<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_26_1548252</id>
	<title>Nielsen Ratings To Count Online TV Viewing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264524420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cashman73 writes <i>"Several sources are reporting that Nielsen is <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014214.html?categoryid=1275&amp;cs=1">finally going to start measuring online TV viewing</a>. You would think that this is a good idea, since many people are now watching TV programs on the Internet. However, there's a catch: Nielsen's new service will only count viewings of a program with <a href="http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/hulucination/2010/01/25/nielsen-allies-tv-everywhere-will-it-bring-down-hulu?page=full">the same number of advertisements as the network TV model</a>. So, this immediately eliminates Hulu, as well as any shows watched via the network's own websites. As a matter of fact, it would currently only include Comcast's XFinity TV service, and TV Everywhere (which, so far, appears to be the equivalent of <em>Duke Nukem Forever</em> for television). So either, (a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely), or (b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cashman73 writes " Several sources are reporting that Nielsen is finally going to start measuring online TV viewing .
You would think that this is a good idea , since many people are now watching TV programs on the Internet .
However , there 's a catch : Nielsen 's new service will only count viewings of a program with the same number of advertisements as the network TV model .
So , this immediately eliminates Hulu , as well as any shows watched via the network 's own websites .
As a matter of fact , it would currently only include Comcast 's XFinity TV service , and TV Everywhere ( which , so far , appears to be the equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever for television ) .
So either , ( a ) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity , so that their viewing counts in the ratings ( unlikely ) , or ( b ) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows ( more likely , but would also probably mean the death of Hulu ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cashman73 writes "Several sources are reporting that Nielsen is finally going to start measuring online TV viewing.
You would think that this is a good idea, since many people are now watching TV programs on the Internet.
However, there's a catch: Nielsen's new service will only count viewings of a program with the same number of advertisements as the network TV model.
So, this immediately eliminates Hulu, as well as any shows watched via the network's own websites.
As a matter of fact, it would currently only include Comcast's XFinity TV service, and TV Everywhere (which, so far, appears to be the equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever for television).
So either, (a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely), or (b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908850</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you watch "Accidentally on Purpose" on TV, you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny. Or, you might just happen to be killing time between "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory". Neilsen can't tell.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nielsen doesn't have to differentiate that. No one thinks "Accidentally on Purpose" is funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you watch " Accidentally on Purpose " on TV , you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny .
Or , you might just happen to be killing time between " How I Met Your Mother " and " The Big Bang Theory " .
Neilsen ca n't tell.Nielsen does n't have to differentiate that .
No one thinks " Accidentally on Purpose " is funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you watch "Accidentally on Purpose" on TV, you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny.
Or, you might just happen to be killing time between "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory".
Neilsen can't tell.Nielsen doesn't have to differentiate that.
No one thinks "Accidentally on Purpose" is funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906652</id>
	<title>Re:Worth it?</title>
	<author>brian1078</author>
	<datestamp>1264529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't matter what hulu changes now.  It's going to be dead as soon as Comcast takes over NBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't matter what hulu changes now .
It 's going to be dead as soon as Comcast takes over NBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't matter what hulu changes now.
It's going to be dead as soon as Comcast takes over NBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907122</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you say this?</title>
	<author>Rutefoot</author>
	<datestamp>1264531860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in Canada we don't even get Hulu.  For me, I would not care in the slightest if online shows contained the same number of advertisements as broadcast TV if it means we were actually <b>allowed</b> to watch it.  I would love the opportunity to be able to watch a streaming show without having to deal with the unreliability and sketchiness of less than official streaming video sites.  <br> <br>

One other thing that I don't think was mentioned is the ability for online sites to very easily offer advertisements targetted at people depending on where they live.  Big networks don't get that luxury.  I mean, take TBS for example which often contains ads for local Atlanta businesses.  Those ads are valueless for 90\%+ of viewers.  An online site could potentially sell the same ad space many times over, one directed at Atlanta residents, one to west coasters, one to Canadians, etc.  They might have to charge slightly less just on principle, even if it has close to zero effect on the ad's reach, but sell that ad space 5 times and you could make significantly more profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Canada we do n't even get Hulu .
For me , I would not care in the slightest if online shows contained the same number of advertisements as broadcast TV if it means we were actually allowed to watch it .
I would love the opportunity to be able to watch a streaming show without having to deal with the unreliability and sketchiness of less than official streaming video sites .
One other thing that I do n't think was mentioned is the ability for online sites to very easily offer advertisements targetted at people depending on where they live .
Big networks do n't get that luxury .
I mean , take TBS for example which often contains ads for local Atlanta businesses .
Those ads are valueless for 90 \ % + of viewers .
An online site could potentially sell the same ad space many times over , one directed at Atlanta residents , one to west coasters , one to Canadians , etc .
They might have to charge slightly less just on principle , even if it has close to zero effect on the ad 's reach , but sell that ad space 5 times and you could make significantly more profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Canada we don't even get Hulu.
For me, I would not care in the slightest if online shows contained the same number of advertisements as broadcast TV if it means we were actually allowed to watch it.
I would love the opportunity to be able to watch a streaming show without having to deal with the unreliability and sketchiness of less than official streaming video sites.
One other thing that I don't think was mentioned is the ability for online sites to very easily offer advertisements targetted at people depending on where they live.
Big networks don't get that luxury.
I mean, take TBS for example which often contains ads for local Atlanta businesses.
Those ads are valueless for 90\%+ of viewers.
An online site could potentially sell the same ad space many times over, one directed at Atlanta residents, one to west coasters, one to Canadians, etc.
They might have to charge slightly less just on principle, even if it has close to zero effect on the ad's reach, but sell that ad space 5 times and you could make significantly more profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906452</id>
	<title>I'm going to miss TV</title>
	<author>wcrowe</author>
	<datestamp>1264529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to miss TV, at least a little bit.  I calculated that if I connect my macMini to my TV, I can do practically everything I'm doing now with cable and Tivo -- but at $50 less per month.</p><p>There are a few drawbacks, of course.  Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado, to name a couple.  But I almost never watch sports, and the radio can suffice when it comes to severe weather.  Ultimately, these things just aren't worth the $100+ per month that I'm paying for my "bundled" cable package.</p><p>Flopping down on the couch and turning on the TV to "see what's on" are going to become a thing of the past at my house.</p><p>If Nielson doesn't make some changes to their rating system, they'll become as redundant as TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to miss TV , at least a little bit .
I calculated that if I connect my macMini to my TV , I can do practically everything I 'm doing now with cable and Tivo -- but at $ 50 less per month.There are a few drawbacks , of course .
Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado , to name a couple .
But I almost never watch sports , and the radio can suffice when it comes to severe weather .
Ultimately , these things just are n't worth the $ 100 + per month that I 'm paying for my " bundled " cable package.Flopping down on the couch and turning on the TV to " see what 's on " are going to become a thing of the past at my house.If Nielson does n't make some changes to their rating system , they 'll become as redundant as TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to miss TV, at least a little bit.
I calculated that if I connect my macMini to my TV, I can do practically everything I'm doing now with cable and Tivo -- but at $50 less per month.There are a few drawbacks, of course.
Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado, to name a couple.
But I almost never watch sports, and the radio can suffice when it comes to severe weather.
Ultimately, these things just aren't worth the $100+ per month that I'm paying for my "bundled" cable package.Flopping down on the couch and turning on the TV to "see what's on" are going to become a thing of the past at my house.If Nielson doesn't make some changes to their rating system, they'll become as redundant as TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30912636</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>bit01</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which allows considerable ads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Watch Chuck.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... </em> </p><p>No point, the net value to the viewer is probably close to zero.</p><p>---</p><p> <em>"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... which allows considerable ads ... Watch Chuck .
... No point , the net value to the viewer is probably close to zero.--- " Advertising supported " just means you 're paying twice over , once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  ... which allows considerable ads ... Watch Chuck.
...  No point, the net value to the viewer is probably close to zero.--- "Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906610</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not as much sell more advertising but sell advertising for more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as much sell more advertising but sell advertising for more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as much sell more advertising but sell advertising for more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908062</id>
	<title>As I suspected all along</title>
	<author>zizzybaloobah</author>
	<datestamp>1264535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ratings aren't about who watched the show, it's about who watched <i>the advertisements</i>; otherwise, why not count all viewings regardless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ratings are n't about who watched the show , it 's about who watched the advertisements ; otherwise , why not count all viewings regardless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ratings aren't about who watched the show, it's about who watched the advertisements; otherwise, why not count all viewings regardless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242</id>
	<title>Why do you say this?</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1264528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
(b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also pro</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
For those of us with no cable and using only digital OTA, Hulu (and other online sites) replace a DVR.  And I think we'd be willing to sit through commercials.
</p><p>
Call me cheap, but I would, at least.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( b ) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows ( more likely , but would also pro For those of us with no cable and using only digital OTA , Hulu ( and other online sites ) replace a DVR .
And I think we 'd be willing to sit through commercials .
Call me cheap , but I would , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
(b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also pro 
For those of us with no cable and using only digital OTA, Hulu (and other online sites) replace a DVR.
And I think we'd be willing to sit through commercials.
Call me cheap, but I would, at least.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906948</id>
	<title>You need to realize something about ad execs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264531200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to realize that managers these days, especially those in extremely abstract fields like advertising, spent a large chunk of their time looking at and "analyzing" various "metrics".</p><p>It's one thing when you're managing a factory, for instance. There are metrics there, too, but they are actually useful. You can track how many items you've manufactured in a given time period, how much labor was required to manufacture those items, how many are defective, the per-unit cost of each item, and so forth. Such metrics are useful and accurate because they correspond very well to reality. A manager who knows such metrics can make more educated decisions.</p><p>That's just not the case for many other managers in different fields. Like this article discusses, the metrics dealt with in advertising are much sketchier. Sometimes they exclude huge segments of reality. Other times, they're slightly better than pure nonsense.</p><p>To try and look useful, such managers go crazy with the analysis of this shitty data. They get developers to build them "dashboards" so they can watch their bullshit numbers fluctuate in real-time. Then they try to make decisions on this half-assed information, and of course make stupid decisions. But it looks like they're hard at work, and so they get the big bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to realize that managers these days , especially those in extremely abstract fields like advertising , spent a large chunk of their time looking at and " analyzing " various " metrics " .It 's one thing when you 're managing a factory , for instance .
There are metrics there , too , but they are actually useful .
You can track how many items you 've manufactured in a given time period , how much labor was required to manufacture those items , how many are defective , the per-unit cost of each item , and so forth .
Such metrics are useful and accurate because they correspond very well to reality .
A manager who knows such metrics can make more educated decisions.That 's just not the case for many other managers in different fields .
Like this article discusses , the metrics dealt with in advertising are much sketchier .
Sometimes they exclude huge segments of reality .
Other times , they 're slightly better than pure nonsense.To try and look useful , such managers go crazy with the analysis of this shitty data .
They get developers to build them " dashboards " so they can watch their bullshit numbers fluctuate in real-time .
Then they try to make decisions on this half-assed information , and of course make stupid decisions .
But it looks like they 're hard at work , and so they get the big bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to realize that managers these days, especially those in extremely abstract fields like advertising, spent a large chunk of their time looking at and "analyzing" various "metrics".It's one thing when you're managing a factory, for instance.
There are metrics there, too, but they are actually useful.
You can track how many items you've manufactured in a given time period, how much labor was required to manufacture those items, how many are defective, the per-unit cost of each item, and so forth.
Such metrics are useful and accurate because they correspond very well to reality.
A manager who knows such metrics can make more educated decisions.That's just not the case for many other managers in different fields.
Like this article discusses, the metrics dealt with in advertising are much sketchier.
Sometimes they exclude huge segments of reality.
Other times, they're slightly better than pure nonsense.To try and look useful, such managers go crazy with the analysis of this shitty data.
They get developers to build them "dashboards" so they can watch their bullshit numbers fluctuate in real-time.
Then they try to make decisions on this half-assed information, and of course make stupid decisions.
But it looks like they're hard at work, and so they get the big bucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907202</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264532160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After all, Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising.</p></div><p>Yeah, but there's a problem in that Nielsen ratings get treated like the end-all and be-all measurement of a show's popularity and profitability.  It's the same problem with a lot of standardized tests-- they evaluate for one specific set of things, which is fine, but then they get applied much more broadly than is applicable.
</p><p>So if you're an advertiser who wants to place an ad on TV, then web views are fairly irrelevant.  However, if your an advertiser who wants to place an ad on Hulu, then these Nielsen ratings are fairly irrelevant.  If you're a network executive trying to evaluate the long-term profitability for a given show, then these Nielsen ratings are, at best, an incomplete picture.  You have to look at possible syndication deals, DVD sales, iTunes sales, Netflix licensing, Hulu views, merchandising, and probably some other stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising.Yeah , but there 's a problem in that Nielsen ratings get treated like the end-all and be-all measurement of a show 's popularity and profitability .
