<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_23_0013228</id>
	<title>A Broadband Survey That Asks the Right Questions</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269348720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lauren Weinstein writes <i>"I've <a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000697.html">just deployed</a> the first ever <a href="http://www.gctip.org/broadband-survey">Broadband Survey</a> under the auspices of <a href="http://www.gctip.org/">GCTIP</a>, which asks <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/12/137217/FCC-Asks-You-To-Test-Your-Broadband-Speeds?from=rss">questions that the FCC neglected to ask</a> about service types, promised vs. actual broadband speeds, user satisfaction (or lack thereof) with their ISPs and local ISP competition, etc.  I'm already finding the detailed comments many persons are leaving on the survey form to be extremely illuminating and with sufficient participation I'm hoping my reports from this data will be useful to the Internet community broadly."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lauren Weinstein writes " I 've just deployed the first ever Broadband Survey under the auspices of GCTIP , which asks questions that the FCC neglected to ask about service types , promised vs. actual broadband speeds , user satisfaction ( or lack thereof ) with their ISPs and local ISP competition , etc .
I 'm already finding the detailed comments many persons are leaving on the survey form to be extremely illuminating and with sufficient participation I 'm hoping my reports from this data will be useful to the Internet community broadly .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lauren Weinstein writes "I've just deployed the first ever Broadband Survey under the auspices of GCTIP, which asks questions that the FCC neglected to ask about service types, promised vs. actual broadband speeds, user satisfaction (or lack thereof) with their ISPs and local ISP competition, etc.
I'm already finding the detailed comments many persons are leaving on the survey form to be extremely illuminating and with sufficient participation I'm hoping my reports from this data will be useful to the Internet community broadly.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578240</id>
	<title>Obvious Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know the question that everyone is afraid to ask publicly:</p><p>How can I get more pr0n faster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know the question that everyone is afraid to ask publicly : How can I get more pr0n faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know the question that everyone is afraid to ask publicly:How can I get more pr0n faster?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578080</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my first first!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my first first !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my first first!
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578848</id>
	<title>Re:Getting relevant responses? Gosh!</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269272400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well - you won't get very many results from people who are NOT interested in discussing the topic, will you?</p><p>Have you ever wondered how those more formal surveys handle people like me, who usually hang up when they call?  Or, slam the door in their faces, if they show up in person?  Or walk a wide circle around them, if they are set up at a shopping center?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well - you wo n't get very many results from people who are NOT interested in discussing the topic , will you ? Have you ever wondered how those more formal surveys handle people like me , who usually hang up when they call ?
Or , slam the door in their faces , if they show up in person ?
Or walk a wide circle around them , if they are set up at a shopping center ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well - you won't get very many results from people who are NOT interested in discussing the topic, will you?Have you ever wondered how those more formal surveys handle people like me, who usually hang up when they call?
Or, slam the door in their faces, if they show up in person?
Or walk a wide circle around them, if they are set up at a shopping center?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</id>
	<title>I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1269272160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This, in all honesty, is the worst survey I have ever seen, and I work with <i>language teachers.</i>

</p><p>Not only are you setting yourself up for selection bias (as many others have pointed out), you've got all these free-answer text boxes all over it. Have you given any thought whatsoever to what you're going to do with the "data" that you get from this instrument?

</p><p>Things like network speed should be in set categories. Satisfaction should be on a Likert scale, and should be broken down into aspects of interest (satisfaction with upload, download, etc.). The ISPs should be on a drop-down menu, not free answer (you'll need to include an "Other"). ZIP and City should be in separate fields (how are you going to parse those?--yes, it can be done, BUT WHY???).

</p><p>Your question about maximum upload and download speed and limit and favorite color... Son, you make me want to stab out my eyes with a fork. What are you asking with that question? Whatever it is, it should be several questions with constrained responses.

</p><p>One of the cardinal rules of survey design is that it should be quick and easy for people to fill out. Do the hard work for them, and let them just tick boxes. If you don't, they won't take it and all you'll get is data skewed toward people who--like you--actually care enough to type up a bunch of thoughts. I care about broadband, but even I am not interested in blathering away into a text box.

</p><p>Pray tell, what "statistical purposes" would my email address be used for? Last I knew, principal components analysis only took numeric data... Same for cluster analysis. "This will only be used for magical statistics that use email addresses as variables... Or if we want to drop a line and say hi." Please.

</p><p>You are setting yourself up for a world of hurt. You will need to go through with Nvivo or something to categorize all the garbage you get from this, and even if you present results, all you're really going to be presenting is "here is some stuff that people said." I have no time for listening to results of surveys like that. It's softheaded gibberish.

