<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_08_1235226</id>
	<title>Has Bing Already Overtaken Yahoo?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1244465640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.itpro.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">nk497</a> writes <i>"Microsoft's newly revamped search tool <a href="http://www.itpro.co.uk/611440/has-bing-already-overtaken-yahoo">Bing has already overtaken Yahoo</a> in the US and globally, according to StatsCounter. The net traffic watcher said <a href="http://www.itpro.co.uk/611194/microsoft-bing-review-first-look">Bing</a> has topped Yahoo 16.28\% to 10.22\% in the US, and 5.62\% to 5.13\% globally. Though the firm noted Bing's popularity may drop off after the excitement wears off, the firm also said: 'Steve Ballmer is quoted as saying that he wanted Microsoft to become the second biggest search engine within five years. Following the breakdown in talks to acquire Yahoo at a cost of $40 billion it looks as if he may have just achieved that with Bing much sooner and a lot cheaper than anticipated.' Google, of course, still leads by a considerable margin."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>nk497 writes " Microsoft 's newly revamped search tool Bing has already overtaken Yahoo in the US and globally , according to StatsCounter .
The net traffic watcher said Bing has topped Yahoo 16.28 \ % to 10.22 \ % in the US , and 5.62 \ % to 5.13 \ % globally .
Though the firm noted Bing 's popularity may drop off after the excitement wears off , the firm also said : 'Steve Ballmer is quoted as saying that he wanted Microsoft to become the second biggest search engine within five years .
Following the breakdown in talks to acquire Yahoo at a cost of $ 40 billion it looks as if he may have just achieved that with Bing much sooner and a lot cheaper than anticipated .
' Google , of course , still leads by a considerable margin .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nk497 writes "Microsoft's newly revamped search tool Bing has already overtaken Yahoo in the US and globally, according to StatsCounter.
The net traffic watcher said Bing has topped Yahoo 16.28\% to 10.22\% in the US, and 5.62\% to 5.13\% globally.
Though the firm noted Bing's popularity may drop off after the excitement wears off, the firm also said: 'Steve Ballmer is quoted as saying that he wanted Microsoft to become the second biggest search engine within five years.
Following the breakdown in talks to acquire Yahoo at a cost of $40 billion it looks as if he may have just achieved that with Bing much sooner and a lot cheaper than anticipated.
' Google, of course, still leads by a considerable margin.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251935</id>
	<title>Come back from the Bing side of the force!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No! Come back! I don't care how tasty those cookies are! They are NOT worth your SOUL!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No !
Come back !
I do n't care how tasty those cookies are !
They are NOT worth your SOUL ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No!
Come back!
I don't care how tasty those cookies are!
They are NOT worth your SOUL!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254973</id>
	<title>Re:"Microsoft+Antitrust"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244493840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe there were other parameters involved in your search, but when I ran a search for "microsoft antitrust" on bing.com I got these first:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_antitrust\_case<br>http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/<br>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms\_index.htm</p><p>http://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+antitrust&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH</p><p>Therefore, I call bullshit on your conspiracy theory. Tell a lie big enough indeed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe there were other parameters involved in your search , but when I ran a search for " microsoft antitrust " on bing.com I got these first : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft \ _antitrust \ _casehttp : //www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/http : //www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms \ _index.htmhttp : //www.bing.com/search ? q = microsoft + antitrust&amp;go = &amp;form = QBLHTherefore , I call bullshit on your conspiracy theory .
Tell a lie big enough indeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe there were other parameters involved in your search, but when I ran a search for "microsoft antitrust" on bing.com I got these first:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_antitrust\_casehttp://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms\_index.htmhttp://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+antitrust&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLHTherefore, I call bullshit on your conspiracy theory.
Tell a lie big enough indeed!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250057</id>
	<title>Indeed not really!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244470800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bing may or may not have a big impact</p></div><p>Well a quick straw poll in my building suggests Bing hasn't even surpassed yelling down the corridor so it's got a looong way to go!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing may or may not have a big impactWell a quick straw poll in my building suggests Bing has n't even surpassed yelling down the corridor so it 's got a looong way to go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing may or may not have a big impactWell a quick straw poll in my building suggests Bing hasn't even surpassed yelling down the corridor so it's got a looong way to go!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250583</id>
	<title>Re:Not so fast! Has bing bung?</title>
	<author>neonsignal</author>
	<datestamp>1244473800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And now that <i>bing</i> has been slashdotted, it'll be back to throwing chairs around...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And now that bing has been slashdotted , it 'll be back to throwing chairs around.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And now that bing has been slashdotted, it'll be back to throwing chairs around...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250111</id>
	<title>Slashdot Effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244471100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop posting them on Slashdot and see their traffic drop.  When was Yahoo! in the headline for Slashdot?</p><p>Oh...right, this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop posting them on Slashdot and see their traffic drop .
When was Yahoo !
in the headline for Slashdot ? Oh...right , this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop posting them on Slashdot and see their traffic drop.
When was Yahoo!
in the headline for Slashdot?Oh...right, this story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861</id>
	<title>as much as it pains me to do this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did a little experiment. I loaded up IE, hit the search button, typed something in, and ran the search. Whaddayaknow, Bing comes up with the search results. So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they brought it home from Walmart with IE as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Bing whether they know it or not. Apparently there are quite a few such idiots. Are we surprised?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a little experiment .
I loaded up IE , hit the search button , typed something in , and ran the search .
Whaddayaknow , Bing comes up with the search results .
So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they brought it home from Walmart with IE as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Bing whether they know it or not .
Apparently there are quite a few such idiots .
Are we surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a little experiment.
I loaded up IE, hit the search button, typed something in, and ran the search.
Whaddayaknow, Bing comes up with the search results.
So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they brought it home from Walmart with IE as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Bing whether they know it or not.
Apparently there are quite a few such idiots.