It 's the same problem with a lot of standardized tests-- they evaluate for one specific set of things , which is fine , but then they get applied much more broadly than is applicable .
So if you 're an advertiser who wants to place an ad on TV , then web views are fairly irrelevant .
However , if your an advertiser who wants to place an ad on Hulu , then these Nielsen ratings are fairly irrelevant .
If you 're a network executive trying to evaluate the long-term profitability for a given show , then these Nielsen ratings are , at best , an incomplete picture .
You have to look at possible syndication deals , DVD sales , iTunes sales , Netflix licensing , Hulu views , merchandising , and probably some other stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising.Yeah, but there's a problem in that Nielsen ratings get treated like the end-all and be-all measurement of a show's popularity and profitability.
It's the same problem with a lot of standardized tests-- they evaluate for one specific set of things, which is fine, but then they get applied much more broadly than is applicable.
So if you're an advertiser who wants to place an ad on TV, then web views are fairly irrelevant.
However, if your an advertiser who wants to place an ad on Hulu, then these Nielsen ratings are fairly irrelevant.
If you're a network executive trying to evaluate the long-term profitability for a given show, then these Nielsen ratings are, at best, an incomplete picture.
You have to look at possible syndication deals, DVD sales, iTunes sales, Netflix licensing, Hulu views, merchandising, and probably some other stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910324</id>
	<title>How is this shocking?</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1264502280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dirty little secret in TV is that you, the viewer, are not the customer. You're the product being sold. The advertiser is the customer. Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads. That's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers don't want to pay for those viewers, since they get no benefit from their viewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dirty little secret in TV is that you , the viewer , are not the customer .
You 're the product being sold .
The advertiser is the customer .
Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads .
That 's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers do n't want to pay for those viewers , since they get no benefit from their viewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dirty little secret in TV is that you, the viewer, are not the customer.
You're the product being sold.
The advertiser is the customer.
Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads.
That's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers don't want to pay for those viewers, since they get no benefit from their viewing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907144</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you say this?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264531980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't.  I don't have any broadcast TV anymore, and I've found that I watch more shows now than I did before.  I only watch things that are streamed on iPlayer (no ads), rented on DVD (no ads), or streamed from the company I rent DVDs from (also no ads).  I'm quite willing to pay for the content, but I'm not willing to watch ads.  I strongly suspect that the amount that I pay per show is more than the amount advertisers pays per viewer, but the studios still remain fixated on the idea that a show is only profitable if it makes a profit from advertising.  If it can't make a profit from advertising on the original network but the DVD and syndication sales make money then they cancel it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't .
I do n't have any broadcast TV anymore , and I 've found that I watch more shows now than I did before .
I only watch things that are streamed on iPlayer ( no ads ) , rented on DVD ( no ads ) , or streamed from the company I rent DVDs from ( also no ads ) .
I 'm quite willing to pay for the content , but I 'm not willing to watch ads .
I strongly suspect that the amount that I pay per show is more than the amount advertisers pays per viewer , but the studios still remain fixated on the idea that a show is only profitable if it makes a profit from advertising .
If it ca n't make a profit from advertising on the original network but the DVD and syndication sales make money then they cancel it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't.
I don't have any broadcast TV anymore, and I've found that I watch more shows now than I did before.
I only watch things that are streamed on iPlayer (no ads), rented on DVD (no ads), or streamed from the company I rent DVDs from (also no ads).
I'm quite willing to pay for the content, but I'm not willing to watch ads.
I strongly suspect that the amount that I pay per show is more than the amount advertisers pays per viewer, but the studios still remain fixated on the idea that a show is only profitable if it makes a profit from advertising.
If it can't make a profit from advertising on the original network but the DVD and syndication sales make money then they cancel it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907868</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264535040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have "better things things to do" after getting engaged, but yet when you are in bed with your fianc&#233; you watch a movie? Lets hope you "watch" as much of the movie as a pair of teenagers at a drive in movie do.  'cause if you don't, you are really missing the point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have " better things things to do " after getting engaged , but yet when you are in bed with your fianc   you watch a movie ?
Lets hope you " watch " as much of the movie as a pair of teenagers at a drive in movie do .
'cause if you do n't , you are really missing the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have "better things things to do" after getting engaged, but yet when you are in bed with your fiancé you watch a movie?
Lets hope you "watch" as much of the movie as a pair of teenagers at a drive in movie do.
'cause if you don't, you are really missing the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906506</id>
	<title>Evil overlords</title>
	<author>hubdawg</author>
	<datestamp>1264529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of mass media only profit from perceived returns.  As long as the masses pay for their TV through satellite and cable services they remain content.  As more and more move towards non traditional mediums they will devise defensive situations to corral the media hungry into their pens. It is basically a cattle herding effect.  The more viewers they can prove, the more they demand for their ad space.  My family and I have  become rebels in that respect, as we have not had a paid television service in over 5 years. Unless you count online fees for internet access. All our television entertainment comes from Netflix, Hulu, and DVD rentals and purchases. When I share this with people they are stunned and aghast that we can even survive without paid TV in our homes. The day we cancelled our satellite, the operator called us liars when they asked what service we would be switching to. As our answer was that we would not have cable or satellite. It is beyond the average persons comprehension that you can survive with out paid TV. Try it you will like it was my answer. The added time and freedom of not being saddled with monthly payments for television is a gift that will repay you many times over. Buck the system dump the cable and satellite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>of mass media only profit from perceived returns .
As long as the masses pay for their TV through satellite and cable services they remain content .
As more and more move towards non traditional mediums they will devise defensive situations to corral the media hungry into their pens .
It is basically a cattle herding effect .
The more viewers they can prove , the more they demand for their ad space .
My family and I have become rebels in that respect , as we have not had a paid television service in over 5 years .
Unless you count online fees for internet access .
All our television entertainment comes from Netflix , Hulu , and DVD rentals and purchases .
When I share this with people they are stunned and aghast that we can even survive without paid TV in our homes .
The day we cancelled our satellite , the operator called us liars when they asked what service we would be switching to .
As our answer was that we would not have cable or satellite .
It is beyond the average persons comprehension that you can survive with out paid TV .
Try it you will like it was my answer .
The added time and freedom of not being saddled with monthly payments for television is a gift that will repay you many times over .
Buck the system dump the cable and satellite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of mass media only profit from perceived returns.
As long as the masses pay for their TV through satellite and cable services they remain content.
As more and more move towards non traditional mediums they will devise defensive situations to corral the media hungry into their pens.
It is basically a cattle herding effect.
The more viewers they can prove, the more they demand for their ad space.
My family and I have  become rebels in that respect, as we have not had a paid television service in over 5 years.
Unless you count online fees for internet access.
All our television entertainment comes from Netflix, Hulu, and DVD rentals and purchases.
When I share this with people they are stunned and aghast that we can even survive without paid TV in our homes.
The day we cancelled our satellite, the operator called us liars when they asked what service we would be switching to.
As our answer was that we would not have cable or satellite.
It is beyond the average persons comprehension that you can survive with out paid TV.
Try it you will like it was my answer.
The added time and freedom of not being saddled with monthly payments for television is a gift that will repay you many times over.
Buck the system dump the cable and satellite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907644</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to miss TV</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264534200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado</i></p><p>You can see the live sporting events at your local bar, and for tornados there's www.weather.com (the weather channel web site). It works well on a phone as well as a computer, even the radar maps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornadoYou can see the live sporting events at your local bar , and for tornados there 's www.weather.com ( the weather channel web site ) .
It works well on a phone as well as a computer , even the radar maps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornadoYou can see the live sporting events at your local bar, and for tornados there's www.weather.com (the weather channel web site).
It works well on a phone as well as a computer, even the radar maps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906440</id>
	<title>And this is a bad thing?</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1264529040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like it or not "free" television shows are advertising supported.  Having a real way to measure how many people are watching online will finally give legitimacy to online advertising in streaming video and will help ad rates significantly.  I know everyone likes free and hates advertising but in a medium like that there is no other way around it beyond pay per view or a wealthy benefactor who doesn't mind the idea of throwing away cash to entertain the masses.</p><p>There will be benefits to consumers as well, more will likely make their shows available online and time shifting not counting towards ratings will be less of an issue.  This may actually help "save" shows in the future that had wide followings online and through tivo's but didn't reflect those audiences in ratings (Firefly or Dollhouse anyone?).  It may also lead to a greater willingness to provide web only content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like it or not " free " television shows are advertising supported .
Having a real way to measure how many people are watching online will finally give legitimacy to online advertising in streaming video and will help ad rates significantly .
I know everyone likes free and hates advertising but in a medium like that there is no other way around it beyond pay per view or a wealthy benefactor who does n't mind the idea of throwing away cash to entertain the masses.There will be benefits to consumers as well , more will likely make their shows available online and time shifting not counting towards ratings will be less of an issue .
This may actually help " save " shows in the future that had wide followings online and through tivo 's but did n't reflect those audiences in ratings ( Firefly or Dollhouse anyone ? ) .
It may also lead to a greater willingness to provide web only content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like it or not "free" television shows are advertising supported.
Having a real way to measure how many people are watching online will finally give legitimacy to online advertising in streaming video and will help ad rates significantly.
I know everyone likes free and hates advertising but in a medium like that there is no other way around it beyond pay per view or a wealthy benefactor who doesn't mind the idea of throwing away cash to entertain the masses.There will be benefits to consumers as well, more will likely make their shows available online and time shifting not counting towards ratings will be less of an issue.
This may actually help "save" shows in the future that had wide followings online and through tivo's but didn't reflect those audiences in ratings (Firefly or Dollhouse anyone?).
It may also lead to a greater willingness to provide web only content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909380</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>tomuo</author>
	<datestamp>1264498320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong. TIVO has had a relationship with Neilsen for a few years already.

When I had a TIVO, they asked me if I wanted to be a Neilsen TIVO user, which I agreed to.
TIVO updated the OS to a special version shortly after.
The usual Neilsen behaviour rules applied: please use the TIVO remote to turn the TV set on and off so they don't count the time playing to an empty audience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
TIVO has had a relationship with Neilsen for a few years already .
When I had a TIVO , they asked me if I wanted to be a Neilsen TIVO user , which I agreed to .
TIVO updated the OS to a special version shortly after .
The usual Neilsen behaviour rules applied : please use the TIVO remote to turn the TV set on and off so they do n't count the time playing to an empty audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
TIVO has had a relationship with Neilsen for a few years already.
When I had a TIVO, they asked me if I wanted to be a Neilsen TIVO user, which I agreed to.
TIVO updated the OS to a special version shortly after.
The usual Neilsen behaviour rules applied: please use the TIVO remote to turn the TV set on and off so they don't count the time playing to an empty audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906758</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>ShiningSomething</author>
	<datestamp>1264530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You only care about how many people will watch *your* commercial, not how many commercials those people have seen already. So why would they count for less?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen .
You only care about how many people will watch * your * commercial , not how many commercials those people have seen already .
So why would they count for less ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.
You only care about how many people will watch *your* commercial, not how many commercials those people have seen already.
So why would they count for less?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906164</id>
	<title>Nielsen Ratings</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1264528080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess Conan should have had more commercials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Conan should have had more commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Conan should have had more commercials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909984</id>
	<title>Not the death of Hulu - Bad Soulskill(Noskill)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264500840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stuff in parenthesis is not even in the article, as your quotation marks would make us think(your retarded), and why would more ads be the death of Hulu?  Most people use that service because they want to watch their favorite shows whenever and as often they want, not because they want less commercials.  To be honest I prefer television commercials better because I don't have to watch the same one over and over again.  Anyways, wouldn't most people just tab away from the commercials and when they heard their show start back up they just tab back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff in parenthesis is not even in the article , as your quotation marks would make us think ( your retarded ) , and why would more ads be the death of Hulu ?
Most people use that service because they want to watch their favorite shows whenever and as often they want , not because they want less commercials .
To be honest I prefer television commercials better because I do n't have to watch the same one over and over again .
Anyways , would n't most people just tab away from the commercials and when they heard their show start back up they just tab back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff in parenthesis is not even in the article, as your quotation marks would make us think(your retarded), and why would more ads be the death of Hulu?
Most people use that service because they want to watch their favorite shows whenever and as often they want, not because they want less commercials.
To be honest I prefer television commercials better because I don't have to watch the same one over and over again.
Anyways, wouldn't most people just tab away from the commercials and when they heard their show start back up they just tab back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906570</id>
	<title>Bad analogy</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264529520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trilobites existed way before dinosaurs, not after.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite" title="wikipedia.org">Trilobite</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trilobites existed way before dinosaurs , not after.Trilobite [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trilobites existed way before dinosaurs, not after.Trilobite [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907574</id>
	<title>Botnets</title>
	<author>root69</author>
	<datestamp>1264533900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is great news for botnet operators.  They will soon have a new customer with deep pockets that need help bumping up their "viewership".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great news for botnet operators .