</p><p>You are lucky you're not a student in my research practicum. There's no way I'd sign off on this as a research instrument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This , in all honesty , is the worst survey I have ever seen , and I work with language teachers .
Not only are you setting yourself up for selection bias ( as many others have pointed out ) , you 've got all these free-answer text boxes all over it .
Have you given any thought whatsoever to what you 're going to do with the " data " that you get from this instrument ?
Things like network speed should be in set categories .
Satisfaction should be on a Likert scale , and should be broken down into aspects of interest ( satisfaction with upload , download , etc. ) .
The ISPs should be on a drop-down menu , not free answer ( you 'll need to include an " Other " ) .
ZIP and City should be in separate fields ( how are you going to parse those ? --yes , it can be done , BUT WHY ? ? ? ) .
Your question about maximum upload and download speed and limit and favorite color... Son , you make me want to stab out my eyes with a fork .
What are you asking with that question ?
Whatever it is , it should be several questions with constrained responses .
One of the cardinal rules of survey design is that it should be quick and easy for people to fill out .
Do the hard work for them , and let them just tick boxes .
If you do n't , they wo n't take it and all you 'll get is data skewed toward people who--like you--actually care enough to type up a bunch of thoughts .
I care about broadband , but even I am not interested in blathering away into a text box .
Pray tell , what " statistical purposes " would my email address be used for ?
Last I knew , principal components analysis only took numeric data... Same for cluster analysis .
" This will only be used for magical statistics that use email addresses as variables... Or if we want to drop a line and say hi .
" Please .
You are setting yourself up for a world of hurt .
You will need to go through with Nvivo or something to categorize all the garbage you get from this , and even if you present results , all you 're really going to be presenting is " here is some stuff that people said .
" I have no time for listening to results of surveys like that .
It 's softheaded gibberish .
You are lucky you 're not a student in my research practicum .
There 's no way I 'd sign off on this as a research instrument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, in all honesty, is the worst survey I have ever seen, and I work with language teachers.
Not only are you setting yourself up for selection bias (as many others have pointed out), you've got all these free-answer text boxes all over it.
Have you given any thought whatsoever to what you're going to do with the "data" that you get from this instrument?
Things like network speed should be in set categories.
Satisfaction should be on a Likert scale, and should be broken down into aspects of interest (satisfaction with upload, download, etc.).
The ISPs should be on a drop-down menu, not free answer (you'll need to include an "Other").
ZIP and City should be in separate fields (how are you going to parse those?--yes, it can be done, BUT WHY???).
Your question about maximum upload and download speed and limit and favorite color... Son, you make me want to stab out my eyes with a fork.
What are you asking with that question?
Whatever it is, it should be several questions with constrained responses.
One of the cardinal rules of survey design is that it should be quick and easy for people to fill out.
Do the hard work for them, and let them just tick boxes.
If you don't, they won't take it and all you'll get is data skewed toward people who--like you--actually care enough to type up a bunch of thoughts.
I care about broadband, but even I am not interested in blathering away into a text box.
Pray tell, what "statistical purposes" would my email address be used for?
Last I knew, principal components analysis only took numeric data... Same for cluster analysis.
"This will only be used for magical statistics that use email addresses as variables... Or if we want to drop a line and say hi.
" Please.
You are setting yourself up for a world of hurt.
You will need to go through with Nvivo or something to categorize all the garbage you get from this, and even if you present results, all you're really going to be presenting is "here is some stuff that people said.
" I have no time for listening to results of surveys like that.
It's softheaded gibberish.
You are lucky you're not a student in my research practicum.
There's no way I'd sign off on this as a research instrument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581690</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, nobody ever reads TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , nobody ever reads TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, nobody ever reads TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578912</id>
	<title>Tip:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your survey purports to ask the "right" questions, then your survey is fundamentally flawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your survey purports to ask the " right " questions , then your survey is fundamentally flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your survey purports to ask the "right" questions, then your survey is fundamentally flawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578346</id>
	<title>FCC speed test vs. this post</title>
	<author>NonUniqueNickname</author>
	<datestamp>1269268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FCC-did-it-wrong tone of the post made me expect a speed test. There isn't one. It's just a questionnaire.<br>
But I must concede this survey gets the upper hand against the FCC speed test in two aspects:
<br>It's even later to the party than the FCC test was.
<br>It covers an even smaller portion of the population than the FCC test did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC-did-it-wrong tone of the post made me expect a speed test .
There is n't one .
It 's just a questionnaire .
But I must concede this survey gets the upper hand against the FCC speed test in two aspects : It 's even later to the party than the FCC test was .
It covers an even smaller portion of the population than the FCC test did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC-did-it-wrong tone of the post made me expect a speed test.
There isn't one.
It's just a questionnaire.
But I must concede this survey gets the upper hand against the FCC speed test in two aspects:
It's even later to the party than the FCC test was.
It covers an even smaller portion of the population than the FCC test did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578962</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269273300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But where I work we get this survey which has hundreds of questions, asking variations of the same question over and over again. They are clearly aiming at some kind of psychological test. Is there a name for that approach in your field? Do you know what they are driving at? The general thrust is on what we think of our workplace, but their questions could be asked on one page. Instead they use 10 pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But where I work we get this survey which has hundreds of questions , asking variations of the same question over and over again .
They are clearly aiming at some kind of psychological test .
Is there a name for that approach in your field ?
Do you know what they are driving at ?
The general thrust is on what we think of our workplace , but their questions could be asked on one page .
Instead they use 10 pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But where I work we get this survey which has hundreds of questions, asking variations of the same question over and over again.
They are clearly aiming at some kind of psychological test.
Is there a name for that approach in your field?
Do you know what they are driving at?
The general thrust is on what we think of our workplace, but their questions could be asked on one page.
Instead they use 10 pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31584460</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1269362340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree, this was a horrible survey, it looks like made by a kid.<br>
<br>
How the hell this got on slashdot???</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , this was a horrible survey , it looks like made by a kid .
How the hell this got on slashdot ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, this was a horrible survey, it looks like made by a kid.
How the hell this got on slashdot??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579584</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1269280020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to think about the same, I would consider my self above average for downloading ISO's multiple times just to clock my fastest time and figured the party line was correct, most people only use maybe a GB / month, and in many cases they do.  Now I start getting into Youtube videos at minimum 480p and 720p also comedy central videos and after about 3 hours of video I'm rounding 1.5GB!  If I drop my cable TV subscription and continue to watch Internet video of similar quality to replace it for the same amount of time 5 days a week your looking at 1.5 x 30 = 45GB, still well below many bandwidth caps.  Now if you have more than one person in the house with the same tastes even if they are watching the same videos on different displays it multiplies from there.  Some people are into Netflix, Hulu, iTunes movies, etc and multiply that by the people in the house hold that are doing the same thing your coming around 60+GB / person/month.  In some places 64GB is a common cap and just basic stuff all legit and your cap is blown.  <br> <br>ISP's seem to build for todays standards for the future, which is not right.  How can they assume news, social media and email is the only thing many are going to use?  TV's already come with internet connectivity as well as pretty much every other electronic device.  OnLive and other similar ventures will be eating that cap just to play a few games.  The usage is not leveling is it about to explode.  So now they fail to meet serious future demands and seem "shocked" when they get saturated?  Then they complain that supply and demand will kick in because of the saturation and your connection is now charged at a premium?  <br> <br>
Saying X is fast enough for Y is fine since you are commenting on present day usage and you in many cases are correct, the trick is that ISP's are banking on your dumb ass to build the network of tomorrow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think about the same , I would consider my self above average for downloading ISO 's multiple times just to clock my fastest time and figured the party line was correct , most people only use maybe a GB / month , and in many cases they do .
Now I start getting into Youtube videos at minimum 480p and 720p also comedy central videos and after about 3 hours of video I 'm rounding 1.5GB !
If I drop my cable TV subscription and continue to watch Internet video of similar quality to replace it for the same amount of time 5 days a week your looking at 1.5 x 30 = 45GB , still well below many bandwidth caps .
Now if you have more than one person in the house with the same tastes even if they are watching the same videos on different displays it multiplies from there .
Some people are into Netflix , Hulu , iTunes movies , etc and multiply that by the people in the house hold that are doing the same thing your coming around 60 + GB / person/month .
In some places 64GB is a common cap and just basic stuff all legit and your cap is blown .
ISP 's seem to build for todays standards for the future , which is not right .
How can they assume news , social media and email is the only thing many are going to use ?
TV 's already come with internet connectivity as well as pretty much every other electronic device .
OnLive and other similar ventures will be eating that cap just to play a few games .
The usage is not leveling is it about to explode .
So now they fail to meet serious future demands and seem " shocked " when they get saturated ?
Then they complain that supply and demand will kick in because of the saturation and your connection is now charged at a premium ?
Saying X is fast enough for Y is fine since you are commenting on present day usage and you in many cases are correct , the trick is that ISP 's are banking on your dumb ass to build the network of tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think about the same, I would consider my self above average for downloading ISO's multiple times just to clock my fastest time and figured the party line was correct, most people only use maybe a GB / month, and in many cases they do.
Now I start getting into Youtube videos at minimum 480p and 720p also comedy central videos and after about 3 hours of video I'm rounding 1.5GB!
If I drop my cable TV subscription and continue to watch Internet video of similar quality to replace it for the same amount of time 5 days a week your looking at 1.5 x 30 = 45GB, still well below many bandwidth caps.
Now if you have more than one person in the house with the same tastes even if they are watching the same videos on different displays it multiplies from there.
Some people are into Netflix, Hulu, iTunes movies, etc and multiply that by the people in the house hold that are doing the same thing your coming around 60+GB / person/month.
In some places 64GB is a common cap and just basic stuff all legit and your cap is blown.
ISP's seem to build for todays standards for the future, which is not right.
How can they assume news, social media and email is the only thing many are going to use?
TV's already come with internet connectivity as well as pretty much every other electronic device.
OnLive and other similar ventures will be eating that cap just to play a few games.
The usage is not leveling is it about to explode.
So now they fail to meet serious future demands and seem "shocked" when they get saturated?
Then they complain that supply and demand will kick in because of the saturation and your connection is now charged at a premium?
Saying X is fast enough for Y is fine since you are commenting on present day usage and you in many cases are correct, the trick is that ISP's are banking on your dumb ass to build the network of tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579608</id>
	<title>Re:Right Questions, Wrong Format</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1269280260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It reminds me of the first survey i ever designed in HTML like 15 years ago.  Going to this page really did feel like stepping back in time.  Lauren may have wanted to consult with at least one person who has done surveys of large populations.  I wince to think what people are going to put in when they have to guess what megabits per second is...as freeform text.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me of the first survey i ever designed in HTML like 15 years ago .
Going to this page really did feel like stepping back in time .
Lauren may have wanted to consult with at least one person who has done surveys of large populations .
I wince to think what people are going to put in when they have to guess what megabits per second is...as freeform text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me of the first survey i ever designed in HTML like 15 years ago.
Going to this page really did feel like stepping back in time.
Lauren may have wanted to consult with at least one person who has done surveys of large populations.
I wince to think what people are going to put in when they have to guess what megabits per second is...as freeform text.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31584504</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how seriously the test is supposed to be taken.  I think its kind of funny how the advertised rate is required and the tested rate is optional - I find it interesting (I haven't looked at the actual FCC work) that the author suggests these questions are excluded from the dialog.  I think it makes me really curious based on questions he asked about what is on the FCC survey - maybe that was the intention?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how seriously the test is supposed to be taken .
I think its kind of funny how the advertised rate is required and the tested rate is optional - I find it interesting ( I have n't looked at the actual FCC work ) that the author suggests these questions are excluded from the dialog .
I think it makes me really curious based on questions he asked about what is on the FCC survey - maybe that was the intention ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how seriously the test is supposed to be taken.
I think its kind of funny how the advertised rate is required and the tested rate is optional - I find it interesting (I haven't looked at the actual FCC work) that the author suggests these questions are excluded from the dialog.
I think it makes me really curious based on questions he asked about what is on the FCC survey - maybe that was the intention?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578260</id>
	<title>In the source of the page:</title>
	<author>trickotomy</author>
	<datestamp>1269267420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"&lt;META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18183" name=GENERATOR&gt;"
<br>
<br>
really? really?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" " really ?
really ? !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""