Are we surprised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249807</id>
	<title>MS doing something good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick, form the freetard army and attack!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , form the freetard army and attack !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, form the freetard army and attack!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250129</id>
	<title>Don't discount the power of Windows Update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244471340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just waiting for Microsoft to set Bing as the default search engine in IE and Firefox as part of an important security update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just waiting for Microsoft to set Bing as the default search engine in IE and Firefox as part of an important security update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just waiting for Microsoft to set Bing as the default search engine in IE and Firefox as part of an important security update.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28296201</id>
	<title>bing is a unix/linux tool from 1995</title>
	<author>awpoopy</author>
	<datestamp>1244743800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bing is a unix/linux tool from 1995<br>
On a debian based system (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.)<br>
sudo apt-get install bing<br>
man bing</htmltext>
<tokenext>bing is a unix/linux tool from 1995 On a debian based system ( Ubuntu , Mint , etc .
) sudo apt-get install bing man bing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bing is a unix/linux tool from 1995
On a debian based system (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.
)
sudo apt-get install bing
man bing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250251</id>
	<title>Re:It's the apps stupid!</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1244472180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing does have that "see bits of videos straight from the search page by hovering over the image" feature.  I'm sure they'll remove it as soon as publishers and porn sites complain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing does have that " see bits of videos straight from the search page by hovering over the image " feature .
I 'm sure they 'll remove it as soon as publishers and porn sites complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing does have that "see bits of videos straight from the search page by hovering over the image" feature.
I'm sure they'll remove it as soon as publishers and porn sites complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250265</id>
	<title>Re:Help</title>
	<author>Billy the Mountain</author>
	<datestamp>1244472180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's how they've done it--by hijacking the browser whenever you enter an unknown website in the address bar.  What I had to do is edit my hosts file, setting 127.0.0.1 bing.com<br>127.0.0.1 www.bing.com</p><p>If you do that, test it out because there are a few other hikack websites that may show up.  Just add those sites to your hosts file as well and test until you get a real "unable to access website" error message.</p><p>BTM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how they 've done it--by hijacking the browser whenever you enter an unknown website in the address bar .
What I had to do is edit my hosts file , setting 127.0.0.1 bing.com127.0.0.1 www.bing.comIf you do that , test it out because there are a few other hikack websites that may show up .
Just add those sites to your hosts file as well and test until you get a real " unable to access website " error message.BTM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how they've done it--by hijacking the browser whenever you enter an unknown website in the address bar.
What I had to do is edit my hosts file, setting 127.0.0.1 bing.com127.0.0.1 www.bing.comIf you do that, test it out because there are a few other hikack websites that may show up.
Just add those sites to your hosts file as well and test until you get a real "unable to access website" error message.BTM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252775</id>
	<title>Bing?</title>
	<author>drew</author>
	<datestamp>1244484180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be living under a rock.  I hadn't heard of this before today....</p><p>So now Microsoft is helping me search for low fares on Southwest?  Neet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be living under a rock .
I had n't heard of this before today....So now Microsoft is helping me search for low fares on Southwest ?
Neet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be living under a rock.
I hadn't heard of this before today....So now Microsoft is helping me search for low fares on Southwest?
Neet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28264013</id>
	<title>BING is the THING!</title>
	<author>StevenABallmer</author>
	<datestamp>1244554080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to a modern search engine people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to a modern search engine people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to a modern search engine people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28359965</id>
	<title>Re:The only good thing about Bing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245244020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, awesome, M$ has finally done something I will actually use!</p><p>It's especially good at finding naughty new stuff on youtube, much much much better than youtube's native search or google.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , awesome , M $ has finally done something I will actually use ! It 's especially good at finding naughty new stuff on youtube , much much much better than youtube 's native search or google.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, awesome, M$ has finally done something I will actually use!It's especially good at finding naughty new stuff on youtube, much much much better than youtube's native search or google.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250657</id>
	<title>Not acid3 compliant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just installed Opera-10 beta bc Opera says it is 100\% acid3 compliant, and went over to Bing and chose to search for an image. When I tried to modify the search filter settings from the default (moderate) to no filter, the popup that had the checkboxes appeared UNDER the image windows, making a selection impossible.</p><p>As usual MS seems to be ignoring standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just installed Opera-10 beta bc Opera says it is 100 \ % acid3 compliant , and went over to Bing and chose to search for an image .
When I tried to modify the search filter settings from the default ( moderate ) to no filter , the popup that had the checkboxes appeared UNDER the image windows , making a selection impossible.As usual MS seems to be ignoring standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just installed Opera-10 beta bc Opera says it is 100\% acid3 compliant, and went over to Bing and chose to search for an image.
When I tried to modify the search filter settings from the default (moderate) to no filter, the popup that had the checkboxes appeared UNDER the image windows, making a selection impossible.As usual MS seems to be ignoring standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252471</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing. I didn't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something - I didn't bother looking at it since I didn't recognize it.</p></div><p>Are you using IE, by chance? That has Live Search as its default search engine, and it (like most other browsers today) has this search-from-address-bar feature, where if it can't find the domain you've typed, it just treats it as a search query. And all Live Search requests are currently being redirected to Bing by default.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing .
I did n't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something - I did n't bother looking at it since I did n't recognize it.Are you using IE , by chance ?
That has Live Search as its default search engine , and it ( like most other browsers today ) has this search-from-address-bar feature , where if it ca n't find the domain you 've typed , it just treats it as a search query .
And all Live Search requests are currently being redirected to Bing by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing.
I didn't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something - I didn't bother looking at it since I didn't recognize it.Are you using IE, by chance?
That has Live Search as its default search engine, and it (like most other browsers today) has this search-from-address-bar feature, where if it can't find the domain you've typed, it just treats it as a search query.
And all Live Search requests are currently being redirected to Bing by default.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255755</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>jmcbain</author>
	<datestamp>1244452920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The misinformation you're trying to pass off as sound findings is a bit more egregious than what's typical here.
</p><p>
First, your overall conclusion is based on a single query and observation.
</p><p>
Second, your observation is completely wrong. You state that you think the Bing result for "The Dark Knight" is horrible because it doesn't show accurate breadth. You say that Yahoo's result is better because its "more" feature lets you explore things not directly related to the movie but are closely tied. You further say that you don't particularly like the "more" UI.
</p><p>
Now, look at Bing's result.