They will soon have a new customer with deep pockets that need help bumping up their " viewership " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great news for botnet operators.
They will soon have a new customer with deep pockets that need help bumping up their "viewership".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907222</id>
	<title>ratings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264532280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"(a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely)"</p><p>"Everyone" does not count in ratings. Only the Neilson families chosen for the rating process affect ratings.<br>They have no idea what I watch, or what you watch when it comes to whats viewed over the air. However, as another commentor<br>stated, they can know how many people are watching what shows on purpose when it comes to online viewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( a ) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity , so that their viewing counts in the ratings ( unlikely ) " " Everyone " does not count in ratings .
Only the Neilson families chosen for the rating process affect ratings.They have no idea what I watch , or what you watch when it comes to whats viewed over the air .
However , as another commentorstated , they can know how many people are watching what shows on purpose when it comes to online viewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"(a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely)""Everyone" does not count in ratings.
Only the Neilson families chosen for the rating process affect ratings.They have no idea what I watch, or what you watch when it comes to whats viewed over the air.
However, as another commentorstated, they can know how many people are watching what shows on purpose when it comes to online viewing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1264528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising.  If the show you're watching doesn't have the same number of ads, then it's useless in terms of advertising sales as it's not apples to apples.</p><p>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising .
If the show you 're watching does n't have the same number of ads , then it 's useless in terms of advertising sales as it 's not apples to apples.Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, Nielsen reports ratings so that shows can sell more advertising.
If the show you're watching doesn't have the same number of ads, then it's useless in terms of advertising sales as it's not apples to apples.Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908430</id>
	<title>But only if you watch it on windows?</title>
	<author>baomike</author>
	<datestamp>1264536960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Took an online survey about a year ago from Nielsen , first thing it wanted to do was download some software, an exe IIRC.<br>a no-go on linux.<br>I tried the survey in a VM windows instance and of course the file down loaded. Never did try too hard to find out what the<br>exe did, really didn't care that much, just reset the VM.</p><p>I have always assumed it was to measure my video viewing habits, but who knows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Took an online survey about a year ago from Nielsen , first thing it wanted to do was download some software , an exe IIRC.a no-go on linux.I tried the survey in a VM windows instance and of course the file down loaded .
Never did try too hard to find out what theexe did , really did n't care that much , just reset the VM.I have always assumed it was to measure my video viewing habits , but who knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took an online survey about a year ago from Nielsen , first thing it wanted to do was download some software, an exe IIRC.a no-go on linux.I tried the survey in a VM windows instance and of course the file down loaded.
Never did try too hard to find out what theexe did, really didn't care that much, just reset the VM.I have always assumed it was to measure my video viewing habits, but who knows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906394</id>
	<title>TV Everywhere NOT equivalent of DukeNukem Forever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duke Nukem actually got released which puts them ahead of TV Everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duke Nukem actually got released which puts them ahead of TV Everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duke Nukem actually got released which puts them ahead of TV Everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906334</id>
	<title>You NEED to track all viewings and here's why...</title>
	<author>SoTerrified</author>
	<datestamp>1264528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because then Nielson could put together a ratings list that shows ratings based on the amount of advertising.  I won't lie, like most people one of the reasons I prefer watching TV through alternate means is to avoid the advertising.  Yet I don't require zero advertising.  There is a level of advertising that's more acceptable.</p><p>With this information, networks could find out how LESS advertising could generate more views.  As a result, they could offer scaled advertising rates to advertisers based on the number of views.  Which is exactly what the Nielson ratings are supposed to be doing now, except they totally ignore the big black hole of online content.  This change, only measuring apples to apples comparisons and completely ignoring the oranges, just makes that big black hole slightly smaller.  It doesn't serve the advertisers, it doesn't serve the viewers and it doesn't accept that there are new entertainment models.</p><p>Way to go, Nielsons!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because then Nielson could put together a ratings list that shows ratings based on the amount of advertising .
I wo n't lie , like most people one of the reasons I prefer watching TV through alternate means is to avoid the advertising .
Yet I do n't require zero advertising .
There is a level of advertising that 's more acceptable.With this information , networks could find out how LESS advertising could generate more views .
As a result , they could offer scaled advertising rates to advertisers based on the number of views .
Which is exactly what the Nielson ratings are supposed to be doing now , except they totally ignore the big black hole of online content .
This change , only measuring apples to apples comparisons and completely ignoring the oranges , just makes that big black hole slightly smaller .
It does n't serve the advertisers , it does n't serve the viewers and it does n't accept that there are new entertainment models.Way to go , Nielsons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because then Nielson could put together a ratings list that shows ratings based on the amount of advertising.
I won't lie, like most people one of the reasons I prefer watching TV through alternate means is to avoid the advertising.
Yet I don't require zero advertising.
There is a level of advertising that's more acceptable.With this information, networks could find out how LESS advertising could generate more views.
As a result, they could offer scaled advertising rates to advertisers based on the number of views.
Which is exactly what the Nielson ratings are supposed to be doing now, except they totally ignore the big black hole of online content.
This change, only measuring apples to apples comparisons and completely ignoring the oranges, just makes that big black hole slightly smaller.
It doesn't serve the advertisers, it doesn't serve the viewers and it doesn't accept that there are new entertainment models.Way to go, Nielsons!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906682</id>
	<title>Option (c)</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1264530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So either, (a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely), or (b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu)."</p></div><p>Or (c), Nielsen Ratings begin to lose their importance, clout, and influence over the next few years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So either , ( a ) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity , so that their viewing counts in the ratings ( unlikely ) , or ( b ) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows ( more likely , but would also probably mean the death of Hulu ) .
" Or ( c ) , Nielsen Ratings begin to lose their importance , clout , and influence over the next few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So either, (a) everyone will rush out to watch their online TV on Comcast XFinity, so that their viewing counts in the ratings (unlikely), or (b) Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu).
"Or (c), Nielsen Ratings begin to lose their importance, clout, and influence over the next few years.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906348</id>
	<title>Nielsen Ratings Will Become Less Important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online viewers will not put up with the same quantity of ads as regular television (certainly not this viewer.)  Hulu is just barely tolerable at 30 second spots.  They've done the testing and research, they know what people will put up with.  Nielsen Ratings are used to sell ad space, the better the rating, the more can be charged.  If "Nielsen" won't rate online TV outlets, the internet TV "Industry" will come up with their own way of justifying ad sales.  Point number one, fewer and shorter ads increase the probability that the viewers will actually watch them.  Point number two, each viewer must request the view, making it much easier to accurately count and tie to demographics.  Who needs Nielsen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online viewers will not put up with the same quantity of ads as regular television ( certainly not this viewer .
) Hulu is just barely tolerable at 30 second spots .
They 've done the testing and research , they know what people will put up with .
Nielsen Ratings are used to sell ad space , the better the rating , the more can be charged .
If " Nielsen " wo n't rate online TV outlets , the internet TV " Industry " will come up with their own way of justifying ad sales .
Point number one , fewer and shorter ads increase the probability that the viewers will actually watch them .
Point number two , each viewer must request the view , making it much easier to accurately count and tie to demographics .
Who needs Nielsen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online viewers will not put up with the same quantity of ads as regular television (certainly not this viewer.
)  Hulu is just barely tolerable at 30 second spots.
They've done the testing and research, they know what people will put up with.
Nielsen Ratings are used to sell ad space, the better the rating, the more can be charged.
If "Nielsen" won't rate online TV outlets, the internet TV "Industry" will come up with their own way of justifying ad sales.
Point number one, fewer and shorter ads increase the probability that the viewers will actually watch them.
Point number two, each viewer must request the view, making it much easier to accurately count and tie to demographics.
Who needs Nielsen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906514</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>nightsweat</author>
	<datestamp>1264529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  fewer ads in a Hulu broadcast might be worth more as far as the depth of impression made.  If you watch "Accidentally on Purpose" on TV, you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny.  Or, you might just happen to be killing time between "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory".  Neilsen can't tell.<br> <br>

If, however, you watch Accidentally on Purpose on Hulu, it's because you want to watch Accidentally on Purpose.  The ads that are targeted to that crowd are more narrowly and more properly targeted to you the Hulu viewer and shoudl be be more valuable per impression.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
fewer ads in a Hulu broadcast might be worth more as far as the depth of impression made .
If you watch " Accidentally on Purpose " on TV , you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny .
Or , you might just happen to be killing time between " How I Met Your Mother " and " The Big Bang Theory " .
Neilsen ca n't tell .
If , however , you watch Accidentally on Purpose on Hulu , it 's because you want to watch Accidentally on Purpose .
The ads that are targeted to that crowd are more narrowly and more properly targeted to you the Hulu viewer and shoudl be be more valuable per impression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
fewer ads in a Hulu broadcast might be worth more as far as the depth of impression made.
If you watch "Accidentally on Purpose" on TV, you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny.
Or, you might just happen to be killing time between "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory".
Neilsen can't tell.
If, however, you watch Accidentally on Purpose on Hulu, it's because you want to watch Accidentally on Purpose.
The ads that are targeted to that crowd are more narrowly and more properly targeted to you the Hulu viewer and shoudl be be more valuable per impression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906384</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</p></div><p>They do if ads can be added to the show in the future. I'd be very interested in such data if I were searching for a place to stick an ad. I'd be especially interested if I could be the only ad in the show, so my ad would stick out instead of being lost among the others. As such, I think Nielsen is being moronic here--advertisers on limited-ad broadcasts should be eager for such data and therefore so should the content producers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.They do if ads can be added to the show in the future .
I 'd be very interested in such data if I were searching for a place to stick an ad .
I 'd be especially interested if I could be the only ad in the show , so my ad would stick out instead of being lost among the others .
As such , I think Nielsen is being moronic here--advertisers on limited-ad broadcasts should be eager for such data and therefore so should the content producers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.They do if ads can be added to the show in the future.
I'd be very interested in such data if I were searching for a place to stick an ad.
I'd be especially interested if I could be the only ad in the show, so my ad would stick out instead of being lost among the others.
As such, I think Nielsen is being moronic here--advertisers on limited-ad broadcasts should be eager for such data and therefore so should the content producers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906696</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you say this?</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1264530120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some people, sure, but they could potentially lose a lot of viewers as well. Hulu currently hosts a surprisingly huge amount of anime. This, however, makes sense, since Japanese animation studios tend not to be so uptight about copyright issues and so there are at least 10 streaming versions of every major anime in existence on a site somewhere... Hulu offers a stable, consistently high-quality video in return for 1 minute or two of commercials per episode, so the company can make advertising money out of a demographic that does not usually see commercials. If the amount of commercials goes up, I'd imagine those viewers would just go back to the no-ads versions that are easily found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some people , sure , but they could potentially lose a lot of viewers as well .
Hulu currently hosts a surprisingly huge amount of anime .
This , however , makes sense , since Japanese animation studios tend not to be so uptight about copyright issues and so there are at least 10 streaming versions of every major anime in existence on a site somewhere... Hulu offers a stable , consistently high-quality video in return for 1 minute or two of commercials per episode , so the company can make advertising money out of a demographic that does not usually see commercials .
If the amount of commercials goes up , I 'd imagine those viewers would just go back to the no-ads versions that are easily found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some people, sure, but they could potentially lose a lot of viewers as well.
Hulu currently hosts a surprisingly huge amount of anime.
This, however, makes sense, since Japanese animation studios tend not to be so uptight about copyright issues and so there are at least 10 streaming versions of every major anime in existence on a site somewhere... Hulu offers a stable, consistently high-quality video in return for 1 minute or two of commercials per episode, so the company can make advertising money out of a demographic that does not usually see commercials.
If the amount of commercials goes up, I'd imagine those viewers would just go back to the no-ads versions that are easily found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907142</id>
	<title>Option C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264531980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually, Neilsen will need to revamp their system, as online advertisements (seen around a video showing, rather than pauses during a show) will hopefully be a preferred method of advertising.  I see the push-back as people chose internet sources, or DVR-style content skipping reduces the effectiveness of a Neilsen rating.  Maybe even more Truman-style product placement in shows will eventually take over?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , Neilsen will need to revamp their system , as online advertisements ( seen around a video showing , rather than pauses during a show ) will hopefully be a preferred method of advertising .
I see the push-back as people chose internet sources , or DVR-style content skipping reduces the effectiveness of a Neilsen rating .
Maybe even more Truman-style product placement in shows will eventually take over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, Neilsen will need to revamp their system, as online advertisements (seen around a video showing, rather than pauses during a show) will hopefully be a preferred method of advertising.
I see the push-back as people chose internet sources, or DVR-style content skipping reduces the effectiveness of a Neilsen rating.