really?
really?!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578836</id>
	<title>DSL?</title>
	<author>rgspb</author>
	<datestamp>1269272280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when is DSL broadband?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is DSL broadband ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is DSL broadband?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578690</id>
	<title>black is white</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love when a so-called broadband provider tries to tell me I can't measure connection speeds.  I switched from UVerse to Roadrunner, and enjoyed a speed increase of at least 3 times (and I've seen as much as 15 times faster), and a lower monthly bill.  When they asked why I was leaving and I told them of the speed difference, their rep tried to convince me that it was just my imagination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love when a so-called broadband provider tries to tell me I ca n't measure connection speeds .
I switched from UVerse to Roadrunner , and enjoyed a speed increase of at least 3 times ( and I 've seen as much as 15 times faster ) , and a lower monthly bill .
When they asked why I was leaving and I told them of the speed difference , their rep tried to convince me that it was just my imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love when a so-called broadband provider tries to tell me I can't measure connection speeds.
I switched from UVerse to Roadrunner, and enjoyed a speed increase of at least 3 times (and I've seen as much as 15 times faster), and a lower monthly bill.
When they asked why I was leaving and I told them of the speed difference, their rep tried to convince me that it was just my imagination.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579732</id>
	<title>First ever?</title>
	<author>raind</author>
	<datestamp>1269281580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has never ever been a broadband survey? Wow you rock!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has never ever been a broadband survey ?
Wow you rock !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has never ever been a broadband survey?
Wow you rock!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578908</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>jozlod</author>
	<datestamp>1269273000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i agree, i looked at the survey, and decided not to even bother, cause its just chucked together with no thought or design on how to get the results.

also, it looks like the css is missing from your pages, what even is the GCTIP, is it something real, or just made up for funsies? google gives me nothing but the site linked, and some other blog posts or whatever pointing to the survey.

I work with database analysis, and i can tell you having text fields for input is disaster, everyone has different ideas of how to format their inputs, you see some weird stuff in open text fields.  drop down choices are whats needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree , i looked at the survey , and decided not to even bother , cause its just chucked together with no thought or design on how to get the results .
also , it looks like the css is missing from your pages , what even is the GCTIP , is it something real , or just made up for funsies ?
google gives me nothing but the site linked , and some other blog posts or whatever pointing to the survey .
I work with database analysis , and i can tell you having text fields for input is disaster , everyone has different ideas of how to format their inputs , you see some weird stuff in open text fields .
drop down choices are whats needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree, i looked at the survey, and decided not to even bother, cause its just chucked together with no thought or design on how to get the results.
also, it looks like the css is missing from your pages, what even is the GCTIP, is it something real, or just made up for funsies?
google gives me nothing but the site linked, and some other blog posts or whatever pointing to the survey.
I work with database analysis, and i can tell you having text fields for input is disaster, everyone has different ideas of how to format their inputs, you see some weird stuff in open text fields.
drop down choices are whats needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578934</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269273180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or those of us who would rather remote into a client's server rather than have to look at their smiling faces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or those of us who would rather remote into a client 's server rather than have to look at their smiling faces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or those of us who would rather remote into a client's server rather than have to look at their smiling faces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578480</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well... If I wanted to create a proper survey, I wouldn't use the free version of www.123contactform.com (I just assume that the creator used the free version, since it's limited to 10 questions per form and the survey has 10 questions...). Get yourself a proper server (IIS should do it too) and install a proper system like LimeSurvey (http://www.limesurvey.org/) - you'll find that more useful than some ugly online service.

Have fun evaluating all those textboxes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... If I wanted to create a proper survey , I would n't use the free version of www.123contactform.com ( I just assume that the creator used the free version , since it 's limited to 10 questions per form and the survey has 10 questions... ) .
Get yourself a proper server ( IIS should do it too ) and install a proper system like LimeSurvey ( http : //www.limesurvey.org/ ) - you 'll find that more useful than some ugly online service .
Have fun evaluating all those textboxes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... If I wanted to create a proper survey, I wouldn't use the free version of www.123contactform.com (I just assume that the creator used the free version, since it's limited to 10 questions per form and the survey has 10 questions...).
Get yourself a proper server (IIS should do it too) and install a proper system like LimeSurvey (http://www.limesurvey.org/) - you'll find that more useful than some ugly online service.
Have fun evaluating all those textboxes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578948</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>Dorsch</author>
	<datestamp>1269273240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hah, I love that comment!</p><p>"Overall - considering performance, cost, and any other factors - how would you rate your ISP?" - so many factors in one 10-point scale? WTF are you thinking?<br>First, think about what you want to find out, make up hypotheses and then ask something related to them that can actually be translated into usable results.</p><p>As I've pointed out before: The creator of the survey was apparently constrained by the service she used to build this thing. By the looks of it, it's utter crap probably not even designed to be used for surveys. If she had googled (or binged, whatever...) for 5 seconds, she would have found at least 10 more suitable tools on the first page of results alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , I love that comment !
" Overall - considering performance , cost , and any other factors - how would you rate your ISP ?
" - so many factors in one 10-point scale ?
WTF are you thinking ? First , think about what you want to find out , make up hypotheses and then ask something related to them that can actually be translated into usable results.As I 've pointed out before : The creator of the survey was apparently constrained by the service she used to build this thing .
By the looks of it , it 's utter crap probably not even designed to be used for surveys .
If she had googled ( or binged , whatever... ) for 5 seconds , she would have found at least 10 more suitable tools on the first page of results alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, I love that comment!
"Overall - considering performance, cost, and any other factors - how would you rate your ISP?
" - so many factors in one 10-point scale?
WTF are you thinking?First, think about what you want to find out, make up hypotheses and then ask something related to them that can actually be translated into usable results.As I've pointed out before: The creator of the survey was apparently constrained by the service she used to build this thing.
By the looks of it, it's utter crap probably not even designed to be used for surveys.
If she had googled (or binged, whatever...) for 5 seconds, she would have found at least 10 more suitable tools on the first page of results alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579984</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1269285360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. If you look at the site, the organization is run by the poster.<br>This is just another survey that pretends to look authoritive and legit but really isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
If you look at the site , the organization is run by the poster.This is just another survey that pretends to look authoritive and legit but really is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
If you look at the site, the organization is run by the poster.This is just another survey that pretends to look authoritive and legit but really isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578624</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1269270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.</p></div><p>Are you really that ignorant or do you have an agenda?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.Are you really that ignorant or do you have an agenda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.Are you really that ignorant or do you have an agenda?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578960</id>
	<title>Re:The Australian Broadband Survey... compare?</title>
	<author>atmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1269273300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that the whirlpool forums are one of the best general resources of tech knowledge, it never ceases to amaze me the number of times I google for something and a post comes up in the top 5 results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that the whirlpool forums are one of the best general resources of tech knowledge , it never ceases to amaze me the number of times I google for something and a post comes up in the top 5 results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that the whirlpool forums are one of the best general resources of tech knowledge, it never ceases to amaze me the number of times I google for something and a post comes up in the top 5 results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578736</id>
	<title>i wanted to comment on that survey</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1269271500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and then I figured it's not even worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and then I figured it 's not even worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and then I figured it's not even worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579386</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>adamofgreyskull</author>
	<datestamp>1269277980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail. The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This was true, and possibly still is true for some values of "most people", but there are quite a few uses for broadband which are legal, increasingly mainstream, and which greatly benefit from increased bandwidth. E.g. Legitimately buying/downloading games (Steam,2dBoy,Telltale Games), watching streaming video (BBC iPlayer, Netflix), working/video-conferencing from home. Arguably, if all your strawman is doing is "posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail" there's no real reason to have any more than 56k or maybe 128k ISDN, except that would make watching their friends'/CNNs' embedded video or opening that attachment of the panda sneezing an incredibly painful endeavour.