<a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=dark+knight&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/search?q=dark+knight&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH</a> [bing.com]
</p><p>
The breadth results are <strong>built right into the main results page</strong>. They have already categorised all the results for you. The Dark Knight Trailer. The Dark Knight Review. The Dark Knight cast. The Dark Knight poster. The Dark Knight soundtrack. Videos related Dark Knight. These are subjectively even better than Yahoo's "more" results, plus Yahoo does not show video results, plus you don't have to press a "more" link.
</p><p>
Please, I'm just asking you to pay attention next time.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The misinformation you 're trying to pass off as sound findings is a bit more egregious than what 's typical here .
First , your overall conclusion is based on a single query and observation .
Second , your observation is completely wrong .
You state that you think the Bing result for " The Dark Knight " is horrible because it does n't show accurate breadth .
You say that Yahoo 's result is better because its " more " feature lets you explore things not directly related to the movie but are closely tied .
You further say that you do n't particularly like the " more " UI .
Now , look at Bing 's result .
http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = dark + knight&amp;go = &amp;form = QBLH [ bing.com ] The breadth results are built right into the main results page .
They have already categorised all the results for you .
The Dark Knight Trailer .
The Dark Knight Review .
The Dark Knight cast .
The Dark Knight poster .
The Dark Knight soundtrack .
Videos related Dark Knight .
These are subjectively even better than Yahoo 's " more " results , plus Yahoo does not show video results , plus you do n't have to press a " more " link .
Please , I 'm just asking you to pay attention next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The misinformation you're trying to pass off as sound findings is a bit more egregious than what's typical here.
First, your overall conclusion is based on a single query and observation.
Second, your observation is completely wrong.
You state that you think the Bing result for "The Dark Knight" is horrible because it doesn't show accurate breadth.
You say that Yahoo's result is better because its "more" feature lets you explore things not directly related to the movie but are closely tied.
You further say that you don't particularly like the "more" UI.
Now, look at Bing's result.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=dark+knight&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH [bing.com]

The breadth results are built right into the main results page.
They have already categorised all the results for you.
The Dark Knight Trailer.
The Dark Knight Review.
The Dark Knight cast.
The Dark Knight poster.
The Dark Knight soundtrack.
Videos related Dark Knight.
These are subjectively even better than Yahoo's "more" results, plus Yahoo does not show video results, plus you don't have to press a "more" link.
Please, I'm just asking you to pay attention next time.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250159</id>
	<title>Return traffic or it didn't count.</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1244471580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a multimillion dollar ad campaign in full swing, of course people are going to visit Bing. I haven't seen a yahoo ad in months (print, web, or broadcast media)... but I'm going to bet Yahoo has more return visitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a multimillion dollar ad campaign in full swing , of course people are going to visit Bing .
I have n't seen a yahoo ad in months ( print , web , or broadcast media ) ... but I 'm going to bet Yahoo has more return visitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a multimillion dollar ad campaign in full swing, of course people are going to visit Bing.
I haven't seen a yahoo ad in months (print, web, or broadcast media)... but I'm going to bet Yahoo has more return visitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251965</id>
	<title>Bing sounds promising</title>
	<author>10e6Steve</author>
	<datestamp>1244480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But does it run on Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But does it run on Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does it run on Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811</id>
	<title>Not so fast!  Has bing bung?</title>
	<author>peterdaly</author>
	<datestamp>1244469420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not so fast.  Same source indicates the bing has already fallen back down to (less than) live.com levels.
<br> <br>
TechCrunch: <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/07/quick-peak-bings-reign-as-2-search-engine-lasted-one-day/" title="techcrunch.com">Bing was #2 for a day then Yahoo regained its place as Bing fell.</a> [techcrunch.com]
<br> <br>
"As <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/" title="mattcutts.com">Matt Cutts</a> [mattcutts.com] (who yes, works for Google) points out in the comments, StatCounter updates every few hours, so there is also data for today already. And it&#226;(TM)s more bad news for Bing. It&#226;(TM)s now down to 5.65\% in the U.S. &#226;" yes, that&#226;(TM)s less than what Live.com was at last month."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so fast .
Same source indicates the bing has already fallen back down to ( less than ) live.com levels .
TechCrunch : Bing was # 2 for a day then Yahoo regained its place as Bing fell .
[ techcrunch.com ] " As Matt Cutts [ mattcutts.com ] ( who yes , works for Google ) points out in the comments , StatCounter updates every few hours , so there is also data for today already .
And it   ( TM ) s more bad news for Bing .
It   ( TM ) s now down to 5.65 \ % in the U.S.   " yes , that   ( TM ) s less than what Live.com was at last month .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so fast.
Same source indicates the bing has already fallen back down to (less than) live.com levels.
TechCrunch: Bing was #2 for a day then Yahoo regained its place as Bing fell.
[techcrunch.com]
 
"As Matt Cutts [mattcutts.com] (who yes, works for Google) points out in the comments, StatCounter updates every few hours, so there is also data for today already.
And itâ(TM)s more bad news for Bing.
Itâ(TM)s now down to 5.65\% in the U.S. â" yes, thatâ(TM)s less than what Live.com was at last month.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252425</id>
	<title>Re:FYI</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1244483040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try it this way:</p><p>"If you don't know what Google is, just Bing it."</p><p>Now imagine a world of people saying things like that.  How could you ever hope to keep from punching all of them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try it this way : " If you do n't know what Google is , just Bing it .
" Now imagine a world of people saying things like that .
How could you ever hope to keep from punching all of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try it this way:"If you don't know what Google is, just Bing it.
"Now imagine a world of people saying things like that.
How could you ever hope to keep from punching all of them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252759</id>
	<title>Re:Not acid3 compliant?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244484120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just installed Opera-10 beta bc Opera says it is 100\% acid3 compliant, and went over to Bing and chose to search for an image. When I tried to modify the search filter settings from the default (moderate) to no filter, the popup that had the checkboxes appeared UNDER the image windows, making a selection impossible.</p></div><p>I've just tried it, and it works perfectly for me - the popup is on top of everything else on the page. Looks like it's fixed alread.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As usual MS seems to be ignoring standards.</p></div><p>Try to validate Google front page one day. You might be in for a surprise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just installed Opera-10 beta bc Opera says it is 100 \ % acid3 compliant , and went over to Bing and chose to search for an image .