Maybe even more Truman-style product placement in shows will eventually take over?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906472</id>
	<title>Why would Hulu need Nielsen Ratings?</title>
	<author>Van Cutter Romney</author>
	<datestamp>1264529160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlike traditional TV where you need ratings like Nielsen, to get advertisers, Hulu could just show the traffic that comes to their site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike traditional TV where you need ratings like Nielsen , to get advertisers , Hulu could just show the traffic that comes to their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike traditional TV where you need ratings like Nielsen, to get advertisers, Hulu could just show the traffic that comes to their site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914294</id>
	<title>Re:Why would Hulu need Nielsen Ratings?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264535760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hulu advertising works just like every other form of web advertising.  You pay per impression.  You know how many viewers your commercials got directly on your bill as an advertiser.</p><p>You agree to pay $X per impression, they send you a bill that says 'you got Y number of impressions at $X per impression for a total of $XY'</p><p>OR</p><p>You agree to pay $X per impression, up to a total ammount of $Y.  You will get Y/X impressions for your money.</p><p>X is variable and depends on which show(s) you want your ad to be associated with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu advertising works just like every other form of web advertising .
You pay per impression .
You know how many viewers your commercials got directly on your bill as an advertiser.You agree to pay $ X per impression , they send you a bill that says 'you got Y number of impressions at $ X per impression for a total of $ XY'ORYou agree to pay $ X per impression , up to a total ammount of $ Y .
You will get Y/X impressions for your money.X is variable and depends on which show ( s ) you want your ad to be associated with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu advertising works just like every other form of web advertising.
You pay per impression.
You know how many viewers your commercials got directly on your bill as an advertiser.You agree to pay $X per impression, they send you a bill that says 'you got Y number of impressions at $X per impression for a total of $XY'ORYou agree to pay $X per impression, up to a total ammount of $Y.
You will get Y/X impressions for your money.X is variable and depends on which show(s) you want your ad to be associated with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908790</id>
	<title>Please show your work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264538760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu)</p></div></blockquote><p>Pardon?</p><p>I watch Hulu occasionally.  I completely understand that their current model is unsustainable.  They need more ad revenue if they're going to continue to exist.  One way to do that is to put in more ads.  I understand that.  I'm comfortable with it.  I would not abandon the site because of this.</p><p>People are already watching OTA TV with its current rate of ads.  What makes the submitter think that free streaming should be any different?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( more likely , but would also probably mean the death of Hulu ) Pardon ? I watch Hulu occasionally .
I completely understand that their current model is unsustainable .
They need more ad revenue if they 're going to continue to exist .
One way to do that is to put in more ads .
I understand that .
I 'm comfortable with it .
I would not abandon the site because of this.People are already watching OTA TV with its current rate of ads .
What makes the submitter think that free streaming should be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu)Pardon?I watch Hulu occasionally.
I completely understand that their current model is unsustainable.
They need more ad revenue if they're going to continue to exist.
One way to do that is to put in more ads.
I understand that.
I'm comfortable with it.
I would not abandon the site because of this.People are already watching OTA TV with its current rate of ads.
What makes the submitter think that free streaming should be any different?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906226</id>
	<title>What is the point?</title>
	<author>capt.Hij</author>
	<datestamp>1264528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they insist on only measuring "full length" media. They will make themselves obsolete if they insist on measuring the way old media works. Related to that sentiment
they forgot option "c," keep on ignoring the ratings and do what you like not what they want us to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they insist on only measuring " full length " media .
They will make themselves obsolete if they insist on measuring the way old media works .
Related to that sentiment they forgot option " c , " keep on ignoring the ratings and do what you like not what they want us to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they insist on only measuring "full length" media.
They will make themselves obsolete if they insist on measuring the way old media works.
Related to that sentiment
they forgot option "c," keep on ignoring the ratings and do what you like not what they want us to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906756</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>modestmelody</author>
	<datestamp>1264530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it doesn't make sense.<br>
<br>
What would make sense is adjusting a Hulu viewer so they're only worth a fraction of a traditional viewer (i.e., this viewer sees 1/3 the commericals so they're coutned as 0.33 viewers).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does n't make sense .
What would make sense is adjusting a Hulu viewer so they 're only worth a fraction of a traditional viewer ( i.e. , this viewer sees 1/3 the commericals so they 're coutned as 0.33 viewers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it doesn't make sense.
What would make sense is adjusting a Hulu viewer so they're only worth a fraction of a traditional viewer (i.e., this viewer sees 1/3 the commericals so they're coutned as 0.33 viewers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907384</id>
	<title>Re:What is the point?</title>
	<author>linguizic</author>
	<datestamp>1264533000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This leaves room for some enterprising individuals to come up with their own ratings that better meet the needs of today's media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This leaves room for some enterprising individuals to come up with their own ratings that better meet the needs of today 's media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This leaves room for some enterprising individuals to come up with their own ratings that better meet the needs of today's media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909054</id>
	<title>Re:Why would Hulu need Nielsen Ratings?</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1264496760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use Hulu, but if they have something like Google analytics included in their script soup then they can also create a detailed demographic profile of their viewers rather than just processing their own logs. That's something Nielsen can't do. If I were an advertiser I would be willing to pay a little premium for better targeted ads shown to only the eyeballs most likely respond to them. For instance, it's wasteful to advertise women's products to men. If I had 100\% confidence in the gender of a viewer I might be willing to pay a 20\% premium to show my ad to half as many people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Hulu , but if they have something like Google analytics included in their script soup then they can also create a detailed demographic profile of their viewers rather than just processing their own logs .
That 's something Nielsen ca n't do .
If I were an advertiser I would be willing to pay a little premium for better targeted ads shown to only the eyeballs most likely respond to them .
For instance , it 's wasteful to advertise women 's products to men .
If I had 100 \ % confidence in the gender of a viewer I might be willing to pay a 20 \ % premium to show my ad to half as many people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Hulu, but if they have something like Google analytics included in their script soup then they can also create a detailed demographic profile of their viewers rather than just processing their own logs.
That's something Nielsen can't do.
If I were an advertiser I would be willing to pay a little premium for better targeted ads shown to only the eyeballs most likely respond to them.
For instance, it's wasteful to advertise women's products to men.
If I had 100\% confidence in the gender of a viewer I might be willing to pay a 20\% premium to show my ad to half as many people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910310</id>
	<title>would also probably mean the death of Hulu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264502220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or the death of Nielsen Ratings. Someone will show up to measure the views properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or the death of Nielsen Ratings .
Someone will show up to measure the views properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or the death of Nielsen Ratings.
Someone will show up to measure the views properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906680</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1264530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why not make the "classic" Nielsen rating and one for "online" or "alternate presentation"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why not make the " classic " Nielsen rating and one for " online " or " alternate presentation " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why not make the "classic" Nielsen rating and one for "online" or "alternate presentation"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30911266</id>
	<title>Re:Bad analogy</title>
	<author>yurtinus</author>
	<datestamp>1264506840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anybody else want to do the woosh? Should I just go ahead and do it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody else want to do the woosh ?
Should I just go ahead and do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody else want to do the woosh?
Should I just go ahead and do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908924</id>
	<title>Network 23, here we come</title>
	<author>TheLoneGundam</author>
	<datestamp>1264539360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We will see 'blipverts' before long in this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max\_Headroom\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">Network 23-like</a> [wikipedia.org] world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We will see 'blipverts ' before long in this Network 23-like [ wikipedia.org ] world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We will see 'blipverts' before long in this Network 23-like [wikipedia.org] world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906598</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you say this?</title>
	<author>ChipMonk</author>
	<datestamp>1264529640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're not alone in that. I don't even have decent digital OTA. When I visit my parents, I watch House and reruns of Firefly. The former is the only show in current lineups that I'd watch; it isn't worth it to me, to buy a telly for one show. The latter isn't available on broadcast OR cable anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not alone in that .
I do n't even have decent digital OTA .
When I visit my parents , I watch House and reruns of Firefly .
The former is the only show in current lineups that I 'd watch ; it is n't worth it to me , to buy a telly for one show .
The latter is n't available on broadcast OR cable anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not alone in that.
I don't even have decent digital OTA.
When I visit my parents, I watch House and reruns of Firefly.
The former is the only show in current lineups that I'd watch; it isn't worth it to me, to buy a telly for one show.
The latter isn't available on broadcast OR cable anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30915332</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1264595340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</i></p><p>Wrong. With the recent trend in Product Placement advertising, EVERYONE in advertising would care if 500,000,000 people were watching a show.</p><p>(How the hell you got modded +5 for knowing nothing about the industry... well, that's slashdot for you.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.Wrong .
With the recent trend in Product Placement advertising , EVERYONE in advertising would care if 500,000,000 people were watching a show .
( How the hell you got modded + 5 for knowing nothing about the industry... well , that 's slashdot for you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.Wrong.
With the recent trend in Product Placement advertising, EVERYONE in advertising would care if 500,000,000 people were watching a show.
(How the hell you got modded +5 for knowing nothing about the industry... well, that's slashdot for you.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906526</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>businessnerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there are no ads at all, and no intent on introducing ads in the future, then yes, Nielson should not count them because the whole point of the Nielsen ratings is to set advertising prices for a given slot.  But Hulu does show ads, even though it is not as many as regular broadcast.  So how do we set the price for those ad slots?  Should the Hulu ad be cheaper or more expensive than the broadcast TV ad?  This is an important question that needs to be answered.  If more people are watching the online version where only a handful of commercials appear, then those slots should have a greater value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there are no ads at all , and no intent on introducing ads in the future , then yes , Nielson should not count them because the whole point of the Nielsen ratings is to set advertising prices for a given slot .
But Hulu does show ads , even though it is not as many as regular broadcast .
So how do we set the price for those ad slots ?
Should the Hulu ad be cheaper or more expensive than the broadcast TV ad ?
This is an important question that needs to be answered .
If more people are watching the online version where only a handful of commercials appear , then those slots should have a greater value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there are no ads at all, and no intent on introducing ads in the future, then yes, Nielson should not count them because the whole point of the Nielsen ratings is to set advertising prices for a given slot.
But Hulu does show ads, even though it is not as many as regular broadcast.
So how do we set the price for those ad slots?
Should the Hulu ad be cheaper or more expensive than the broadcast TV ad?
This is an important question that needs to be answered.
If more people are watching the online version where only a handful of commercials appear, then those slots should have a greater value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908448</id>
	<title>bittorrent seeds = ratings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264537020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple.</p><p>rating = seeds * leechers</p><p>Neilsens services are no longer required.</p><p>-JP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple.rating = seeds * leechersNeilsens services are no longer required.-JP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple.rating = seeds * leechersNeilsens services are no longer required.-JP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907618</id>
	<title>Re:Wake me up when...</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1264534080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they count bittorrent views? Nielsen Ratings is information for advertisers. TV shows in bittorrent files almost always have advertisers removed. It makes no sense for Nielsen Ratings to carry those statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they count bittorrent views ?
Nielsen Ratings is information for advertisers .
TV shows in bittorrent files almost always have advertisers removed .
It makes no sense for Nielsen Ratings to carry those statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they count bittorrent views?
Nielsen Ratings is information for advertisers.
TV shows in bittorrent files almost always have advertisers removed.
It makes no sense for Nielsen Ratings to carry those statistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907768</id>
	<title>more adertisements would mean the death of Hulu?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264534680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu).</i> </p><p>And what are people supposed to be doing instead of hulu.com?  Pirating?  I don't agree with the excessive punishments that are being doled out to pirates but so long as they are as excessive as they are it seems to me that you're taking an unnecessary risk.  I mean, seriously, are you so opposed to the notion of sitting down for a full hour instead of fifty minutes that you'd be willing to take that risk?  If you're time is so valuable that you can't spend ten extra minutes sitting down then why are you even watching TV in the first place?  Surely the fifty minutes you're willing to spend watching TV could be better spent doing something else?</p><p>Or maybe the alternative is <a href="https://www.timewarnercable.com/buyflow/buyflow.ashx?action=ProductDetail&amp;id=DG\%20CBL\%20CTX" title="timewarnercable.com" rel="nofollow">paying $600.00 / year</a> [timewarnercable.com] for cable TV?  At that point, aren't you doing exactly what the advertisers want?  Paying money *because of* advertisements?  Personally, I'd just assume keep that $600.00 then spend it on something I could have otherwise gotten for free.  Heck - I'd rather up and buy a new $600.00 laptop every year then spend that much on cable TV.  Or maybe buy $600.00 worth of *commercial free* DVDs of the series' I would have otherwise watched on cable TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows ( more likely , but would also probably mean the death of Hulu ) .
And what are people supposed to be doing instead of hulu.com ?
Pirating ? I do n't agree with the excessive punishments that are being doled out to pirates but so long as they are as excessive as they are it seems to me that you 're taking an unnecessary risk .
I mean , seriously , are you so opposed to the notion of sitting down for a full hour instead of fifty minutes that you 'd be willing to take that risk ?
If you 're time is so valuable that you ca n't spend ten extra minutes sitting down then why are you even watching TV in the first place ?
Surely the fifty minutes you 're willing to spend watching TV could be better spent doing something else ? Or maybe the alternative is paying $ 600.00 / year [ timewarnercable.com ] for cable TV ?