<br> <br>10Mbit is certainly not a necessity to most people, but 768k is simply pathetic by today's standards. For one person, it's bad enough, but as soon as you have more than a couple of people (family home/student house) with the aforementioned increasingly typical use cases (streaming media/large downloads) who want to do different things at the same time, 768k soon becomes saturated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook , checking CNN , sending webmail .
The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders .
This was true , and possibly still is true for some values of " most people " , but there are quite a few uses for broadband which are legal , increasingly mainstream , and which greatly benefit from increased bandwidth .
E.g. Legitimately buying/downloading games ( Steam,2dBoy,Telltale Games ) , watching streaming video ( BBC iPlayer , Netflix ) , working/video-conferencing from home .
Arguably , if all your strawman is doing is " posting on Facebook , checking CNN , sending webmail " there 's no real reason to have any more than 56k or maybe 128k ISDN , except that would make watching their friends'/CNNs ' embedded video or opening that attachment of the panda sneezing an incredibly painful endeavour .
10Mbit is certainly not a necessity to most people , but 768k is simply pathetic by today 's standards .
For one person , it 's bad enough , but as soon as you have more than a couple of people ( family home/student house ) with the aforementioned increasingly typical use cases ( streaming media/large downloads ) who want to do different things at the same time , 768k soon becomes saturated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail.
The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.
This was true, and possibly still is true for some values of "most people", but there are quite a few uses for broadband which are legal, increasingly mainstream, and which greatly benefit from increased bandwidth.
E.g. Legitimately buying/downloading games (Steam,2dBoy,Telltale Games), watching streaming video (BBC iPlayer, Netflix), working/video-conferencing from home.
Arguably, if all your strawman is doing is "posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail" there's no real reason to have any more than 56k or maybe 128k ISDN, except that would make watching their friends'/CNNs' embedded video or opening that attachment of the panda sneezing an incredibly painful endeavour.
10Mbit is certainly not a necessity to most people, but 768k is simply pathetic by today's standards.
For one person, it's bad enough, but as soon as you have more than a couple of people (family home/student house) with the aforementioned increasingly typical use cases (streaming media/large downloads) who want to do different things at the same time, 768k soon becomes saturated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579582</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to subscribe to Lauren's email list but i had to drop it.  I started to suspect Lauren of being a telco/cable mole because He let Brett Glass post over and over and over despite the fact that Brett is an insignificant crank who operates a tiny ISP in Wyoming.  At some point it stops being about letting a crank have his say and moves right into adopting the crank's advocacy campaign.  I think Lauren went way hip deep into supporting Brett's campaign of stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to subscribe to Lauren 's email list but i had to drop it .
I started to suspect Lauren of being a telco/cable mole because He let Brett Glass post over and over and over despite the fact that Brett is an insignificant crank who operates a tiny ISP in Wyoming .
At some point it stops being about letting a crank have his say and moves right into adopting the crank 's advocacy campaign .
I think Lauren went way hip deep into supporting Brett 's campaign of stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to subscribe to Lauren's email list but i had to drop it.
I started to suspect Lauren of being a telco/cable mole because He let Brett Glass post over and over and over despite the fact that Brett is an insignificant crank who operates a tiny ISP in Wyoming.
At some point it stops being about letting a crank have his say and moves right into adopting the crank's advocacy campaign.
I think Lauren went way hip deep into supporting Brett's campaign of stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579054</id>
	<title>Re:In the source of the page:</title>
	<author>sp0tter</author>
	<datestamp>1269274380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's a trap!</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a trap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a trap!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579068</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you are the guy responsible for all these horrible cookie cutter type surveys.</p><p>You see them over and over again. Multiple choice and the answer isn't one of the choices. Talk about invalidating the results. Nothing borks the results more than forcing someone to give inaccurate answers to complete the survey.</p><p>I used to work for a survey company and hear the frustration all night long. Frustration compounded by the fact that I wasn't allowed to give any explanation or even apologize lest I corrupt the data.</p><p>For example, I gave a government sponsored survey on the effectiveness of seat belt advertising campaigns. The entire survey consisted of questions and answers that didn't fit if someone wasn't in favor of government enforced seat belt laws in the first place... 20 mins of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you are the guy responsible for all these horrible cookie cutter type surveys.You see them over and over again .
Multiple choice and the answer is n't one of the choices .
Talk about invalidating the results .
Nothing borks the results more than forcing someone to give inaccurate answers to complete the survey.I used to work for a survey company and hear the frustration all night long .
Frustration compounded by the fact that I was n't allowed to give any explanation or even apologize lest I corrupt the data.For example , I gave a government sponsored survey on the effectiveness of seat belt advertising campaigns .
The entire survey consisted of questions and answers that did n't fit if someone was n't in favor of government enforced seat belt laws in the first place... 20 mins of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you are the guy responsible for all these horrible cookie cutter type surveys.You see them over and over again.
Multiple choice and the answer isn't one of the choices.
Talk about invalidating the results.
Nothing borks the results more than forcing someone to give inaccurate answers to complete the survey.I used to work for a survey company and hear the frustration all night long.
Frustration compounded by the fact that I wasn't allowed to give any explanation or even apologize lest I corrupt the data.For example, I gave a government sponsored survey on the effectiveness of seat belt advertising campaigns.
The entire survey consisted of questions and answers that didn't fit if someone wasn't in favor of government enforced seat belt laws in the first place... 20 mins of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580230</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1269375000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A well-designed survey would have been born as an open-answer one first, administered, and the resultant data categorized into constrained responses. Then it would have been given again and checked for reliability. There would probably be some manner of factor analysis done at this point to identify patterns in the responses (make sure that items that should be similar are similar, etc.). Then you give it again and make sure that the factors or paths look the same. Then you'd give it for real. Each time, though, you'd need a unique sample.

</p><p>Virtually no one does this, though, for obvious reasons.