When I tried to modify the search filter settings from the default ( moderate ) to no filter , the popup that had the checkboxes appeared UNDER the image windows , making a selection impossible.I 've just tried it , and it works perfectly for me - the popup is on top of everything else on the page .
Looks like it 's fixed alread.As usual MS seems to be ignoring standards.Try to validate Google front page one day .
You might be in for a surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just installed Opera-10 beta bc Opera says it is 100\% acid3 compliant, and went over to Bing and chose to search for an image.
When I tried to modify the search filter settings from the default (moderate) to no filter, the popup that had the checkboxes appeared UNDER the image windows, making a selection impossible.I've just tried it, and it works perfectly for me - the popup is on top of everything else on the page.
Looks like it's fixed alread.As usual MS seems to be ignoring standards.Try to validate Google front page one day.
You might be in for a surprise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250613</id>
	<title>Corroboration from UK</title>
	<author>Frankie70</author>
	<datestamp>1244473980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As per <a href="http://weblogs.hitwise.com/robin-goad/2009/06/initial\_bing\_stats.html" title="hitwise.com">Hitwise</a> [hitwise.com], Bing doing reasonably well in UK also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As per Hitwise [ hitwise.com ] , Bing doing reasonably well in UK also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As per Hitwise [hitwise.com], Bing doing reasonably well in UK also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250573</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244473800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bing may or may not have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know whether it will or not.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Be green; eliminate unnecessary words:

"Bing may have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing may or may not have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know whether it will or not .
Be green ; eliminate unnecessary words : " Bing may have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing may or may not have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know whether it will or not.
Be green; eliminate unnecessary words:

"Bing may have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250289</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244472300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm giving it a try for a week as my default search engine. So far I'm satisfied with the search results and I really like the look and feel. Google seems a little plain now (yes I'm aware of google.com/ig)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm giving it a try for a week as my default search engine .
So far I 'm satisfied with the search results and I really like the look and feel .
Google seems a little plain now ( yes I 'm aware of google.com/ig )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm giving it a try for a week as my default search engine.
So far I'm satisfied with the search results and I really like the look and feel.
Google seems a little plain now (yes I'm aware of google.com/ig)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250437</id>
	<title>I like Dvorak's column on Bing in PC Magazine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244472900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His best effort?  Brought in new garbage.</p><p>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347651,00.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His best effort ?
Brought in new garbage.http : //www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347651,00.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His best effort?
Brought in new garbage.http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347651,00.asp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883</id>
	<title>Redirects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long before M.S. sends out an update that automatically redirects URL typos to Bing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before M.S .
sends out an update that automatically redirects URL typos to Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before M.S.
sends out an update that automatically redirects URL typos to Bing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251079</id>
	<title>Horrible marketing</title>
	<author>dn15</author>
	<datestamp>1244476380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I first heard of Bing two days ago thanks to an ad on Hulu. That ad featured a woman with a necklace made of hot dogs, and said nothing about search engines or that Bing was even tech-related. For all they said in the ad it could have just as easily been a sports commentary hour. Great job building brand awareness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I first heard of Bing two days ago thanks to an ad on Hulu .
That ad featured a woman with a necklace made of hot dogs , and said nothing about search engines or that Bing was even tech-related .
For all they said in the ad it could have just as easily been a sports commentary hour .
Great job building brand awareness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first heard of Bing two days ago thanks to an ad on Hulu.
That ad featured a woman with a necklace made of hot dogs, and said nothing about search engines or that Bing was even tech-related.
For all they said in the ad it could have just as easily been a sports commentary hour.
Great job building brand awareness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253575</id>
	<title>Honeymoon</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244488380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the honeymoon phase. Everyone wants to see what is so good about it and will bum rush the site, that is why they are taking these numbers now, it overinflated its use nothing more. Same pattern that MS uses for most of their PR

Bing
Vista
Zune
XP
 Etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the honeymoon phase .
Everyone wants to see what is so good about it and will bum rush the site , that is why they are taking these numbers now , it overinflated its use nothing more .
Same pattern that MS uses for most of their PR Bing Vista Zune XP Etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the honeymoon phase.
Everyone wants to see what is so good about it and will bum rush the site, that is why they are taking these numbers now, it overinflated its use nothing more.
Same pattern that MS uses for most of their PR

Bing
Vista
Zune
XP
 Etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250617</id>
	<title>Re:as much as it pains me to do this...</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1244474040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been like that with Live or MSN search for years now...IE's default address bar search has always been their own search engine.  The reason for the spike is probably all of those abasolutely stupid commercials on TV advertising Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been like that with Live or MSN search for years now...IE 's default address bar search has always been their own search engine .
The reason for the spike is probably all of those abasolutely stupid commercials on TV advertising Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been like that with Live or MSN search for years now...IE's default address bar search has always been their own search engine.
The reason for the spike is probably all of those abasolutely stupid commercials on TV advertising Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250459</id>
	<title>Re:StatCounter's Baidu Stats is Alarming</title>
	<author>Ninjaesque One</author>
	<datestamp>1244473020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the internet users in Asia are in Japan and South Korea, probably. And Baidu and Google cannot compete there. How's the percentages for Naver?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the internet users in Asia are in Japan and South Korea , probably .
And Baidu and Google can not compete there .
How 's the percentages for Naver ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the internet users in Asia are in Japan and South Korea, probably.
And Baidu and Google cannot compete there.