At that point , are n't you doing exactly what the advertisers want ?
Paying money * because of * advertisements ?
Personally , I 'd just assume keep that $ 600.00 then spend it on something I could have otherwise gotten for free .
Heck - I 'd rather up and buy a new $ 600.00 laptop every year then spend that much on cable TV .
Or maybe buy $ 600.00 worth of * commercial free * DVDs of the series ' I would have otherwise watched on cable TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hulu and everyone else starts to put more advertisements on their shows (more likely, but would also probably mean the death of Hulu).
And what are people supposed to be doing instead of hulu.com?
Pirating?  I don't agree with the excessive punishments that are being doled out to pirates but so long as they are as excessive as they are it seems to me that you're taking an unnecessary risk.
I mean, seriously, are you so opposed to the notion of sitting down for a full hour instead of fifty minutes that you'd be willing to take that risk?
If you're time is so valuable that you can't spend ten extra minutes sitting down then why are you even watching TV in the first place?
Surely the fifty minutes you're willing to spend watching TV could be better spent doing something else?Or maybe the alternative is paying $600.00 / year [timewarnercable.com] for cable TV?
At that point, aren't you doing exactly what the advertisers want?
Paying money *because of* advertisements?
Personally, I'd just assume keep that $600.00 then spend it on something I could have otherwise gotten for free.
Heck - I'd rather up and buy a new $600.00 laptop every year then spend that much on cable TV.
Or maybe buy $600.00 worth of *commercial free* DVDs of the series' I would have otherwise watched on cable TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907252</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264532340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, many television shows are moving towards product placement instead of traditional advertising. Most companies understand that the normal TV model is a thing of the past, considering that many people have DVRs and now stream TV online.</p><p>If you have ever seen the show "Chuck" on NBC, you would see quite a bit of this. For one, part of the show often takes place in an electronics retail store which allows considerable ads to be placed around the store in the form of cardboard cutouts and product displays. Video games are often topics for conversation, including major promotions from Call of Duty and Madden NFL 10 being incorporated (extremely cleverly, I might add) into the storyline. In addition to video games and cars (which have been doing product placement for years), Subway has stated that their product placement with Chuck was one of their most successful ad partnerships ever.</p><p>Now, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether Nielsen includes steaming content in their ratings. Any network that streams its own shows should have access to their data without a problem, and if Hulu doesn't already provide this data back to the networks, I doubt it would make much for them to do so. Any ad exec that still bases his decisions solely on Nielsen ratings at this point doesn't deserve his job.</p><p>PS. Watch Chuck. It's a fantastically done spy comedy that always finds its way to cleverly tell a story, even if its premise is a bit old. (Unwitting everyman accidentally gains "superpowers" and must learn to become a hero.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , many television shows are moving towards product placement instead of traditional advertising .
Most companies understand that the normal TV model is a thing of the past , considering that many people have DVRs and now stream TV online.If you have ever seen the show " Chuck " on NBC , you would see quite a bit of this .
For one , part of the show often takes place in an electronics retail store which allows considerable ads to be placed around the store in the form of cardboard cutouts and product displays .
Video games are often topics for conversation , including major promotions from Call of Duty and Madden NFL 10 being incorporated ( extremely cleverly , I might add ) into the storyline .
In addition to video games and cars ( which have been doing product placement for years ) , Subway has stated that their product placement with Chuck was one of their most successful ad partnerships ever.Now , as far as I 'm concerned , it does n't matter whether Nielsen includes steaming content in their ratings .
Any network that streams its own shows should have access to their data without a problem , and if Hulu does n't already provide this data back to the networks , I doubt it would make much for them to do so .
Any ad exec that still bases his decisions solely on Nielsen ratings at this point does n't deserve his job.PS .
Watch Chuck .
It 's a fantastically done spy comedy that always finds its way to cleverly tell a story , even if its premise is a bit old .
( Unwitting everyman accidentally gains " superpowers " and must learn to become a hero .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, many television shows are moving towards product placement instead of traditional advertising.
Most companies understand that the normal TV model is a thing of the past, considering that many people have DVRs and now stream TV online.If you have ever seen the show "Chuck" on NBC, you would see quite a bit of this.
For one, part of the show often takes place in an electronics retail store which allows considerable ads to be placed around the store in the form of cardboard cutouts and product displays.
Video games are often topics for conversation, including major promotions from Call of Duty and Madden NFL 10 being incorporated (extremely cleverly, I might add) into the storyline.
In addition to video games and cars (which have been doing product placement for years), Subway has stated that their product placement with Chuck was one of their most successful ad partnerships ever.Now, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether Nielsen includes steaming content in their ratings.
Any network that streams its own shows should have access to their data without a problem, and if Hulu doesn't already provide this data back to the networks, I doubt it would make much for them to do so.
Any ad exec that still bases his decisions solely on Nielsen ratings at this point doesn't deserve his job.PS.
Watch Chuck.
It's a fantastically done spy comedy that always finds its way to cleverly tell a story, even if its premise is a bit old.
(Unwitting everyman accidentally gains "superpowers" and must learn to become a hero.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906224</id>
	<title>Worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would hulu so badly want its content to count in Nielsen ratings that it would change its ad scheme?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would hulu so badly want its content to count in Nielsen ratings that it would change its ad scheme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would hulu so badly want its content to count in Nielsen ratings that it would change its ad scheme?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906400</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you say this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do sit through the commercials, but if they are going to be putting the same number of commercials on hulu as OTA, then they better let me watch it on my couch instead of in my computer chair.</p><p>This means not cutting off Boxee et al.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do sit through the commercials , but if they are going to be putting the same number of commercials on hulu as OTA , then they better let me watch it on my couch instead of in my computer chair.This means not cutting off Boxee et al .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do sit through the commercials, but if they are going to be putting the same number of commercials on hulu as OTA, then they better let me watch it on my couch instead of in my computer chair.This means not cutting off Boxee et al.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906554</id>
	<title>Come up with a new system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why doesn't someone (like me) come up with the "Smith Ratings" system, which is designed to gauge viewership on internet television? It could easily be weighted based on the advertisement::show time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why does n't someone ( like me ) come up with the " Smith Ratings " system , which is designed to gauge viewership on internet television ?
It could easily be weighted based on the advertisement : : show time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why doesn't someone (like me) come up with the "Smith Ratings" system, which is designed to gauge viewership on internet television?
It could easily be weighted based on the advertisement::show time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906250</id>
	<title>The Neilsen dinosaur finally evolves!</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Into a trilobite, unfortunately.

</p><p>It's inevitable really, since Neilsen's customers are advertising execs.  Neilsen don't want to tell them that fewer and fewer people are seeing their ads, and the advertising execs <em>definitely</em> don't want that news getting out - that would be a strictly career limiting move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Into a trilobite , unfortunately .
It 's inevitable really , since Neilsen 's customers are advertising execs .
Neilsen do n't want to tell them that fewer and fewer people are seeing their ads , and the advertising execs definitely do n't want that news getting out - that would be a strictly career limiting move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Into a trilobite, unfortunately.
It's inevitable really, since Neilsen's customers are advertising execs.
Neilsen don't want to tell them that fewer and fewer people are seeing their ads, and the advertising execs definitely don't want that news getting out - that would be a strictly career limiting move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908864</id>
	<title>anonymous coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264539120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or we can not give a flip what the nielson ratings say and keep watching hulu as is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or we can not give a flip what the nielson ratings say and keep watching hulu as is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or we can not give a flip what the nielson ratings say and keep watching hulu as is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906404</id>
	<title>Or No One Cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or C, Hulu and other online outlets don't give a crap about Nielsen because Nielsen has no effect upon them, only upon the shows they carry.  Networks care about nielsen because there is a cost involved in producing content, Hulu doesn't have that cost, Hulu has the cost of acquiring content which is paid for by ads.  There is absolutely no benefit in them adding ads to their content just so Nielsen will use them in the rankings.  So...there you go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or C , Hulu and other online outlets do n't give a crap about Nielsen because Nielsen has no effect upon them , only upon the shows they carry .
Networks care about nielsen because there is a cost involved in producing content , Hulu does n't have that cost , Hulu has the cost of acquiring content which is paid for by ads .
There is absolutely no benefit in them adding ads to their content just so Nielsen will use them in the rankings .
So...there you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or C, Hulu and other online outlets don't give a crap about Nielsen because Nielsen has no effect upon them, only upon the shows they carry.
Networks care about nielsen because there is a cost involved in producing content, Hulu doesn't have that cost, Hulu has the cost of acquiring content which is paid for by ads.
There is absolutely no benefit in them adding ads to their content just so Nielsen will use them in the rankings.
So...there you go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914322</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless Media</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264622520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather, and only to watch the news coverage to track the storms</p></div></blockquote><p>www.weather.com (or probably wunderground.com too, though I don't know for sure) will happily send you emails to alert you of weather issues.  There are also plugins for Windows Media Center to look for weather alerts, I can't imagine someone hasn't made one for MythTV.</p><p>Personally, living in a city, I've found just listening for the sirens to be the most effective and easiest way to list for a weather issue, as long as your city isn't too new, you could probably do the same.  I say too new as it seems that cities that weren't around during our major wars or near nuclear plants seem to be less likely to have adequate alert systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather , and only to watch the news coverage to track the stormswww.weather.com ( or probably wunderground.com too , though I do n't know for sure ) will happily send you emails to alert you of weather issues .
There are also plugins for Windows Media Center to look for weather alerts , I ca n't imagine someone has n't made one for MythTV.Personally , living in a city , I 've found just listening for the sirens to be the most effective and easiest way to list for a weather issue , as long as your city is n't too new , you could probably do the same .
I say too new as it seems that cities that were n't around during our major wars or near nuclear plants seem to be less likely to have adequate alert systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather, and only to watch the news coverage to track the stormswww.weather.com (or probably wunderground.com too, though I don't know for sure) will happily send you emails to alert you of weather issues.
There are also plugins for Windows Media Center to look for weather alerts, I can't imagine someone hasn't made one for MythTV.Personally, living in a city, I've found just listening for the sirens to be the most effective and easiest way to list for a weather issue, as long as your city isn't too new, you could probably do the same.
I say too new as it seems that cities that weren't around during our major wars or near nuclear plants seem to be less likely to have adequate alert systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910144</id>
	<title>Good!</title>
	<author>Mark\_in\_Brazil</author>
	<datestamp>1264501500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great.  Maybe now the dumbasses at NBC will take their stuff off Hulu, so I can watch it from outside the US,  I always thought the US networks should make their shows available vie internet and sell targeted advertising embedded in the same video stream as the shows.  Obviously ads for car dealerships in the US wouldn't be interesting to people in other countries, nor would those dealerships be all that interested in getting access to my eyes in a foreign country, but through the magic of teh intarwebz, the US TV networks could sell advertising to advertisers who might ONLY have interest in access to eyes in specific foreign countries.  I figured that just like I see ads in Portuguese on web sites I visit in the US (when I allow ads, of course) from IP addresses here in Brazil, ABC could embed video ads from advertisers with somethng to sell in the Brazilian market.  There could also be standard web ads.</p><p>I should make some snide remark here about how there's no great loss from not seeing NBC shows since I quit <i>Heroes</i> during the second season (I was horribly disappointed with the final ep of the first season, which felt like it was thrown together at the last minute when they suddenly realized they only had one ep to wrap up the season after building things up really nicely for the first 21 eps), <i>Saturday Night Live</i> went from a normal bad phase to unwatchably unfunny while Tina Fey was head writer (I still haven't decided if she is funny or not, largely because <i>SNL</i> blew diseased goats when she was head writer), and the sometimes-funny Conan O'Brien has been exiled to bring the almost-always-unfunny bloated chin back to <i>The Tonight Show</i>, but there appear to have actually been a couple of funny moments on <i>SNL</i> just this last week.  Too bad I wouldn't be able to find out without downloading a pirated copy of the ep.  And I 'm STILL pissed off that I can't see the only legit copy of the Hedley &amp; Wyche Toothpaste ad from an early '90s ep of <i>SNL</i> because NBC has removed all free video (e.g., YouTube) copies and only allows it to be watched via Hulu.</p><p>Since <i>Lost</i>'s penultimate season is only now being broadcast on TV in Brazil (I don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV) and the last season is about to start in the US, only to appear a year or so from now on broadcast TV here, I would like to watch the new episodes as they become available online.  I'm sure there are people in many other countries in situations similar to mine, and with similar interest in the show.  That looks to me like a great opportunity for ABC to make some money selling video ads and regular web ads to advertisers who might be interested in people in other markets who want to watch the final season of <i>Lost</i> before it shows up on their local TV stations.  I watched the penultimate episode of the first season of <i>Heroes</i> on the web at my sister's house in the US the day before watching the final episode on TV there.  I didn't mind the ads that were in the video with the episode content, because it was actually less trouble to watch via web with ads than it would have been to set up a filesharing program and download the episode without ads.  Most of the ads I saw or heard (while doing other things in the room during the ads) weren't all that relevant to me, but then again, I was watching from a computer at an IP address in South Carolina, not Brazil.  Now it occurs to me that there's another massive marketing opportunity: I would gladly fill out a form with my name and home address in exchange for being able to watch the eps free via web and without having to resort to piracy.  That would allow ABC, for example, to know something about avid viewers of its programs all over the world, which could help a lot with selling ads to a much wider range of advertisers.  NBC is too stupid to see this opportunity (or to keep Conan over Jay after Jay's show at 22:00 tanked).  Is ABC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
Maybe now the dumbasses at NBC will take their stuff off Hulu , so I can watch it from outside the US , I always thought the US networks should make their shows available vie internet and sell targeted advertising embedded in the same video stream as the shows .