</p><p>So what you were working with there was a poorly-developed survey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A well-designed survey would have been born as an open-answer one first , administered , and the resultant data categorized into constrained responses .
Then it would have been given again and checked for reliability .
There would probably be some manner of factor analysis done at this point to identify patterns in the responses ( make sure that items that should be similar are similar , etc. ) .
Then you give it again and make sure that the factors or paths look the same .
Then you 'd give it for real .
Each time , though , you 'd need a unique sample .
Virtually no one does this , though , for obvious reasons .
So what you were working with there was a poorly-developed survey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well-designed survey would have been born as an open-answer one first, administered, and the resultant data categorized into constrained responses.
Then it would have been given again and checked for reliability.
There would probably be some manner of factor analysis done at this point to identify patterns in the responses (make sure that items that should be similar are similar, etc.).
Then you give it again and make sure that the factors or paths look the same.
Then you'd give it for real.
Each time, though, you'd need a unique sample.
Virtually no one does this, though, for obvious reasons.
So what you were working with there was a poorly-developed survey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580534</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1269336780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>768k DSL is fast enough for most people</p></div><p>Facebook, CNN, and webmail, sure. Xbox Live, Netflix, NBA, Youtube, Hulu... nope.</p><p>Also, you have to consider how fast 768K as advertised really is. That's nowhere near 768K.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>768k DSL is fast enough for most peopleFacebook , CNN , and webmail , sure .
Xbox Live , Netflix , NBA , Youtube , Hulu... nope.Also , you have to consider how fast 768K as advertised really is .
That 's nowhere near 768K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>768k DSL is fast enough for most peopleFacebook, CNN, and webmail, sure.
Xbox Live, Netflix, NBA, Youtube, Hulu... nope.Also, you have to consider how fast 768K as advertised really is.
That's nowhere near 768K.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580402</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269334860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That and for a "Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance" this survey is not very global.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That and for a " Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance " this survey is not very global .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That and for a "Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance" this survey is not very global.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579212</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1269276120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the cardinal rules of survey design is that it should be quick and easy for people to fill out. Do the hard work for them, and let them just tick boxes. If you don't, they won't take it and all you'll get is data skewed toward people who--like you--actually care enough to type up a bunch of thoughts.<b> I care about broadband, but even I am not interested in blathering away into a text box.</b></p> </div><p>Whoo boy, I think you done broke my snickerer!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the cardinal rules of survey design is that it should be quick and easy for people to fill out .
Do the hard work for them , and let them just tick boxes .
If you do n't , they wo n't take it and all you 'll get is data skewed toward people who--like you--actually care enough to type up a bunch of thoughts .
I care about broadband , but even I am not interested in blathering away into a text box .
Whoo boy , I think you done broke my snickerer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the cardinal rules of survey design is that it should be quick and easy for people to fill out.
Do the hard work for them, and let them just tick boxes.
If you don't, they won't take it and all you'll get is data skewed toward people who--like you--actually care enough to type up a bunch of thoughts.
I care about broadband, but even I am not interested in blathering away into a text box.
Whoo boy, I think you done broke my snickerer!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580486</id>
	<title>Re:Getting relevant responses? Gosh!</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1269336240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No survey is completely objective. Seriously, all surveys are highly susceptible to the self-selection or opt-in behavior of the survey pool, the selection of the survey pool by the one conducting the survey, and of how the questions in the survey are ordered and constructed. That is how you can pay firms to help you get the stats you need.</p><p>I say props to this guy for mentioning it up front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No survey is completely objective .
Seriously , all surveys are highly susceptible to the self-selection or opt-in behavior of the survey pool , the selection of the survey pool by the one conducting the survey , and of how the questions in the survey are ordered and constructed .
That is how you can pay firms to help you get the stats you need.I say props to this guy for mentioning it up front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No survey is completely objective.
Seriously, all surveys are highly susceptible to the self-selection or opt-in behavior of the survey pool, the selection of the survey pool by the one conducting the survey, and of how the questions in the survey are ordered and constructed.
That is how you can pay firms to help you get the stats you need.I say props to this guy for mentioning it up front.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578760</id>
	<title>frist pHso7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>smeels woRse than a</htmltext>
<tokenext>smeels woRse than a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smeels woRse than a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578172</id>
	<title>A Broadband Survey That Asks the Right Questions</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I.e., ones that are loaded so as to produce the results that the author wants to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I.e. , ones that are loaded so as to produce the results that the author wants to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I.e., ones that are loaded so as to produce the results that the author wants to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578890</id>
	<title>I can [not] believe it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269272880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would write, "I can't believe Slashdot posted this," but I've been an anonymous coward for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would write , " I ca n't believe Slashdot posted this , " but I 've been an anonymous coward for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would write, "I can't believe Slashdot posted this," but I've been an anonymous coward for a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578644</id>
	<title>Right Questions, Wrong Format</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1269270540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That page desperately needs text boxes to input all the answers about bandwidth/latency/jitter.<br>I filled out the survey, but sweet tap dancing Jesus do I pity the person(s) who have to turn the results into useable data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That page desperately needs text boxes to input all the answers about bandwidth/latency/jitter.I filled out the survey , but sweet tap dancing Jesus do I pity the person ( s ) who have to turn the results into useable data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That page desperately needs text boxes to input all the answers about bandwidth/latency/jitter.I filled out the survey, but sweet tap dancing Jesus do I pity the person(s) who have to turn the results into useable data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583558</id>
	<title>Re:Getting relevant responses? Gosh!</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269358740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The types of questions on the FCC broadband test can be answered by anyone, but questions like what speed does your ISP promise you is more difficult.</p><p>FCC: Enter your address and click on this Java thing to run a speed test to show what you're actually getting, ignoring things like competition and user choice.  If the cable company is a bunch of ripe turds and everyone uses dial-up because they've quit using the cable company, the FCC will see that only dial-up is available in the area.</p><p>My problem is that cable is on the other side of the street but not this side, which is a 3 year old problem at the least.  So I have to use satellite or DSL.  DSL without voice is inexpensive, but it's by AT&amp;T, and I don't want to give them money.  Satellite?  No thanks, I'd rather give AT&amp;T money than use satellite.  so my only choice is to give AT&amp;T the absolute least amount I can get away with until cable gets here, $19.95 for naked DSL 768k.  The FCC would see this as DSL exists, broadband is available, no issues.  But it does not accurately represent the situation.</p><p>As long as I'm rambling, this situation isn't what the FCC is trying to measure - they just want to see zones where broadband is either unavailable, unused, or performing poorly.  FCC states broadband is "fster than traditional dial-up" on its broadband test pages, but officially defined it as 768k - there is a significant gap between 56k and 768k.  That means if I have the absolute minimum service available (conveniently 768k) and my upload/download is not 100\% maxed out, my measurements will show less than 768k.  Do they round up?  If so, how can they tell the difference between dual ISDN-BRI (256k x 2) and 768k?</p><p>Don't misunderstand - this survey has serious problems, and will generate a lot of unusable data, but it does the job of highlighting what the FCC is ignoring.  FCC could at least add a "What speed does my ISP promise?" box with speed ranges based on whether you select your connection type - but there would be enough users calling for help figuring that out it would bog down the process.  So how does an agency deal with stupid users and get the most data?  Simplify it to "click this and enter your address and we'll do the rest."</p><p>FCC could require an annual report outlining the plans offered and number of users in each plan from every ISP, grouped by residential/commercial usage and zip code - that would take less effort but wouldn't reflect actual speeds, where a shared 10MB cable connection gets you 1.5 MB at most.  So yes, problems all around.  Someone's trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The types of questions on the FCC broadband test can be answered by anyone , but questions like what speed does your ISP promise you is more difficult.FCC : Enter your address and click on this Java thing to run a speed test to show what you 're actually getting , ignoring things like competition and user choice .
If the cable company is a bunch of ripe turds and everyone uses dial-up because they 've quit using the cable company , the FCC will see that only dial-up is available in the area.My problem is that cable is on the other side of the street but not this side , which is a 3 year old problem at the least .
So I have to use satellite or DSL .
DSL without voice is inexpensive , but it 's by AT&amp;T , and I do n't want to give them money .
Satellite ? No thanks , I 'd rather give AT&amp;T money than use satellite .
so my only choice is to give AT&amp;T the absolute least amount I can get away with until cable gets here , $ 19.95 for naked DSL 768k .
The FCC would see this as DSL exists , broadband is available , no issues .
But it does not accurately represent the situation.As long as I 'm rambling , this situation is n't what the FCC is trying to measure - they just want to see zones where broadband is either unavailable , unused , or performing poorly .
FCC states broadband is " fster than traditional dial-up " on its broadband test pages , but officially defined it as 768k - there is a significant gap between 56k and 768k .
That means if I have the absolute minimum service available ( conveniently 768k ) and my upload/download is not 100 \ % maxed out , my measurements will show less than 768k .
Do they round up ?
If so , how can they tell the difference between dual ISDN-BRI ( 256k x 2 ) and 768k ? Do n't misunderstand - this survey has serious problems , and will generate a lot of unusable data , but it does the job of highlighting what the FCC is ignoring .
FCC could at least add a " What speed does my ISP promise ?
" box with speed ranges based on whether you select your connection type - but there would be enough users calling for help figuring that out it would bog down the process .
So how does an agency deal with stupid users and get the most data ?
Simplify it to " click this and enter your address and we 'll do the rest .
" FCC could require an annual report outlining the plans offered and number of users in each plan from every ISP , grouped by residential/commercial usage and zip code - that would take less effort but would n't reflect actual speeds , where a shared 10MB cable connection gets you 1.5 MB at most .
So yes , problems all around .
Someone 's trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The types of questions on the FCC broadband test can be answered by anyone, but questions like what speed does your ISP promise you is more difficult.FCC: Enter your address and click on this Java thing to run a speed test to show what you're actually getting, ignoring things like competition and user choice.
If the cable company is a bunch of ripe turds and everyone uses dial-up because they've quit using the cable company, the FCC will see that only dial-up is available in the area.My problem is that cable is on the other side of the street but not this side, which is a 3 year old problem at the least.
So I have to use satellite or DSL.
DSL without voice is inexpensive, but it's by AT&amp;T, and I don't want to give them money.
Satellite?  No thanks, I'd rather give AT&amp;T money than use satellite.
so my only choice is to give AT&amp;T the absolute least amount I can get away with until cable gets here, $19.95 for naked DSL 768k.
The FCC would see this as DSL exists, broadband is available, no issues.
But it does not accurately represent the situation.As long as I'm rambling, this situation isn't what the FCC is trying to measure - they just want to see zones where broadband is either unavailable, unused, or performing poorly.
FCC states broadband is "fster than traditional dial-up" on its broadband test pages, but officially defined it as 768k - there is a significant gap between 56k and 768k.
That means if I have the absolute minimum service available (conveniently 768k) and my upload/download is not 100\% maxed out, my measurements will show less than 768k.
Do they round up?
If so, how can they tell the difference between dual ISDN-BRI (256k x 2) and 768k?Don't misunderstand - this survey has serious problems, and will generate a lot of unusable data, but it does the job of highlighting what the FCC is ignoring.
FCC could at least add a "What speed does my ISP promise?
" box with speed ranges based on whether you select your connection type - but there would be enough users calling for help figuring that out it would bog down the process.
So how does an agency deal with stupid users and get the most data?
Simplify it to "click this and enter your address and we'll do the rest.
"FCC could require an annual report outlining the plans offered and number of users in each plan from every ISP, grouped by residential/commercial usage and zip code - that would take less effort but wouldn't reflect actual speeds, where a shared 10MB cable connection gets you 1.5 MB at most.
So yes, problems all around.