How's the percentages for Naver?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1244475180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is simply proof that if you throw away a truckload of cash in advertising you can get anyone to try something once. As someone who uses Yahoo Search(I personally think it is MUCH better than Google's) I'm afraid Bing just doesn't compare. Let me give an example.-</p><p>I just tried a search in all three engines. I searched for "The Dark Knight". In Yahoo there is a little blue button below the search box which is the "more" tab. In that under Dark Knight I got not only the ones you would expect on the left, like Dark Knight reviews and trailers, but the related concepts has interviews with Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, articles about Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, etc. Two thumbs up on giving me not only the information that I was looking for, but in also giving me a springboard to learn much more right there at the top thanks to the blue "more" button. The only downside is the button needs to be more clearly labeled.80/100, 20 points off for not clearly labeling the GUI.</p><p>Now Google,same search. Their version of a "more" tab is a few links at the bottom, as clicking more at the top simply gives more Google software unrelated to my search, like Google Blogs. The results at the bottom are also more useless than Yahoo's, as there is links for The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there. These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight. While many of the main searches are the same, the lack of a "more" tab and related concepts means I'll have to do more work to search related subjects. I also would have had a hard time finding the excellent interview I just read with Christopher Nolan about the movie as I had no idea who the director was on Dark Knight. So I give it a 65/100.</p><p>Now let's try Bing-OMFG! Who the hell wrote this thing? I'm sorry, but this just sucks. While its main search algorithm works in a similar manner to the big two the related searches make no fricking sense. I have Dark Knight Houston, Dark Knight Shoes? and links to Dark Angel. Oooookay. Apparently it is the same search engine they had when it was MSN, which we all used to make fun of for had bad it would try to "help" and shill products. For those that never had the 'pleasure' you could type something like "Nissan" and get links for table lamps. It was pretty much ads disguised as a search engine. So considering out of the three engines I got the most useless amount of "helpful" links out of bing i would give it a thumbs down-45/100.</p><p>

So I think we can see with this little demonstration why Bing had a search and then dropped right back down to the bottom of the barrel. because anyone who uses Google or Yahoo who tries this thing is going to see how piss poor its related searches are (Dark Knight Shoes?) and go back to the big two. While I am glad they didn't buy Yahoo because like everything web related MSFT touches it would have ended up "Yahoo Live Search 2.0 Optimized for Windows Vista" or some other bling bling nightmare, just doing this single search I can see that MSFT better buy a search engine from SOMEBODY, because they have a shitty one now. In the non web world MSFT can get by with just having an "okay" product by pushing it heavily with advertising. With the web competition is only a single click away and that trick isn't going to work. Which is why they are at #3 and will probably stay there. Because if it is one thing has taught us, it is that despite all their money MSFT hasn't got a fricking clue when it comes to the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is simply proof that if you throw away a truckload of cash in advertising you can get anyone to try something once .
As someone who uses Yahoo Search ( I personally think it is MUCH better than Google 's ) I 'm afraid Bing just does n't compare .
Let me give an example.-I just tried a search in all three engines .
I searched for " The Dark Knight " .
In Yahoo there is a little blue button below the search box which is the " more " tab .
In that under Dark Knight I got not only the ones you would expect on the left , like Dark Knight reviews and trailers , but the related concepts has interviews with Christopher Nolan , Christian Bale , articles about Heath Ledger 's portrayal of the Joker , etc .
Two thumbs up on giving me not only the information that I was looking for , but in also giving me a springboard to learn much more right there at the top thanks to the blue " more " button .
The only downside is the button needs to be more clearly labeled.80/100 , 20 points off for not clearly labeling the GUI.Now Google,same search .
Their version of a " more " tab is a few links at the bottom , as clicking more at the top simply gives more Google software unrelated to my search , like Google Blogs .
The results at the bottom are also more useless than Yahoo 's , as there is links for The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there .
These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight .
While many of the main searches are the same , the lack of a " more " tab and related concepts means I 'll have to do more work to search related subjects .
I also would have had a hard time finding the excellent interview I just read with Christopher Nolan about the movie as I had no idea who the director was on Dark Knight .
So I give it a 65/100.Now let 's try Bing-OMFG !
Who the hell wrote this thing ?
I 'm sorry , but this just sucks .
While its main search algorithm works in a similar manner to the big two the related searches make no fricking sense .
I have Dark Knight Houston , Dark Knight Shoes ?
and links to Dark Angel .
Oooookay. Apparently it is the same search engine they had when it was MSN , which we all used to make fun of for had bad it would try to " help " and shill products .
For those that never had the 'pleasure ' you could type something like " Nissan " and get links for table lamps .
It was pretty much ads disguised as a search engine .
So considering out of the three engines I got the most useless amount of " helpful " links out of bing i would give it a thumbs down-45/100 .
So I think we can see with this little demonstration why Bing had a search and then dropped right back down to the bottom of the barrel .
because anyone who uses Google or Yahoo who tries this thing is going to see how piss poor its related searches are ( Dark Knight Shoes ?
) and go back to the big two .
While I am glad they did n't buy Yahoo because like everything web related MSFT touches it would have ended up " Yahoo Live Search 2.0 Optimized for Windows Vista " or some other bling bling nightmare , just doing this single search I can see that MSFT better buy a search engine from SOMEBODY , because they have a shitty one now .
In the non web world MSFT can get by with just having an " okay " product by pushing it heavily with advertising .
With the web competition is only a single click away and that trick is n't going to work .
Which is why they are at # 3 and will probably stay there .
Because if it is one thing has taught us , it is that despite all their money MSFT has n't got a fricking clue when it comes to the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is simply proof that if you throw away a truckload of cash in advertising you can get anyone to try something once.
As someone who uses Yahoo Search(I personally think it is MUCH better than Google's) I'm afraid Bing just doesn't compare.
Let me give an example.-I just tried a search in all three engines.
I searched for "The Dark Knight".
In Yahoo there is a little blue button below the search box which is the "more" tab.
In that under Dark Knight I got not only the ones you would expect on the left, like Dark Knight reviews and trailers, but the related concepts has interviews with Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, articles about Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, etc.
Two thumbs up on giving me not only the information that I was looking for, but in also giving me a springboard to learn much more right there at the top thanks to the blue "more" button.
The only downside is the button needs to be more clearly labeled.80/100, 20 points off for not clearly labeling the GUI.Now Google,same search.
Their version of a "more" tab is a few links at the bottom, as clicking more at the top simply gives more Google software unrelated to my search, like Google Blogs.
The results at the bottom are also more useless than Yahoo's, as there is links for The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there.
These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight.
While many of the main searches are the same, the lack of a "more" tab and related concepts means I'll have to do more work to search related subjects.
I also would have had a hard time finding the excellent interview I just read with Christopher Nolan about the movie as I had no idea who the director was on Dark Knight.
So I give it a 65/100.Now let's try Bing-OMFG!
Who the hell wrote this thing?
I'm sorry, but this just sucks.
While its main search algorithm works in a similar manner to the big two the related searches make no fricking sense.
I have Dark Knight Houston, Dark Knight Shoes?
and links to Dark Angel.