Obviously ads for car dealerships in the US would n't be interesting to people in other countries , nor would those dealerships be all that interested in getting access to my eyes in a foreign country , but through the magic of teh intarwebz , the US TV networks could sell advertising to advertisers who might ONLY have interest in access to eyes in specific foreign countries .
I figured that just like I see ads in Portuguese on web sites I visit in the US ( when I allow ads , of course ) from IP addresses here in Brazil , ABC could embed video ads from advertisers with somethng to sell in the Brazilian market .
There could also be standard web ads.I should make some snide remark here about how there 's no great loss from not seeing NBC shows since I quit Heroes during the second season ( I was horribly disappointed with the final ep of the first season , which felt like it was thrown together at the last minute when they suddenly realized they only had one ep to wrap up the season after building things up really nicely for the first 21 eps ) , Saturday Night Live went from a normal bad phase to unwatchably unfunny while Tina Fey was head writer ( I still have n't decided if she is funny or not , largely because SNL blew diseased goats when she was head writer ) , and the sometimes-funny Conan O'Brien has been exiled to bring the almost-always-unfunny bloated chin back to The Tonight Show , but there appear to have actually been a couple of funny moments on SNL just this last week .
Too bad I would n't be able to find out without downloading a pirated copy of the ep .
And I 'm STILL pissed off that I ca n't see the only legit copy of the Hedley &amp; Wyche Toothpaste ad from an early '90s ep of SNL because NBC has removed all free video ( e.g. , YouTube ) copies and only allows it to be watched via Hulu.Since Lost 's penultimate season is only now being broadcast on TV in Brazil ( I do n't subscribe to cable or satellite TV ) and the last season is about to start in the US , only to appear a year or so from now on broadcast TV here , I would like to watch the new episodes as they become available online .
I 'm sure there are people in many other countries in situations similar to mine , and with similar interest in the show .
That looks to me like a great opportunity for ABC to make some money selling video ads and regular web ads to advertisers who might be interested in people in other markets who want to watch the final season of Lost before it shows up on their local TV stations .
I watched the penultimate episode of the first season of Heroes on the web at my sister 's house in the US the day before watching the final episode on TV there .
I did n't mind the ads that were in the video with the episode content , because it was actually less trouble to watch via web with ads than it would have been to set up a filesharing program and download the episode without ads .
Most of the ads I saw or heard ( while doing other things in the room during the ads ) were n't all that relevant to me , but then again , I was watching from a computer at an IP address in South Carolina , not Brazil .
Now it occurs to me that there 's another massive marketing opportunity : I would gladly fill out a form with my name and home address in exchange for being able to watch the eps free via web and without having to resort to piracy .
That would allow ABC , for example , to know something about avid viewers of its programs all over the world , which could help a lot with selling ads to a much wider range of advertisers .
NBC is too stupid to see this opportunity ( or to keep Conan over Jay after Jay 's show at 22 : 00 tanked ) .
Is ABC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
Maybe now the dumbasses at NBC will take their stuff off Hulu, so I can watch it from outside the US,  I always thought the US networks should make their shows available vie internet and sell targeted advertising embedded in the same video stream as the shows.
Obviously ads for car dealerships in the US wouldn't be interesting to people in other countries, nor would those dealerships be all that interested in getting access to my eyes in a foreign country, but through the magic of teh intarwebz, the US TV networks could sell advertising to advertisers who might ONLY have interest in access to eyes in specific foreign countries.
I figured that just like I see ads in Portuguese on web sites I visit in the US (when I allow ads, of course) from IP addresses here in Brazil, ABC could embed video ads from advertisers with somethng to sell in the Brazilian market.
There could also be standard web ads.I should make some snide remark here about how there's no great loss from not seeing NBC shows since I quit Heroes during the second season (I was horribly disappointed with the final ep of the first season, which felt like it was thrown together at the last minute when they suddenly realized they only had one ep to wrap up the season after building things up really nicely for the first 21 eps), Saturday Night Live went from a normal bad phase to unwatchably unfunny while Tina Fey was head writer (I still haven't decided if she is funny or not, largely because SNL blew diseased goats when she was head writer), and the sometimes-funny Conan O'Brien has been exiled to bring the almost-always-unfunny bloated chin back to The Tonight Show, but there appear to have actually been a couple of funny moments on SNL just this last week.
Too bad I wouldn't be able to find out without downloading a pirated copy of the ep.
And I 'm STILL pissed off that I can't see the only legit copy of the Hedley &amp; Wyche Toothpaste ad from an early '90s ep of SNL because NBC has removed all free video (e.g., YouTube) copies and only allows it to be watched via Hulu.Since Lost's penultimate season is only now being broadcast on TV in Brazil (I don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV) and the last season is about to start in the US, only to appear a year or so from now on broadcast TV here, I would like to watch the new episodes as they become available online.
I'm sure there are people in many other countries in situations similar to mine, and with similar interest in the show.
That looks to me like a great opportunity for ABC to make some money selling video ads and regular web ads to advertisers who might be interested in people in other markets who want to watch the final season of Lost before it shows up on their local TV stations.
I watched the penultimate episode of the first season of Heroes on the web at my sister's house in the US the day before watching the final episode on TV there.
I didn't mind the ads that were in the video with the episode content, because it was actually less trouble to watch via web with ads than it would have been to set up a filesharing program and download the episode without ads.
Most of the ads I saw or heard (while doing other things in the room during the ads) weren't all that relevant to me, but then again, I was watching from a computer at an IP address in South Carolina, not Brazil.
Now it occurs to me that there's another massive marketing opportunity: I would gladly fill out a form with my name and home address in exchange for being able to watch the eps free via web and without having to resort to piracy.
That would allow ABC, for example, to know something about avid viewers of its programs all over the world, which could help a lot with selling ads to a much wider range of advertisers.
NBC is too stupid to see this opportunity (or to keep Conan over Jay after Jay's show at 22:00 tanked).
Is ABC?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30912532</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>yuna49</author>
	<datestamp>1264515480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you'd be wrong.  They measure DVR usage the same way they measure every other medium connected to a TV including video games.  They only count playback, of course, not recording, since advertisers only care about viewers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 'd be wrong .
They measure DVR usage the same way they measure every other medium connected to a TV including video games .
They only count playback , of course , not recording , since advertisers only care about viewers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you'd be wrong.
They measure DVR usage the same way they measure every other medium connected to a TV including video games.
They only count playback, of course, not recording, since advertisers only care about viewers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906998</id>
	<title>Re:What is the point?</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1264531440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, would option "d" be: "do whatever CowboyNeal wants us to do"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , would option " d " be : " do whatever CowboyNeal wants us to do " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, would option "d" be: "do whatever CowboyNeal wants us to do"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906222</id>
	<title>Wake me up when...</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1264528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they count bittorrent views.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they count bittorrent views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they count bittorrent views.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910074</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>suomynonAyletamitlU</author>
	<datestamp>1264501260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't generally like things added to a service that should "just work".  If a show is broadcast without ads, the consumer will likely assume it can and should continue like that.  Unless the show's producers themselves come in apologetically and say they're going to have to start adding them to stay afloat, the addition will be seen as pure greed.</p><p>Now, with numbers as high as 500M, losing 50\% of the demographic when you add ads doesn't exactly leave the advertiser scraping the bottom of the barrel.  However, if that's implemented sitewide, losing that much traffic is devastating.</p><p>The point being you want numbers that tell you how many times you ad will be seen as things are today, not how many times the ad will be seen assuming that the viewers don't go apeshit that you put ads in their formerly free show and assuming the site doesn't go under or get passed by because they suddenly lost traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't generally like things added to a service that should " just work " .
If a show is broadcast without ads , the consumer will likely assume it can and should continue like that .
Unless the show 's producers themselves come in apologetically and say they 're going to have to start adding them to stay afloat , the addition will be seen as pure greed.Now , with numbers as high as 500M , losing 50 \ % of the demographic when you add ads does n't exactly leave the advertiser scraping the bottom of the barrel .
However , if that 's implemented sitewide , losing that much traffic is devastating.The point being you want numbers that tell you how many times you ad will be seen as things are today , not how many times the ad will be seen assuming that the viewers do n't go apeshit that you put ads in their formerly free show and assuming the site does n't go under or get passed by because they suddenly lost traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't generally like things added to a service that should "just work".
If a show is broadcast without ads, the consumer will likely assume it can and should continue like that.
Unless the show's producers themselves come in apologetically and say they're going to have to start adding them to stay afloat, the addition will be seen as pure greed.Now, with numbers as high as 500M, losing 50\% of the demographic when you add ads doesn't exactly leave the advertiser scraping the bottom of the barrel.
However, if that's implemented sitewide, losing that much traffic is devastating.The point being you want numbers that tell you how many times you ad will be seen as things are today, not how many times the ad will be seen assuming that the viewers don't go apeshit that you put ads in their formerly free show and assuming the site doesn't go under or get passed by because they suddenly lost traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906422</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1264528980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bull. I straight up do not see (or hear) half of the ads that come up on television.</p><p>Most ads on Hulu, by contrast, I do see. So ignoring Hulu is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bull .
I straight up do not see ( or hear ) half of the ads that come up on television.Most ads on Hulu , by contrast , I do see .
So ignoring Hulu is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bull.
I straight up do not see (or hear) half of the ads that come up on television.Most ads on Hulu, by contrast, I do see.
So ignoring Hulu is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907228</id>
	<title>coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264532280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just post the ads at the end of the show. It will work like regular tv since I usually leave during commercials and browse other channels. would work great on hulu to just have all the ads after the credits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just post the ads at the end of the show .
It will work like regular tv since I usually leave during commercials and browse other channels .
would work great on hulu to just have all the ads after the credits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just post the ads at the end of the show.
It will work like regular tv since I usually leave during commercials and browse other channels.
would work great on hulu to just have all the ads after the credits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906436</id>
	<title>Why not count per-ad-minute?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they insist on it only mattering how much advertising you watch then shouldn't they be rating it as show per advertisement minute?  It would even allow the studios to do interesting analysis like, is it worth it to have a 30-minute show that's only got 3 minutes of ads rather than the standard 8 since it increases viewership to unforeseen heights?  (Not likely, actually, but still an interesting question.)

Also, shouldn't they care about per ad-minute per ad as well?  I mean, I figure there's some reinforcement value to watching the same advertisement twice but the same commercial three times in a row (it has happened when I still watched normal broadcast TV) when I've seen it 20 times that week probably doesn't help that much.

Also, shouldn't the execs care that advertising on Hulu can be far more directed?  For example, if I actually rate that I really liked the trailer for Movie X and actually go watch Movie X after seeing the trailer on Hulu it'd be cool if Hulu gave me more trailers for movies like Movie X (Netflix-style like here).  And if I'm repeatedly marking down Product Y since it's a food in a category I don't eat can I please get not only no more adverts for Product Y but also no more product Y-2?

I mean, we give them the perfect medium for directing advertising directly at as to maximize its effect and they just sneer at it.  When will they learn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they insist on it only mattering how much advertising you watch then should n't they be rating it as show per advertisement minute ?
It would even allow the studios to do interesting analysis like , is it worth it to have a 30-minute show that 's only got 3 minutes of ads rather than the standard 8 since it increases viewership to unforeseen heights ?
( Not likely , actually , but still an interesting question .
) Also , should n't they care about per ad-minute per ad as well ?
I mean , I figure there 's some reinforcement value to watching the same advertisement twice but the same commercial three times in a row ( it has happened when I still watched normal broadcast TV ) when I 've seen it 20 times that week probably does n't help that much .
Also , should n't the execs care that advertising on Hulu can be far more directed ?
For example , if I actually rate that I really liked the trailer for Movie X and actually go watch Movie X after seeing the trailer on Hulu it 'd be cool if Hulu gave me more trailers for movies like Movie X ( Netflix-style like here ) .
And if I 'm repeatedly marking down Product Y since it 's a food in a category I do n't eat can I please get not only no more adverts for Product Y but also no more product Y-2 ?
I mean , we give them the perfect medium for directing advertising directly at as to maximize its effect and they just sneer at it .