Someone's trying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578304</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone know what the file is that's automatically downloaded when you click the 'About The Survey' link?<br> <br>The filename is: 4fCLFKlYW3c&amp;ap=\%26fmt=18&amp;autoplay=0&amp;rel=0&amp;fs!type=</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know what the file is that 's automatically downloaded when you click the 'About The Survey ' link ?
The filename is : 4fCLFKlYW3c&amp;ap = \ % 26fmt = 18&amp;autoplay = 0&amp;rel = 0&amp;fs ! type =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know what the file is that's automatically downloaded when you click the 'About The Survey' link?
The filename is: 4fCLFKlYW3c&amp;ap=\%26fmt=18&amp;autoplay=0&amp;rel=0&amp;fs!type=</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578980</id>
	<title>Balanced</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be a balanced survey, don't you have to ask the left questions as well.</p><p>(of course if you really want to be "Fair and Balanced" then you only report the 'right' viewpoint..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be a balanced survey , do n't you have to ask the left questions as well .
( of course if you really want to be " Fair and Balanced " then you only report the 'right ' viewpoint. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be a balanced survey, don't you have to ask the left questions as well.
(of course if you really want to be "Fair and Balanced" then you only report the 'right' viewpoint..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31582054</id>
	<title>Form disabled message</title>
	<author>Amigan</author>
	<datestamp>1269352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Took the poll, submitted, received message that the form was disabled...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Took the poll , submitted , received message that the form was disabled.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took the poll, submitted, received message that the form was disabled...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578782</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>rwven</author>
	<datestamp>1269271860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And watching netflix on my xbox 360 puts me in....which one of those categories?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And watching netflix on my xbox 360 puts me in....which one of those categories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And watching netflix on my xbox 360 puts me in....which one of those categories?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578200</id>
	<title>Re:Getting relevant responses? Gosh!</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, after all, a self-selected group of people actively interested in discussing the topic is sure to be representative of the population as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , after all , a self-selected group of people actively interested in discussing the topic is sure to be representative of the population as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, after all, a self-selected group of people actively interested in discussing the topic is sure to be representative of the population as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579678</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two possible approaches.  First, as another already commented, can be a check to see if you're lying.  The second reason to include many similar items is to increase the reliability of the underlying factors.  For example if I ask you how many miles you drive to work today, how many miles you drive each week, and how many miles you drive on a typical day, I'll get three answers that should be relatively correlated and (in a factor analysis) will load together on the same "driving" factor.  The most similar items you have per factor, the more reliable your survey is and the "stronger" your factors.  You can imagine how psychological factors might have far more variability, depending on the question, than something easily quantifiable like driving.  And even those driving responses could be manipulated by particular survey research techniques.</p><p>Good researchers include multiple items per factor.  The bare minimum you like to see for a standard analysis is three items per factor.  But bad researchers will repeat the same thing over and over and over again to increase reliability and internal consistency simply for the sake of increasing them.  There's really no value added at that point.  If you believe their questions could be asked on one page, 3-4 pages should be needed if they have decent factors.  10 pages could be a sign of poor survey construction.  A major responsibility of researchers is to get as close to the "truth" as possible <i>without wasting the time of participants.</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two possible approaches .
First , as another already commented , can be a check to see if you 're lying .
The second reason to include many similar items is to increase the reliability of the underlying factors .
For example if I ask you how many miles you drive to work today , how many miles you drive each week , and how many miles you drive on a typical day , I 'll get three answers that should be relatively correlated and ( in a factor analysis ) will load together on the same " driving " factor .
The most similar items you have per factor , the more reliable your survey is and the " stronger " your factors .
You can imagine how psychological factors might have far more variability , depending on the question , than something easily quantifiable like driving .
And even those driving responses could be manipulated by particular survey research techniques.Good researchers include multiple items per factor .
The bare minimum you like to see for a standard analysis is three items per factor .
But bad researchers will repeat the same thing over and over and over again to increase reliability and internal consistency simply for the sake of increasing them .
There 's really no value added at that point .
If you believe their questions could be asked on one page , 3-4 pages should be needed if they have decent factors .
10 pages could be a sign of poor survey construction .
A major responsibility of researchers is to get as close to the " truth " as possible without wasting the time of participants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two possible approaches.
First, as another already commented, can be a check to see if you're lying.
The second reason to include many similar items is to increase the reliability of the underlying factors.
For example if I ask you how many miles you drive to work today, how many miles you drive each week, and how many miles you drive on a typical day, I'll get three answers that should be relatively correlated and (in a factor analysis) will load together on the same "driving" factor.
The most similar items you have per factor, the more reliable your survey is and the "stronger" your factors.
You can imagine how psychological factors might have far more variability, depending on the question, than something easily quantifiable like driving.
And even those driving responses could be manipulated by particular survey research techniques.Good researchers include multiple items per factor.
The bare minimum you like to see for a standard analysis is three items per factor.
But bad researchers will repeat the same thing over and over and over again to increase reliability and internal consistency simply for the sake of increasing them.
There's really no value added at that point.
If you believe their questions could be asked on one page, 3-4 pages should be needed if they have decent factors.
10 pages could be a sign of poor survey construction.
A major responsibility of researchers is to get as close to the "truth" as possible without wasting the time of participants. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31582658</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>access.name</author>
	<datestamp>1269355080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This, in all honesty, is the worst survey I have ever seen, and I work with language teachers.</p></div><p>
I'm so glad the person who did this survey is male... otherwise, my entire gender would be flamed for the poor job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This , in all honesty , is the worst survey I have ever seen , and I work with language teachers .
I 'm so glad the person who did this survey is male... otherwise , my entire gender would be flamed for the poor job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, in all honesty, is the worst survey I have ever seen, and I work with language teachers.
I'm so glad the person who did this survey is male... otherwise, my entire gender would be flamed for the poor job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134</id>
	<title>Getting relevant responses? Gosh!</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269266580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is a self-selected survey</i></p><p>You're getting relevant responses from people who are already actively interested in discussing the topic? Will wonders never cease?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a self-selected surveyYou 're getting relevant responses from people who are already actively interested in discussing the topic ?
Will wonders never cease ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a self-selected surveyYou're getting relevant responses from people who are already actively interested in discussing the topic?
Will wonders never cease?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578942</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1269273180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is your organization run by two college kids and an IIS server?</p></div><p>I agree. I'm not sure about the sending of a sperm sample as adequate proof of my sex... But at least they collected my credit card information so the could refund the shipping!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is your organization run by two college kids and an IIS server ? I agree .
I 'm not sure about the sending of a sperm sample as adequate proof of my sex... But at least they collected my credit card information so the could refund the shipping !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is your organization run by two college kids and an IIS server?I agree.
I'm not sure about the sending of a sperm sample as adequate proof of my sex... But at least they collected my credit card information so the could refund the shipping!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581658</id>
	<title>This survey is disabled</title>
	<author>JaySSSS</author>
	<datestamp>1269349920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another reason not to use a free survey.  It gets slashdotted almost immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason not to use a free survey .
It gets slashdotted almost immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason not to use a free survey.
It gets slashdotted almost immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31586502</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269370020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did this survey make it to the front page? Seriously as many people have pointed out, as surveys go its terrible, and even as web forms go its terrible. Some old biker dude learns how to use Front Page and now his survey is on the front page?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did this survey make it to the front page ?
Seriously as many people have pointed out , as surveys go its terrible , and even as web forms go its terrible .
Some old biker dude learns how to use Front Page and now his survey is on the front page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did this survey make it to the front page?
Seriously as many people have pointed out, as surveys go its terrible, and even as web forms go its terrible.
Some old biker dude learns how to use Front Page and now his survey is on the front page?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578568</id>
	<title>Broadband Reports?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they already collect this data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they already collect this data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they already collect this data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581634</id>
	<title>Broken</title>
	<author>jimbob666</author>
	<datestamp>1269349560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh dear I get 'This form is disabled' after hitting submit.
<br> <br>
I don't think it is an email harvester because that field is optional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear I get 'This form is disabled ' after hitting submit .
I do n't think it is an email harvester because that field is optional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear I get 'This form is disabled' after hitting submit.
I don't think it is an email harvester because that field is optional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580064</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband Reports?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1269286440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit like the M3 numbers for cash flow or U6 for workers in/out of the US workforce, the real data is hidden or not collected for public use.<br>
Map out the US broadband network and you will have a visit from some 3 letter agency- as your collecting choke point data, areas of critical one point failure.<br>
Best just to sit back and accept a best effort average as printed by your gov and telco.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit like the M3 numbers for cash flow or U6 for workers in/out of the US workforce , the real data is hidden or not collected for public use .
Map out the US broadband network and you will have a visit from some 3 letter agency- as your collecting choke point data , areas of critical one point failure .
Best just to sit back and accept a best effort average as printed by your gov and telco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit like the M3 numbers for cash flow or U6 for workers in/out of the US workforce, the real data is hidden or not collected for public use.
Map out the US broadband network and you will have a visit from some 3 letter agency- as your collecting choke point data, areas of critical one point failure.
Best just to sit back and accept a best effort average as printed by your gov and telco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</id>
	<title>Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>MyLongNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1269266520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you post a survey on Slashdot. Now, I am not a statistician, and I have never played one on TV, but I think I have heard a thing or two about selection bias. Is your organization run by two college kids and an IIS server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you post a survey on Slashdot .
Now , I am not a statistician , and I have never played one on TV , but I think I have heard a thing or two about selection bias .
Is your organization run by two college kids and an IIS server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you post a survey on Slashdot.
Now, I am not a statistician, and I have never played one on TV, but I think I have heard a thing or two about selection bias.
Is your organization run by two college kids and an IIS server?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578744</id>
	<title>Rigged Bandwidth Testing</title>
	<author>bengoerz</author>
	<datestamp>1269271560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I challenge whether you can even trust bandwidth tests. The OOKLA-powered bandwidth test on Broadband.gov shows 80Mbit down on my 10Mbit connection. I never see similar numbers from any other source. So, perhaps my ISP (Time Warner) is pulling one over?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I challenge whether you can even trust bandwidth tests .
The OOKLA-powered bandwidth test on Broadband.gov shows 80Mbit down on my 10Mbit connection .
I never see similar numbers from any other source .
So , perhaps my ISP ( Time Warner ) is pulling one over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I challenge whether you can even trust bandwidth tests.
The OOKLA-powered bandwidth test on Broadband.gov shows 80Mbit down on my 10Mbit connection.
I never see similar numbers from any other source.
So, perhaps my ISP (Time Warner) is pulling one over?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581560</id>