Oooookay. Apparently it is the same search engine they had when it was MSN, which we all used to make fun of for had bad it would try to "help" and shill products.
For those that never had the 'pleasure' you could type something like "Nissan" and get links for table lamps.
It was pretty much ads disguised as a search engine.
So considering out of the three engines I got the most useless amount of "helpful" links out of bing i would give it a thumbs down-45/100.
So I think we can see with this little demonstration why Bing had a search and then dropped right back down to the bottom of the barrel.
because anyone who uses Google or Yahoo who tries this thing is going to see how piss poor its related searches are (Dark Knight Shoes?
) and go back to the big two.
While I am glad they didn't buy Yahoo because like everything web related MSFT touches it would have ended up "Yahoo Live Search 2.0 Optimized for Windows Vista" or some other bling bling nightmare, just doing this single search I can see that MSFT better buy a search engine from SOMEBODY, because they have a shitty one now.
In the non web world MSFT can get by with just having an "okay" product by pushing it heavily with advertising.
With the web competition is only a single click away and that trick isn't going to work.
Which is why they are at #3 and will probably stay there.
Because if it is one thing has taught us, it is that despite all their money MSFT hasn't got a fricking clue when it comes to the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249963</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Groundhog's Day</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1244470260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dated your sister until you told me not to? BING!  Needlenose Ned! BING!<br> <br>Man, I've seen that movie so many times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dated your sister until you told me not to ?
BING ! Needlenose Ned !
BING ! Man , I 've seen that movie so many times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dated your sister until you told me not to?
BING!  Needlenose Ned!
BING! Man, I've seen that movie so many times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251217</id>
	<title>Re:Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1244477040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simple</p><p>I can find what I want with Google, I can find what I want with Bing</p><p>I know how to use Google's advanced searches, I don't know how to do this in Bing</p><p>Bing would have to be *a lot* better than Google for me to change,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... it isn't</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simpleI can find what I want with Google , I can find what I want with BingI know how to use Google 's advanced searches , I do n't know how to do this in BingBing would have to be * a lot * better than Google for me to change , ..... it is n't</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simpleI can find what I want with Google, I can find what I want with BingI know how to use Google's advanced searches, I don't know how to do this in BingBing would have to be *a lot* better than Google for me to change, ..... it isn't</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250427</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1244472840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They get redirected to live search at the moment, and live search gets redirected to Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They get redirected to live search at the moment , and live search gets redirected to Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They get redirected to live search at the moment, and live search gets redirected to Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250607</id>
	<title>The Slashdot story is completely misleading.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1244473920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"... In the end, I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley</i> [timely]<i> story..."</i>

<br> <br>It is not a "timely story". The Slashdot story is completely misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... In the end , I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley [ timely ] story... " It is not a " timely story " .
The Slashdot story is completely misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... In the end, I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley [timely] story..."

 It is not a "timely story".
The Slashdot story is completely misleading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252151</id>
	<title>Did you try it?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244481900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote a K5 article several years ago, "How to quit smoking cigarettes". It resonated with a lot of people, and it was blogged about quite a lot. Until recently a google search of "How to quit smoking cigarettes" landed it at the top spot. It's fallen off, but "How to quit smoking cigarettes mcgrew" still finds it on google.</p><p>Not on bing.</p><p>I then tried "What is a black hole?" The top spot was nothing about black holes:</p><blockquote><div><p>News about what is a black hole?<br>Can once-cool MySpace stage a comeback?<br>I guess you could say MySpace is in danger of falling into the same black hole those companies did." He added: "If you look at the... CNN 3 hours agoKnock It Off: A Thai Museum for Counterfeit GoodsTime 8 hours agoRail service good, if price is right</p></div></blockquote><p>The second result was wikipedia, the third was NASA. Judging from my limited test, I'd say Google has nothing whatever to worry about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote a K5 article several years ago , " How to quit smoking cigarettes " .
It resonated with a lot of people , and it was blogged about quite a lot .
Until recently a google search of " How to quit smoking cigarettes " landed it at the top spot .
It 's fallen off , but " How to quit smoking cigarettes mcgrew " still finds it on google.Not on bing.I then tried " What is a black hole ?
" The top spot was nothing about black holes : News about what is a black hole ? Can once-cool MySpace stage a comeback ? I guess you could say MySpace is in danger of falling into the same black hole those companies did .
" He added : " If you look at the... CNN 3 hours agoKnock It Off : A Thai Museum for Counterfeit GoodsTime 8 hours agoRail service good , if price is rightThe second result was wikipedia , the third was NASA .
Judging from my limited test , I 'd say Google has nothing whatever to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote a K5 article several years ago, "How to quit smoking cigarettes".
It resonated with a lot of people, and it was blogged about quite a lot.
Until recently a google search of "How to quit smoking cigarettes" landed it at the top spot.
It's fallen off, but "How to quit smoking cigarettes mcgrew" still finds it on google.Not on bing.I then tried "What is a black hole?
" The top spot was nothing about black holes:News about what is a black hole?Can once-cool MySpace stage a comeback?I guess you could say MySpace is in danger of falling into the same black hole those companies did.
" He added: "If you look at the... CNN 3 hours agoKnock It Off: A Thai Museum for Counterfeit GoodsTime 8 hours agoRail service good, if price is rightThe second result was wikipedia, the third was NASA.
Judging from my limited test, I'd say Google has nothing whatever to worry about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250855</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1244475180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already did. if you do a live search, it redirects to bing, and then changes the Live IE icon. In IE6, there was a bug that was having Bing override our search default but was fixed later.</p><p>Not that It really matters. It don't see much of a difference between Bing and Live search other than shopping, medical and travel searches. The catchy name might draw in curious users, but it's probably going to be Cuil all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already did .
if you do a live search , it redirects to bing , and then changes the Live IE icon .
In IE6 , there was a bug that was having Bing override our search default but was fixed later.Not that It really matters .
It do n't see much of a difference between Bing and Live search other than shopping , medical and travel searches .
The catchy name might draw in curious users , but it 's probably going to be Cuil all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already did.
if you do a live search, it redirects to bing, and then changes the Live IE icon.
In IE6, there was a bug that was having Bing override our search default but was fixed later.Not that It really matters.