When will they learn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they insist on it only mattering how much advertising you watch then shouldn't they be rating it as show per advertisement minute?
It would even allow the studios to do interesting analysis like, is it worth it to have a 30-minute show that's only got 3 minutes of ads rather than the standard 8 since it increases viewership to unforeseen heights?
(Not likely, actually, but still an interesting question.
)

Also, shouldn't they care about per ad-minute per ad as well?
I mean, I figure there's some reinforcement value to watching the same advertisement twice but the same commercial three times in a row (it has happened when I still watched normal broadcast TV) when I've seen it 20 times that week probably doesn't help that much.
Also, shouldn't the execs care that advertising on Hulu can be far more directed?
For example, if I actually rate that I really liked the trailer for Movie X and actually go watch Movie X after seeing the trailer on Hulu it'd be cool if Hulu gave me more trailers for movies like Movie X (Netflix-style like here).
And if I'm repeatedly marking down Product Y since it's a food in a category I don't eat can I please get not only no more adverts for Product Y but also no more product Y-2?
I mean, we give them the perfect medium for directing advertising directly at as to maximize its effect and they just sneer at it.
When will they learn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907240</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1264532280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the inverse to this problem is: as a viewer I have no motivation to select shows with advertisements, let alone more advertisements. In fact, I would rather watch content without any ads or at least non intrusive ads. When internet ads are increased for the benefit of Nielson figures, I will seek content elsewhere. The fact that a show is on a major network holds no weight with me. The ads increase, I'm outa here. The time to change what constitutes ads is now at hand. In show placement and banner ads are best bet to reach me the customer. Quality of content doesn't necessarily mean hollywood budget or glitter. This is probably more about the death of Nielson than Hulu. It's a dinosaur thing, adapt or die. Think outside the box or be buried in it. I am the Consumer and I am always right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the inverse to this problem is : as a viewer I have no motivation to select shows with advertisements , let alone more advertisements .
In fact , I would rather watch content without any ads or at least non intrusive ads .
When internet ads are increased for the benefit of Nielson figures , I will seek content elsewhere .
The fact that a show is on a major network holds no weight with me .
The ads increase , I 'm outa here .
The time to change what constitutes ads is now at hand .
In show placement and banner ads are best bet to reach me the customer .
Quality of content does n't necessarily mean hollywood budget or glitter .
This is probably more about the death of Nielson than Hulu .
It 's a dinosaur thing , adapt or die .
Think outside the box or be buried in it .
I am the Consumer and I am always right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the inverse to this problem is: as a viewer I have no motivation to select shows with advertisements, let alone more advertisements.
In fact, I would rather watch content without any ads or at least non intrusive ads.
When internet ads are increased for the benefit of Nielson figures, I will seek content elsewhere.
The fact that a show is on a major network holds no weight with me.
The ads increase, I'm outa here.
The time to change what constitutes ads is now at hand.
In show placement and banner ads are best bet to reach me the customer.
Quality of content doesn't necessarily mean hollywood budget or glitter.
This is probably more about the death of Nielson than Hulu.
It's a dinosaur thing, adapt or die.
Think outside the box or be buried in it.
I am the Consumer and I am always right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906212</id>
	<title>true</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You would think that this is a good idea</i>
<br>
<br>
I probably would, if I cared in the slightest about the subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think that this is a good idea I probably would , if I cared in the slightest about the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think that this is a good idea


I probably would, if I cared in the slightest about the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906842</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to miss TV</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1264530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado, to name a couple.</p></div><p>Couldn't that be covered with a $10 antenna and, if necissary, a $30 converter box?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado , to name a couple.Could n't that be covered with a $ 10 antenna and , if necissary , a $ 30 converter box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live sporting events and knowing the exact location of the nearest tornado, to name a couple.Couldn't that be covered with a $10 antenna and, if necissary, a $30 converter box?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907532</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>supremebob</author>
	<datestamp>1264533720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was Nielsen, I'd want to know the viewing habits for everything that was connected to a TV. DVR, Blu-Ray, XBox, even old VHS tapes... if they're watching it, I'd want to record that information to know to provide to my clients. That way, they know where ads are being viewed and where they are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was Nielsen , I 'd want to know the viewing habits for everything that was connected to a TV .
DVR , Blu-Ray , XBox , even old VHS tapes... if they 're watching it , I 'd want to record that information to know to provide to my clients .
That way , they know where ads are being viewed and where they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was Nielsen, I'd want to know the viewing habits for everything that was connected to a TV.
DVR, Blu-Ray, XBox, even old VHS tapes... if they're watching it, I'd want to record that information to know to provide to my clients.
That way, they know where ads are being viewed and where they are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906402</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>SoTerrified</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</p></div><p>Yes, but advertising cares if Heroes has 1 million watching the regular broadcast... But 5 million watching on a website that servers a single ad right before the broadcast commences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.Yes , but advertising cares if Heroes has 1 million watching the regular broadcast... But 5 million watching on a website that servers a single ad right before the broadcast commences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.Yes, but advertising cares if Heroes has 1 million watching the regular broadcast... But 5 million watching on a website that servers a single ad right before the broadcast commences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910208</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264501800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your so happy to boast how you have liberated yourself from TV and saved time, but judging from your post history you turn around and waste it all puttering around on the intarwebs...</p><p>And the reason most people watch television online is because they have lives and don't have a tivo/cable service.  Contrary to what you might believe, not everyone has a Grand Mal Spergisode because they have to watch 1:30 worth of commercials during a 23 min show...</p><p>But your too sure are smart and sophisticated aren't you?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rolleye</p><p>Go back to flamebaiting and whining about Microsoft's monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your so happy to boast how you have liberated yourself from TV and saved time , but judging from your post history you turn around and waste it all puttering around on the intarwebs...And the reason most people watch television online is because they have lives and do n't have a tivo/cable service .
Contrary to what you might believe , not everyone has a Grand Mal Spergisode because they have to watch 1 : 30 worth of commercials during a 23 min show...But your too sure are smart and sophisticated are n't you ?
/rolleyeGo back to flamebaiting and whining about Microsoft 's monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your so happy to boast how you have liberated yourself from TV and saved time, but judging from your post history you turn around and waste it all puttering around on the intarwebs...And the reason most people watch television online is because they have lives and don't have a tivo/cable service.
Contrary to what you might believe, not everyone has a Grand Mal Spergisode because they have to watch 1:30 worth of commercials during a 23 min show...But your too sure are smart and sophisticated aren't you?
/rolleyeGo back to flamebaiting and whining about Microsoft's monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>smartr</author>
	<datestamp>1264529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt they're doing anything to measure DVR use, which is now widely deployed and used to skip ads. Short of live events, I bet you will find that a large portion of tv viewers record the shows they regularly watch (which are the ones getting the ratings).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt they 're doing anything to measure DVR use , which is now widely deployed and used to skip ads .
Short of live events , I bet you will find that a large portion of tv viewers record the shows they regularly watch ( which are the ones getting the ratings ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt they're doing anything to measure DVR use, which is now widely deployed and used to skip ads.
Short of live events, I bet you will find that a large portion of tv viewers record the shows they regularly watch (which are the ones getting the ratings).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907736</id>
	<title>OK not sure i agree</title>
	<author>zerocool6900</author>
	<datestamp>1264534560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure I agree with the statement that this rules out the networks online viewing.</p><p>I regularly watch Fox.com and CBS.com because I'm not at home when Bones and NCIS come on...and I still get annoyed at all the commercials. The have a commercial every 5 to 10 minutes just like when watching on network tv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure I agree with the statement that this rules out the networks online viewing.I regularly watch Fox.com and CBS.com because I 'm not at home when Bones and NCIS come on...and I still get annoyed at all the commercials .
The have a commercial every 5 to 10 minutes just like when watching on network tv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure I agree with the statement that this rules out the networks online viewing.I regularly watch Fox.com and CBS.com because I'm not at home when Bones and NCIS come on...and I still get annoyed at all the commercials.
The have a commercial every 5 to 10 minutes just like when watching on network tv.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906928</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1264531140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it depends on what you're using the metrics for.  I'd argue that they should collect everything, and then categorize it appropriately.</p><p>For example, suppose Hulu announces that they'll take one high-cost ad per show.  Suddenly advertisers will want to know what their market share is and all that.</p><p>On the other hand, when networks decide what shows to cancel - they don't care about how many people watch the show on mediums other than their own, regardless of whether they have ads or not.</p><p>I suspect that the reason that Neilsen is doing what it is doing is that it is because it is what their customers are looking for.  When Hulu pitches their online service to an ad agency they don't need Neilsen to tell them how many people are watching their shows - they already collect that stuff on their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it depends on what you 're using the metrics for .
I 'd argue that they should collect everything , and then categorize it appropriately.For example , suppose Hulu announces that they 'll take one high-cost ad per show .
Suddenly advertisers will want to know what their market share is and all that.On the other hand , when networks decide what shows to cancel - they do n't care about how many people watch the show on mediums other than their own , regardless of whether they have ads or not.I suspect that the reason that Neilsen is doing what it is doing is that it is because it is what their customers are looking for .
When Hulu pitches their online service to an ad agency they do n't need Neilsen to tell them how many people are watching their shows - they already collect that stuff on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it depends on what you're using the metrics for.
I'd argue that they should collect everything, and then categorize it appropriately.For example, suppose Hulu announces that they'll take one high-cost ad per show.
Suddenly advertisers will want to know what their market share is and all that.On the other hand, when networks decide what shows to cancel - they don't care about how many people watch the show on mediums other than their own, regardless of whether they have ads or not.I suspect that the reason that Neilsen is doing what it is doing is that it is because it is what their customers are looking for.
When Hulu pitches their online service to an ad agency they don't need Neilsen to tell them how many people are watching their shows - they already collect that stuff on their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907492</id>
	<title>We need this</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1264533540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are in desperate need of a refresh in how shows are rated.  Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers.  With more TV viewing going online, a key demographic is not being represented fairly and as a result all of my favorite shows keep getting canceled.  Arrested development, Firefly, etc.  I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted, they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.</p><p>This move is at least a step in the right direction.  The catch makes sense, though, since the whole point of the ratings is to determine how much the ad space is worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are in desperate need of a refresh in how shows are rated .
Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers .
With more TV viewing going online , a key demographic is not being represented fairly and as a result all of my favorite shows keep getting canceled .
Arrested development , Firefly , etc .
I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted , they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.This move is at least a step in the right direction .
The catch makes sense , though , since the whole point of the ratings is to determine how much the ad space is worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are in desperate need of a refresh in how shows are rated.
Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers.
With more TV viewing going online, a key demographic is not being represented fairly and as a result all of my favorite shows keep getting canceled.
Arrested development, Firefly, etc.
I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted, they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.This move is at least a step in the right direction.
The catch makes sense, though, since the whole point of the ratings is to determine how much the ad space is worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914438</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do that with Heroes too. Sprint logos and phones everywhere.<br>I vow to never subscribe to Sprint because they advertise too much. (I also play 1 vs. 100 on Xbox Live, where a vast majority of ads are for Sprint).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do that with Heroes too .
Sprint logos and phones everywhere.I vow to never subscribe to Sprint because they advertise too much .
( I also play 1 vs. 100 on Xbox Live , where a vast majority of ads are for Sprint ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do that with Heroes too.
Sprint logos and phones everywhere.I vow to never subscribe to Sprint because they advertise too much.
(I also play 1 vs. 100 on Xbox Live, where a vast majority of ads are for Sprint).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906612</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1264529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That only makes sense if you consider a "commercial" to be the only form of advertisement possible. Given the magic of the internet, there are all sorts of things you can do. Mandatory ads before the show starts. Banners. In-show product placement. Close tie-ins to other web sites are easily facilitated. Etc.

I think it is quite telling of the industry in general that they cannot fathom anything that hasn't been done for the last 60 years already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That only makes sense if you consider a " commercial " to be the only form of advertisement possible .
Given the magic of the internet , there are all sorts of things you can do .
Mandatory ads before the show starts .
Banners. In-show product placement .
Close tie-ins to other web sites are easily facilitated .
Etc . I think it is quite telling of the industry in general that they can not fathom anything that has n't been done for the last 60 years already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That only makes sense if you consider a "commercial" to be the only form of advertisement possible.
Given the magic of the internet, there are all sorts of things you can do.
Mandatory ads before the show starts.
Banners. In-show product placement.
Close tie-ins to other web sites are easily facilitated.
Etc.