	<title>Doubting Thomas</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1269348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I ran the FFC speed test, but I would love some assurance that ISPs aren't gaming the results by giving every up/down connection to these speed test suites (<i>especially</i> the FFC one) top drawer, white-glove priorty to achieve 99.99\% of your plan's max speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran the FFC speed test , but I would love some assurance that ISPs are n't gaming the results by giving every up/down connection to these speed test suites ( especially the FFC one ) top drawer , white-glove priorty to achieve 99.99 \ % of your plan 's max speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran the FFC speed test, but I would love some assurance that ISPs aren't gaming the results by giving every up/down connection to these speed test suites (especially the FFC one) top drawer, white-glove priorty to achieve 99.99\% of your plan's max speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583488</id>
	<title>Re:Fast Enough</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1269358440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail.  The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.</p></div><p>Really?  Have you tried to ssh while your wife or girlfriend was playing cafe world on facebook?</p><p>UGGG!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook , checking CNN , sending webmail .
The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.Really ?
Have you tried to ssh while your wife or girlfriend was playing cafe world on facebook ? UGGG !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail.
The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.Really?
Have you tried to ssh while your wife or girlfriend was playing cafe world on facebook?UGGG!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581536</id>
	<title>FCC Speed test: misleading results ...</title>
	<author>Herschel Cohen</author>
	<datestamp>1269348360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just seeing 20,000 plus kilobits down and over 4,000 kilobits up were obviously burst speeds that are available for very short periods and amounts.  Yes those are the real, however, they are maximum values seen rarely. I wonder too how many providers are detecting the test to skew the results upward to imaginary values.  Unfortunately, I suspect more than just a few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just seeing 20,000 plus kilobits down and over 4,000 kilobits up were obviously burst speeds that are available for very short periods and amounts .
Yes those are the real , however , they are maximum values seen rarely .
I wonder too how many providers are detecting the test to skew the results upward to imaginary values .
Unfortunately , I suspect more than just a few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just seeing 20,000 plus kilobits down and over 4,000 kilobits up were obviously burst speeds that are available for very short periods and amounts.
Yes those are the real, however, they are maximum values seen rarely.
I wonder too how many providers are detecting the test to skew the results upward to imaginary values.
Unfortunately, I suspect more than just a few.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579338</id>
	<title>"A Survey that does not get it right"</title>
	<author>dagee</author>
	<datestamp>1269277560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As others have said, the survey created by Lauren is really bad.  In reading his analysis of the issues that he had with the FCC's survey the survey that he created does nothing to address the issues and if the survey were actually used would only exacerbate the issues he describes.
<br> <br>
First off, Lauren is asking people to disclose their upload and download speeds but disagrees with they way the FCC has asked people to do.  The FCC asks everyone to use the same measuring tool. (at least that is my understanding according to Lauren's summary of the FCC survey which I have never seen).  Using the same tool is important.  As Lauren himself states in commenting on the disparity between his own tools used to measure internet speed vs the FCC, the results can vary depending on the tool used.  While the FCC's tool may have its issues, if everyone uses it for the test then it has relative validity.    If you are to get valid usable results you have to control as many of the testing conditions as you can.
<br> <br>
The other issue, is the level of complexity of the survey.  Again, I have not seen the FCC's survey so perhaps it is also fairly complex but asking people to measure the upload and download speeds, address issues of latency and what have you is not going to be survey that everyone will be able to understand or complete.
<br> <br>
Aside from that, how many people remember what there isp promised in terms of these.  While they can be looked up, most people will probably just rattle off some numbers that they think they remember when they signed up for their service (and this of course assumes that those speeds have not changed by the provider since the day they signed their contract.  I know when I had Comcast my upload and download speeds increased considerably over the two years I had them as they made upgrades to their network.
<br> <br>
Finally, don't ever claim that your survey "Asks the right questions".  Not only is it bit conceited you are basically begging people to find fault with it.
<br> <br>
Finally, if perfect measure of internet speeds and service were truly wanted then what should be supplied is a program that measure the desired information and then that information is then sent to the FCC to use the data as they will.  This would take care of user errors in interpretation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have said , the survey created by Lauren is really bad .
In reading his analysis of the issues that he had with the FCC 's survey the survey that he created does nothing to address the issues and if the survey were actually used would only exacerbate the issues he describes .
First off , Lauren is asking people to disclose their upload and download speeds but disagrees with they way the FCC has asked people to do .
The FCC asks everyone to use the same measuring tool .
( at least that is my understanding according to Lauren 's summary of the FCC survey which I have never seen ) .
Using the same tool is important .
As Lauren himself states in commenting on the disparity between his own tools used to measure internet speed vs the FCC , the results can vary depending on the tool used .
While the FCC 's tool may have its issues , if everyone uses it for the test then it has relative validity .
If you are to get valid usable results you have to control as many of the testing conditions as you can .
The other issue , is the level of complexity of the survey .
Again , I have not seen the FCC 's survey so perhaps it is also fairly complex but asking people to measure the upload and download speeds , address issues of latency and what have you is not going to be survey that everyone will be able to understand or complete .
Aside from that , how many people remember what there isp promised in terms of these .
While they can be looked up , most people will probably just rattle off some numbers that they think they remember when they signed up for their service ( and this of course assumes that those speeds have not changed by the provider since the day they signed their contract .
I know when I had Comcast my upload and download speeds increased considerably over the two years I had them as they made upgrades to their network .
Finally , do n't ever claim that your survey " Asks the right questions " .
Not only is it bit conceited you are basically begging people to find fault with it .
Finally , if perfect measure of internet speeds and service were truly wanted then what should be supplied is a program that measure the desired information and then that information is then sent to the FCC to use the data as they will .
This would take care of user errors in interpretation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have said, the survey created by Lauren is really bad.
In reading his analysis of the issues that he had with the FCC's survey the survey that he created does nothing to address the issues and if the survey were actually used would only exacerbate the issues he describes.
First off, Lauren is asking people to disclose their upload and download speeds but disagrees with they way the FCC has asked people to do.
The FCC asks everyone to use the same measuring tool.
(at least that is my understanding according to Lauren's summary of the FCC survey which I have never seen).
Using the same tool is important.
As Lauren himself states in commenting on the disparity between his own tools used to measure internet speed vs the FCC, the results can vary depending on the tool used.
While the FCC's tool may have its issues, if everyone uses it for the test then it has relative validity.
If you are to get valid usable results you have to control as many of the testing conditions as you can.
The other issue, is the level of complexity of the survey.
Again, I have not seen the FCC's survey so perhaps it is also fairly complex but asking people to measure the upload and download speeds, address issues of latency and what have you is not going to be survey that everyone will be able to understand or complete.
Aside from that, how many people remember what there isp promised in terms of these.
While they can be looked up, most people will probably just rattle off some numbers that they think they remember when they signed up for their service (and this of course assumes that those speeds have not changed by the provider since the day they signed their contract.
I know when I had Comcast my upload and download speeds increased considerably over the two years I had them as they made upgrades to their network.
Finally, don't ever claim that your survey "Asks the right questions".
Not only is it bit conceited you are basically begging people to find fault with it.
Finally, if perfect measure of internet speeds and service were truly wanted then what should be supplied is a program that measure the desired information and then that information is then sent to the FCC to use the data as they will.
This would take care of user errors in interpretation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510</id>
	<title>Fast Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail.  The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook , checking CNN , sending webmail .
The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>768k DSL is fast enough for most people - posting on Facebook, checking CNN, sending webmail.
The people who need 10MBit are the warez hounds and ISO downloaders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579254</id>
	<title>Am I sexist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269276540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it bad that while looking at the survey page I couldn't fathom how someone could create something so terrible (without specifically trying to, that is), but upon realizing it was created by a female, thought to myself "Oh, OK".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it bad that while looking at the survey page I could n't fathom how someone could create something so terrible ( without specifically trying to , that is ) , but upon realizing it was created by a female , thought to myself " Oh , OK " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it bad that while looking at the survey page I couldn't fathom how someone could create something so terrible (without specifically trying to, that is), but upon realizing it was created by a female, thought to myself "Oh, OK".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583044</id>
	<title>Re:I teach survey design... This is terrible.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269356640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've only taken one statistics class, but I agree that this survey is pretty bad.</p><p>I filled it out and found that it generated a cross-site scripting error and lost my info. Too bad, I'm off to the next thing.</p><p>Good idea, poor execution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only taken one statistics class , but I agree that this survey is pretty bad.I filled it out and found that it generated a cross-site scripting error and lost my info .
Too bad , I 'm off to the next thing.Good idea , poor execution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've only taken one statistics class, but I agree that this survey is pretty bad.I filled it out and found that it generated a cross-site scripting error and lost my info.
Too bad, I'm off to the next thing.Good idea, poor execution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578500</id>
	<title>faiLzo8s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">something done many users of BSD people's faces at guys are usually out hOw to make the And she ran coomitterbase and bad for *BSD. As About a project</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>something done many users of BSD people 's faces at guys are usually out hOw to make the And she ran coomitterbase and bad for * BSD .
As About a project [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something done many users of BSD people's faces at guys are usually out hOw to make the And she ran coomitterbase and bad for *BSD.
As About a project [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579978</id>
	<title>Re:Uhmmmmm</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1269285240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.whois.net/whois/gctip.org" title="whois.net">http://www.whois.net/whois/gctip.org</a> [whois.net]</p><p>gctip was registered by Lauren Weinstein on behalf of <a href="http://www.vortex.com/" title="vortex.com">Vortex Technology</a> [vortex.com], which also appears to be run by Lauren.  According to their whois record, they have an office in <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=23241+Ventura+Blvd,+Woodland+Hills,+ca&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=35.684144,79.013672&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=23241+Ventura+Blvd,+Woodland+Hills,+Los+Angeles,+California+91364&amp;ll=34.16189,-118.63212&amp;spn=0.009108,0.01929&amp;z=16&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=34.161943,-118.632028&amp;panoid=aia5zWrWJhwGrw2j7RZMgA&amp;cbp=12,323.46,,0,-1.21" title="google.com">this</a> [google.com] building.  On her blog, she claims to be <a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/" title="vortex.com">self-employed</a> [vortex.com].</p><p>They also seem related to <a href="http://www.pfir.org/" title="pfir.org">pfir.org</a> [pfir.org], though not by whois.  What exactly that connection is, besides webdesign, is unclear.</p><p>My guess, this is either a well-meaning person who has never run a 100k response survey before, or they're a First Class Grep Wizard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.whois.net/whois/gctip.org [ whois.net ] gctip was registered by Lauren Weinstein on behalf of Vortex Technology [ vortex.com ] , which also appears to be run by Lauren .
According to their whois record , they have an office in this [ google.com ] building .
On her blog , she claims to be self-employed [ vortex.com ] .They also seem related to pfir.org [ pfir.org ] , though not by whois .
What exactly that connection is , besides webdesign , is unclear.My guess , this is either a well-meaning person who has never run a 100k response survey before , or they 're a First Class Grep Wizard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.whois.net/whois/gctip.org [whois.net]gctip was registered by Lauren Weinstein on behalf of Vortex Technology [vortex.com], which also appears to be run by Lauren.
According to their whois record, they have an office in this [google.com] building.
On her blog, she claims to be self-employed [vortex.com].They also seem related to pfir.org [pfir.org], though not by whois.
What exactly that connection is, besides webdesign, is unclear.My guess, this is either a well-meaning person who has never run a 100k response survey before, or they're a First Class Grep Wizard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578464</id>
	<title>The Australian Broadband Survey... compare?</title>
	<author>mitchells00</author>
	<datestamp>1269269040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't one run a survey much like the Australian Broadband survey? I mean, really, your survey is limited and open ended. With the ABs, it's interesting comparing the results from year to year...