It don't see much of a difference between Bing and Live search other than shopping, medical and travel searches.
The catchy name might draw in curious users, but it's probably going to be Cuil all over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28256353</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>FreelanceWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1244454780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got to wonder what search terms you're using, because <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=the+dark+knight&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH" title="bing.com">the Bing search results for "the dark knight"</a> [bing.com] are conspicuously similar to both Google and Yahoo's, and contain literally none of the nonsensical related searches you mentioned. Since you haven't provided a link to the search results page, we must conclude that you made an error inputting the search string, you're intentionally spreading misinformation, some malware is altering your search results, or Microsoft altered the contents of the page between when you posted and this post.</p><p>I'm not a huge fan of Bing (I tried it, and I still use Google save for GPS-based local result searches on my phone; I prefer the Google interface), but it seems to produce reasonable search results.</p><p>So, please, provide a link to the Bing search results that are so egregiously wrong. I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing how to replicate your results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got to wonder what search terms you 're using , because the Bing search results for " the dark knight " [ bing.com ] are conspicuously similar to both Google and Yahoo 's , and contain literally none of the nonsensical related searches you mentioned .
Since you have n't provided a link to the search results page , we must conclude that you made an error inputting the search string , you 're intentionally spreading misinformation , some malware is altering your search results , or Microsoft altered the contents of the page between when you posted and this post.I 'm not a huge fan of Bing ( I tried it , and I still use Google save for GPS-based local result searches on my phone ; I prefer the Google interface ) , but it seems to produce reasonable search results.So , please , provide a link to the Bing search results that are so egregiously wrong .
I 'm sure we 'd all be interested in seeing how to replicate your results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got to wonder what search terms you're using, because the Bing search results for "the dark knight" [bing.com] are conspicuously similar to both Google and Yahoo's, and contain literally none of the nonsensical related searches you mentioned.
Since you haven't provided a link to the search results page, we must conclude that you made an error inputting the search string, you're intentionally spreading misinformation, some malware is altering your search results, or Microsoft altered the contents of the page between when you posted and this post.I'm not a huge fan of Bing (I tried it, and I still use Google save for GPS-based local result searches on my phone; I prefer the Google interface), but it seems to produce reasonable search results.So, please, provide a link to the Bing search results that are so egregiously wrong.
I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing how to replicate your results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28262793</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In typical Microsoft fashion, they only shout when there is something to shout out, then stay quiet when those things are no longer true, and move onto shouting about something new, or some other twisted statistic.</p><p>I recall a Microsoft press release saying that for the last 2 weeks, in the Europe, the Xbox outsold the PS3.   It was the only press release ever on this topic, as almost every week the PS3 outsells the 360 in mainland Europe, but people remember it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In typical Microsoft fashion , they only shout when there is something to shout out , then stay quiet when those things are no longer true , and move onto shouting about something new , or some other twisted statistic.I recall a Microsoft press release saying that for the last 2 weeks , in the Europe , the Xbox outsold the PS3 .
It was the only press release ever on this topic , as almost every week the PS3 outsells the 360 in mainland Europe , but people remember it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In typical Microsoft fashion, they only shout when there is something to shout out, then stay quiet when those things are no longer true, and move onto shouting about something new, or some other twisted statistic.I recall a Microsoft press release saying that for the last 2 weeks, in the Europe, the Xbox outsold the PS3.
It was the only press release ever on this topic, as almost every week the PS3 outsells the 360 in mainland Europe, but people remember it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249879</id>
	<title>Now I'm waiting for the new Bing ad onslaught...</title>
	<author>hal2814</author>
	<datestamp>1244469900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know the next onslaught of Bing ads will claim:</p><p>"More popular than Yahoo!"*</p><p>* For one day after weeks of massive advertising, Bing beat out Yahoo in website traffic.  Results not typical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the next onslaught of Bing ads will claim : " More popular than Yahoo !
" * * For one day after weeks of massive advertising , Bing beat out Yahoo in website traffic .
Results not typical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the next onslaught of Bing ads will claim:"More popular than Yahoo!
"** For one day after weeks of massive advertising, Bing beat out Yahoo in website traffic.
Results not typical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250157</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Annorax</author>
	<datestamp>1244471520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean Yahoo! does web search?</p><p>Oh.. right.. I guess it does...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean Yahoo !
does web search ? Oh.. right.. I guess it does.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean Yahoo!
does web search?Oh.. right.. I guess it does...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250669</id>
	<title>Re:It's the apps stupid!</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1244474220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd how I used to use google as the better search engine, but Yahoo! for maps, tv listings, movie listings, weather, etc.</p><p>They blew it.</p><p>When I gave mom a new computer, I really *wanted* to just give her a yahoo account instead of gmail.  But they won't allow imap without paying them for it?  wtf?  Then there's what they did to the tv and movie listings, and the general fuckuppery of the entire site so they could be 'cool' with that 'web 2.0' stuff.</p><p>Yeah.  They had a good thing, and an edge.  And pissed it all away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd how I used to use google as the better search engine , but Yahoo !
for maps , tv listings , movie listings , weather , etc.They blew it.When I gave mom a new computer , I really * wanted * to just give her a yahoo account instead of gmail .
But they wo n't allow imap without paying them for it ?
wtf ? Then there 's what they did to the tv and movie listings , and the general fuckuppery of the entire site so they could be 'cool ' with that 'web 2.0 ' stuff.Yeah .
They had a good thing , and an edge .
And pissed it all away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd how I used to use google as the better search engine, but Yahoo!
for maps, tv listings, movie listings, weather, etc.They blew it.When I gave mom a new computer, I really *wanted* to just give her a yahoo account instead of gmail.
But they won't allow imap without paying them for it?
wtf?  Then there's what they did to the tv and movie listings, and the general fuckuppery of the entire site so they could be 'cool' with that 'web 2.0' stuff.Yeah.
They had a good thing, and an edge.
And pissed it all away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251519</id>
	<title>This is all my fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This weekend I was away from my computer, unable to click on EVERY Bing Google ad possible. </p><p>Nothing like helping Google make money, while making Microsoft think continuing in their world domination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This weekend I was away from my computer , unable to click on EVERY Bing Google ad possible .
