their homepage so they can track all the helpful comments and view counts.c)  Suggest a Mac.
Let a mac "genius" take care of it and give them sticker shock (reality) at the same time.d)  If a Mac is too expensive (it must be, they don't give you $20 worth of compensation for hours of work...) install LinuxFromScratch (Gentoo is far too user friendly).
Make sure not to get all the way into installing an X-server and any of those pesky window managers.
They should be comfortable with the commandline, afterall, it's what people were using 30 years ago and it will bring back a strong sense of nostalgia as they struggle reading the man page for mail.
Who knew email could be so fun!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554806</id>
	<title>Re:Kids aren't stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261820580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How true is this, really? By that I mean what percentage of kids grok new tech well?</p><p>Perhaps because <i>some</i> kids catch on fast and do better than 'average' adults, we have wrongly inferred that <i>kids catch on fast</i>.</p><p>I caught on fast in 1978, but very few of my contemporaries did. Later I wrongly presumed my niece, who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation, would become the 'IT support staff' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that. Didn't work out that way. Despite daily use, she's a decidedly non-technical average user. I've remained the 'tech' guy for family and friends, more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How true is this , really ?
By that I mean what percentage of kids grok new tech well ? Perhaps because some kids catch on fast and do better than 'average ' adults , we have wrongly inferred that kids catch on fast.I caught on fast in 1978 , but very few of my contemporaries did .
Later I wrongly presumed my niece , who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation , would become the 'IT support staff ' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that .
Did n't work out that way .
Despite daily use , she 's a decidedly non-technical average user .
I 've remained the 'tech ' guy for family and friends , more than half of which grew up with the mouse now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How true is this, really?
By that I mean what percentage of kids grok new tech well?Perhaps because some kids catch on fast and do better than 'average' adults, we have wrongly inferred that kids catch on fast.I caught on fast in 1978, but very few of my contemporaries did.
Later I wrongly presumed my niece, who was a sharp book-reading kid of the mouse generation, would become the 'IT support staff' of her home &amp; I could stop handling that.
Didn't work out that way.
Despite daily use, she's a decidedly non-technical average user.
I've remained the 'tech' guy for family and friends, more than half of which grew up with the mouse now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555124</id>
	<title>Children are not stupid</title>
	<author>ChristofferC</author>
	<datestamp>1261828440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Children are much more open to new ideas and learn much faster than adults. Why the hell would they need a simplified interface? Senior citizens are the ones in need of simplified interfaces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Children are much more open to new ideas and learn much faster than adults .
Why the hell would they need a simplified interface ?
Senior citizens are the ones in need of simplified interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children are much more open to new ideas and learn much faster than adults.
Why the hell would they need a simplified interface?
Senior citizens are the ones in need of simplified interfaces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632</id>
	<title>URLs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261858920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My son types whatever he wants into google. He doesn't know how to type URLs. My wife and her sister are the same. If home didn't go to a search engine they would be lost. If home didn't go to google they would search for google first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My son types whatever he wants into google .
He does n't know how to type URLs .
My wife and her sister are the same .
If home did n't go to a search engine they would be lost .
If home did n't go to google they would search for google first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son types whatever he wants into google.
He doesn't know how to type URLs.
My wife and her sister are the same.
If home didn't go to a search engine they would be lost.
If home didn't go to google they would search for google first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555366</id>
	<title>translation</title>
	<author>mrphoton</author>
	<datestamp>1261836420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."
translation:
bing is for children who have not yet leant how to set the default search engine to google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines , it attracted more children .
... " translation : bing is for children who have not yet leant how to set the default search engine to google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children.
..."
translation:
bing is for children who have not yet leant how to set the default search engine to google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554712</id>
	<title>clunky interfaces</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1261860720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Funny, this is the opposite reasoning as to why I started using Google over yahoo/excite/altavista.
</p><p>
All the other search providers started cluttering their pages up.  Google was simple and clean and did what I wanted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines , it attracted more children .
Funny , this is the opposite reasoning as to why I started using Google over yahoo/excite/altavista .
All the other search providers started cluttering their pages up .
Google was simple and clean and did what I wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said that because Bing used more imagery than other search engines, it attracted more children.
Funny, this is the opposite reasoning as to why I started using Google over yahoo/excite/altavista.
All the other search providers started cluttering their pages up.
Google was simple and clean and did what I wanted.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_26_0137220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30556298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_26_0137220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30554632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30559794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_26_0137220.30555554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