<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2009/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2009/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]
<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2008/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2008/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]
<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2007/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2007/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]
<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2006/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2006/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]
<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2005/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2005/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]
<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2004/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2004/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]
<a href="http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2003/" title="whirlpool.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2003/</a> [whirlpool.net.au]

This is how a survey should be done!

We actually have serious issues with our ISP's here, so this is done to perhaps give them a bit of a kick up the arse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't one run a survey much like the Australian Broadband survey ?
I mean , really , your survey is limited and open ended .
With the ABs , it 's interesting comparing the results from year to year.. . http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2009/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2008/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2007/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2006/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2005/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2004/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] http : //whirlpool.net.au/survey/2003/ [ whirlpool.net.au ] This is how a survey should be done !
We actually have serious issues with our ISP 's here , so this is done to perhaps give them a bit of a kick up the arse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't one run a survey much like the Australian Broadband survey?
I mean, really, your survey is limited and open ended.
With the ABs, it's interesting comparing the results from year to year...

http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2009/ [whirlpool.net.au]
http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2008/ [whirlpool.net.au]
http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2007/ [whirlpool.net.au]
http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2006/ [whirlpool.net.au]
http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2005/ [whirlpool.net.au]
http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2004/ [whirlpool.net.au]
http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2003/ [whirlpool.net.au]

This is how a survey should be done!
We actually have serious issues with our ISP's here, so this is done to perhaps give them a bit of a kick up the arse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31582658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31584460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31586502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0013228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31582054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31584460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31582658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31581690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31586502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31580486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31583558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31579608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0013228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0013228.31578172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