I think it is quite telling of the industry in general that they cannot fathom anything that hasn't been done for the last 60 years already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972</id>
	<title>Worthless Media</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264531320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My most recent cable TV outage started me thinking about televised entertainment in general.  I still remember when cable TV was highly desirable because it didn't have any commercials.  Then commercials made occasional appearances in some shows, obviously a trial balloon to measure customer opposition.  Then commercials quickly became as prevalent on cable as they were on broadcast TV.</p><p>I have been using MythTV for a couple years, and it's been fantastic.  I haven't had to sit through a full commercial in that time, and I'd been loving cable TV again.  While I fast-forward through commercials (automatic commercial skip is too unreliable), I sometimes saw something that grabbed my attention.  In those cases, I usually watched at least a part of the commercial, and discovered a new product.  Most often, though, I saved myself centuries (qualitatively speaking) of agony by not having to watch them.</p><p>When I got engaged, she and I had better things to do with our time than watch TV.  Three weeks into our first month together, I realized that I hadn't missed TV at all, but was still paying $60/month for something I hardly used.  I called Mediacom (the local cable company), and canceled the "service" last week.</p><p>At the same time, I subscribed to Netflix.  For a fraction of the cost of cable, I have a vast choice of movies, a much smaller monthly bill, more reliable service, and a much happier experience overall experience.</p><p>When I first tried Hulu, it was an okay service.  I had to sit through a couple 7-10 second commercials every half hour, but that wasn't too intolerable.  Then Hulu started lengthening the commercials to 30 seconds.  It was still not terribly intolerable, because there was usually only one of them every half hour.  Then I started seeing two appear every half hour, and it became clear to me which direction Hulu was headed, so I stopped watching Hulu.</p><p>I'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather, and only to watch the news coverage to track the storms.  My fianc&#233; and I watch one movie a night in bed before going to sleep, and that's it.  We have freed ourselves from television, and we have advertisers' greed to thank for that.  We don't miss TV one bit.</p><p>So, Nielson won't count online TV viewing unless its riddled with commercials.  If Hulu ever starts to be counted, you can be sure that it has become a worthless service.  As far as I'm concerned, it has already become a worthless service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My most recent cable TV outage started me thinking about televised entertainment in general .
I still remember when cable TV was highly desirable because it did n't have any commercials .
Then commercials made occasional appearances in some shows , obviously a trial balloon to measure customer opposition .
Then commercials quickly became as prevalent on cable as they were on broadcast TV.I have been using MythTV for a couple years , and it 's been fantastic .
I have n't had to sit through a full commercial in that time , and I 'd been loving cable TV again .
While I fast-forward through commercials ( automatic commercial skip is too unreliable ) , I sometimes saw something that grabbed my attention .
In those cases , I usually watched at least a part of the commercial , and discovered a new product .
Most often , though , I saved myself centuries ( qualitatively speaking ) of agony by not having to watch them.When I got engaged , she and I had better things to do with our time than watch TV .
Three weeks into our first month together , I realized that I had n't missed TV at all , but was still paying $ 60/month for something I hardly used .
I called Mediacom ( the local cable company ) , and canceled the " service " last week.At the same time , I subscribed to Netflix .
For a fraction of the cost of cable , I have a vast choice of movies , a much smaller monthly bill , more reliable service , and a much happier experience overall experience.When I first tried Hulu , it was an okay service .
I had to sit through a couple 7-10 second commercials every half hour , but that was n't too intolerable .
Then Hulu started lengthening the commercials to 30 seconds .
It was still not terribly intolerable , because there was usually only one of them every half hour .
Then I started seeing two appear every half hour , and it became clear to me which direction Hulu was headed , so I stopped watching Hulu.I 'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather , and only to watch the news coverage to track the storms .
My fianc   and I watch one movie a night in bed before going to sleep , and that 's it .
We have freed ourselves from television , and we have advertisers ' greed to thank for that .
We do n't miss TV one bit.So , Nielson wo n't count online TV viewing unless its riddled with commercials .
If Hulu ever starts to be counted , you can be sure that it has become a worthless service .
As far as I 'm concerned , it has already become a worthless service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My most recent cable TV outage started me thinking about televised entertainment in general.
I still remember when cable TV was highly desirable because it didn't have any commercials.
Then commercials made occasional appearances in some shows, obviously a trial balloon to measure customer opposition.
Then commercials quickly became as prevalent on cable as they were on broadcast TV.I have been using MythTV for a couple years, and it's been fantastic.
I haven't had to sit through a full commercial in that time, and I'd been loving cable TV again.
While I fast-forward through commercials (automatic commercial skip is too unreliable), I sometimes saw something that grabbed my attention.
In those cases, I usually watched at least a part of the commercial, and discovered a new product.
Most often, though, I saved myself centuries (qualitatively speaking) of agony by not having to watch them.When I got engaged, she and I had better things to do with our time than watch TV.
Three weeks into our first month together, I realized that I hadn't missed TV at all, but was still paying $60/month for something I hardly used.
I called Mediacom (the local cable company), and canceled the "service" last week.At the same time, I subscribed to Netflix.
For a fraction of the cost of cable, I have a vast choice of movies, a much smaller monthly bill, more reliable service, and a much happier experience overall experience.When I first tried Hulu, it was an okay service.
I had to sit through a couple 7-10 second commercials every half hour, but that wasn't too intolerable.
Then Hulu started lengthening the commercials to 30 seconds.
It was still not terribly intolerable, because there was usually only one of them every half hour.
Then I started seeing two appear every half hour, and it became clear to me which direction Hulu was headed, so I stopped watching Hulu.I'm at a point now where I watch TV only during tornadic weather, and only to watch the news coverage to track the storms.
My fiancé and I watch one movie a night in bed before going to sleep, and that's it.
We have freed ourselves from television, and we have advertisers' greed to thank for that.
We don't miss TV one bit.So, Nielson won't count online TV viewing unless its riddled with commercials.
If Hulu ever starts to be counted, you can be sure that it has become a worthless service.
As far as I'm concerned, it has already become a worthless service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906784</id>
	<title>Ratings are based on what viewers report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264530480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately ratings are based on what viewers report.  I received a "kit" from Nielson to record viewing.  I use a DVR that pulls out commercials, but I counted the programs I watched just the same.  I'm guessing that those that are chosen for the viewer info kits may also be counting shows watched without commercials.  While Nielson's goal is to have advertisers believe their adds will be viewed, it's not possible for them to strictly enforce what viewers report on the survey.  Some viewers may choose to report Hulu or other sources for video entertainment they record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately ratings are based on what viewers report .
I received a " kit " from Nielson to record viewing .
I use a DVR that pulls out commercials , but I counted the programs I watched just the same .
I 'm guessing that those that are chosen for the viewer info kits may also be counting shows watched without commercials .
While Nielson 's goal is to have advertisers believe their adds will be viewed , it 's not possible for them to strictly enforce what viewers report on the survey .
Some viewers may choose to report Hulu or other sources for video entertainment they record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately ratings are based on what viewers report.
I received a "kit" from Nielson to record viewing.
I use a DVR that pulls out commercials, but I counted the programs I watched just the same.
I'm guessing that those that are chosen for the viewer info kits may also be counting shows watched without commercials.
While Nielson's goal is to have advertisers believe their adds will be viewed, it's not possible for them to strictly enforce what viewers report on the survey.
Some viewers may choose to report Hulu or other sources for video entertainment they record.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906938</id>
	<title>Hulu keeps a count, right?  so they pass that back</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1264531200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the content providers add another line to their pitch sheets... "While 'Ten Million Gorillas in a Bus' had a Nielsen of 10.2, there were also 4,320,000 Hulu viewings."  whether any ads ever show up on Hulu or not, they can still reinforce the show's pull.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the content providers add another line to their pitch sheets... " While 'Ten Million Gorillas in a Bus ' had a Nielsen of 10.2 , there were also 4,320,000 Hulu viewings .
" whether any ads ever show up on Hulu or not , they can still reinforce the show 's pull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the content providers add another line to their pitch sheets... "While 'Ten Million Gorillas in a Bus' had a Nielsen of 10.2, there were also 4,320,000 Hulu viewings.
"  whether any ads ever show up on Hulu or not, they can still reinforce the show's pull.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906550</id>
	<title>the real problem</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1264529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem here is that the cost to distribute media are dropping very fast.  Now consumers say that should mean the price they pay should also decrease.  This ignores an important point, in economics price affects directly only demand and supply levels.  Costs incurred by the producer only affects the amount he is willing to supply and the number of overall suppliers.  Essentially the execs are looking at their lowering cost to distribute and asking "so what? the value to you has not changed has it?" Really due to the lower costs to distribute there should be more content providers increasing the content supply which is happening just most of it is crap.  The cost to produce good media, if you want to call it that more or less crap with good special effects and the rare gem, is still very high making it hard to break into a market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem here is that the cost to distribute media are dropping very fast .
Now consumers say that should mean the price they pay should also decrease .
This ignores an important point , in economics price affects directly only demand and supply levels .
Costs incurred by the producer only affects the amount he is willing to supply and the number of overall suppliers .
Essentially the execs are looking at their lowering cost to distribute and asking " so what ?
the value to you has not changed has it ?
" Really due to the lower costs to distribute there should be more content providers increasing the content supply which is happening just most of it is crap .
The cost to produce good media , if you want to call it that more or less crap with good special effects and the rare gem , is still very high making it hard to break into a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem here is that the cost to distribute media are dropping very fast.
Now consumers say that should mean the price they pay should also decrease.
This ignores an important point, in economics price affects directly only demand and supply levels.
Costs incurred by the producer only affects the amount he is willing to supply and the number of overall suppliers.
Essentially the execs are looking at their lowering cost to distribute and asking "so what?
the value to you has not changed has it?
" Really due to the lower costs to distribute there should be more content providers increasing the content supply which is happening just most of it is crap.
The cost to produce good media, if you want to call it that more or less crap with good special effects and the rare gem, is still very high making it hard to break into a market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907184</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1264532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.</p></div><p>Wrong.   They care because that's where the next opportunities to sell ads are.
<br> <br>
I don't understand Neilsen's plan.  How will advertisers know where their ads *should* go, if they don't have all the numbers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.Wrong .
They care because that 's where the next opportunities to sell ads are .
I do n't understand Neilsen 's plan .
How will advertisers know where their ads * should * go , if they do n't have all the numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.Wrong.
They care because that's where the next opportunities to sell ads are.
I don't understand Neilsen's plan.
How will advertisers know where their ads *should* go, if they don't have all the numbers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906388</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Chris Pimlott</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes sense only in a short-sighted way.  It's ridiculous to assume programs will be shown online with the same exact ads to all audiences.  The presentation of content must be adapted to the medium if there is any hope that it is to be successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense only in a short-sighted way .
It 's ridiculous to assume programs will be shown online with the same exact ads to all audiences .
The presentation of content must be adapted to the medium if there is any hope that it is to be successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense only in a short-sighted way.
It's ridiculous to assume programs will be shown online with the same exact ads to all audiences.
The presentation of content must be adapted to the medium if there is any hope that it is to be successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906350</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>GreyyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should Hulu add more commercials? If they are viable as it is, wht do they care for Neilson? Neilson is there to help sell ads by giving a value to TV shows. If Hulu doesn't need that many ads why should they annoy their viewers to help an unrelated service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should Hulu add more commercials ?
If they are viable as it is , wht do they care for Neilson ?
Neilson is there to help sell ads by giving a value to TV shows .
If Hulu does n't need that many ads why should they annoy their viewers to help an unrelated service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should Hulu add more commercials?
If they are viable as it is, wht do they care for Neilson?
Neilson is there to help sell ads by giving a value to TV shows.
If Hulu doesn't need that many ads why should they annoy their viewers to help an unrelated service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908298</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264536540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you watch "Accidentally on Purpose" on TV, you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny.</p></div><p>Never.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>you might just happen to be killing time between "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory".</p></div><p>Never.</p><p>I'm watching Hulu 8:30 PM  9:30 PM EST on a Monday<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you watch " Accidentally on Purpose " on TV , you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny.Never.you might just happen to be killing time between " How I Met Your Mother " and " The Big Bang Theory " .Never.I 'm watching Hulu 8 : 30 PM 9 : 30 PM EST on a Monday : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you watch "Accidentally on Purpose" on TV, you might watch it because you like Jenna Elfman and think the show is funny.Never.you might just happen to be killing time between "How I Met Your Mother" and "The Big Bang Theory".Never.I'm watching Hulu 8:30 PM  9:30 PM EST on a Monday :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908874</id>
	<title>Or 3...</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1264539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No-one cares, people keep watching the services that they want to watch, the services keep making money through whatever channels they've always made, the content providers keep selling their content to whoever is dragging in the traffic?</p><p>Also, who is this Nielsen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No-one cares , people keep watching the services that they want to watch , the services keep making money through whatever channels they 've always made , the content providers keep selling their content to whoever is dragging in the traffic ? Also , who is this Nielsen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No-one cares, people keep watching the services that they want to watch, the services keep making money through whatever channels they've always made, the content providers keep selling their content to whoever is dragging in the traffic?Also, who is this Nielsen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30912532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30912636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30911266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30915332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_1548252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30910074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30912636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30912532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30915332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30911266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30907144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30908448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_1548252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30906472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30914294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_1548252.30909054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