Nothing like helping Google make money , while making Microsoft think continuing in their world domination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This weekend I was away from my computer, unable to click on EVERY Bing Google ad possible.
Nothing like helping Google make money, while making Microsoft think continuing in their world domination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28259721</id>
	<title>What a load of Bing****</title>
	<author>deathshadow60</author>
	<datestamp>1244470860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, Microsoft has launched their 'new' search engine... Here's my initial impressions.<br>
<br>
They have missed all the lessons Google has taught us about making search SIMPLE and accessable. In fact, they have done the exact same thing in terms of bloated graphics, annoying scripts and reliance on "ain't it neat" technologies that KILLED ask.com<br>
<br>
First load it takes forever loading some sort of background image, said image makes reading the text in the little side-bar difficult to read. Likewise the white on grey text outside their little search area is also below accessability norms in terms of contrast, the white heading texts below the image and then the menu line in the 'footer' being the worst offenders - I hope they enjoy their fines from the UK on the accessability grounds - The search box with it's akilter uneven spacing looks like a rendering error. That the results are left justified but fixed width is annoying since the width they choose is a bit too narrow. <br>
<br>
Brand new website and the markup is malformed. This isn't the traditional validation errors you can ignore like empty alt tags, but geniune "the designer doesn't even know HTML" errors like block-level elements inside inline-level ones. This extends to the filesizes where there's 31k of markup being used to deliver 400 BYTES of content, improperly linked stylesheets, and javascript that by all indications serves no good fathomable purpose - much less the lack of graceful degredation when javascript is disabled. <br>
<br>
It also appears that in Opera the page never finishes loading from links to files that don't even exist. Since the page is overly reliant upon javascript this means onload never fires - just brilliant. I'm seeing four different broken layouts in four different browsers...<br>
<br>
The search results? Look like every other search engine - from fifteen years ago. Reminds me of altavista back in the day. While google has upped the ante adding the ability to white-list and black-list pages from their results, it looks like M$ has simply added tracking javascripts around all links on what is little more than a overglorified half-assed rehash of what search engines have been putting online for the better part of the past decade and a half. I think their use of (broken) scripting is supposed to help them cater the results based on what people click on - but since you don't know if the page ACTUALLY has what you want until you visit it, that's not exactly going to help tune results any.<br>
<br>
The site is entirely typical of what I've come to expect from Microsoft so far as web technologies are concerned, which is to say it is plainly evident the people they have writing websites have no clue how to actually DO SO!!! Much like the new "live mail" this half-assed broken bloated codebase with the half-assed broken skin that doesn't even meet accessability norms should not be impressing anyone, and if anything should be resulting in people getting fired. If anything, it's an embarassment to the company of monumental proportions... but then we're talking about the company who's site for their web design tool "Web Expression" has a broken layout on Large font/120dpi systems.<br>
<br>
Color me unimpressed.

The ONLY reason it's seeing any sort of ranking spike is launch fever - I can't see anyone finding a good reason to actually stick with it apart from joe sixpack too stupid to know anything about the internet apart from clicking on the big blue E and having it go to MSN.COM</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Microsoft has launched their 'new ' search engine... Here 's my initial impressions .
They have missed all the lessons Google has taught us about making search SIMPLE and accessable .
In fact , they have done the exact same thing in terms of bloated graphics , annoying scripts and reliance on " ai n't it neat " technologies that KILLED ask.com First load it takes forever loading some sort of background image , said image makes reading the text in the little side-bar difficult to read .
Likewise the white on grey text outside their little search area is also below accessability norms in terms of contrast , the white heading texts below the image and then the menu line in the 'footer ' being the worst offenders - I hope they enjoy their fines from the UK on the accessability grounds - The search box with it 's akilter uneven spacing looks like a rendering error .
That the results are left justified but fixed width is annoying since the width they choose is a bit too narrow .
Brand new website and the markup is malformed .
This is n't the traditional validation errors you can ignore like empty alt tags , but geniune " the designer does n't even know HTML " errors like block-level elements inside inline-level ones .
This extends to the filesizes where there 's 31k of markup being used to deliver 400 BYTES of content , improperly linked stylesheets , and javascript that by all indications serves no good fathomable purpose - much less the lack of graceful degredation when javascript is disabled .
It also appears that in Opera the page never finishes loading from links to files that do n't even exist .
Since the page is overly reliant upon javascript this means onload never fires - just brilliant .
I 'm seeing four different broken layouts in four different browsers.. . The search results ?
Look like every other search engine - from fifteen years ago .
Reminds me of altavista back in the day .
While google has upped the ante adding the ability to white-list and black-list pages from their results , it looks like M $ has simply added tracking javascripts around all links on what is little more than a overglorified half-assed rehash of what search engines have been putting online for the better part of the past decade and a half .
I think their use of ( broken ) scripting is supposed to help them cater the results based on what people click on - but since you do n't know if the page ACTUALLY has what you want until you visit it , that 's not exactly going to help tune results any .
The site is entirely typical of what I 've come to expect from Microsoft so far as web technologies are concerned , which is to say it is plainly evident the people they have writing websites have no clue how to actually DO SO ! ! !
Much like the new " live mail " this half-assed broken bloated codebase with the half-assed broken skin that does n't even meet accessability norms should not be impressing anyone , and if anything should be resulting in people getting fired .
If anything , it 's an embarassment to the company of monumental proportions... but then we 're talking about the company who 's site for their web design tool " Web Expression " has a broken layout on Large font/120dpi systems .
Color me unimpressed .
The ONLY reason it 's seeing any sort of ranking spike is launch fever - I ca n't see anyone finding a good reason to actually stick with it apart from joe sixpack too stupid to know anything about the internet apart from clicking on the big blue E and having it go to MSN.COM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Microsoft has launched their 'new' search engine... Here's my initial impressions.
They have missed all the lessons Google has taught us about making search SIMPLE and accessable.
In fact, they have done the exact same thing in terms of bloated graphics, annoying scripts and reliance on "ain't it neat" technologies that KILLED ask.com

First load it takes forever loading some sort of background image, said image makes reading the text in the little side-bar difficult to read.
Likewise the white on grey text outside their little search area is also below accessability norms in terms of contrast, the white heading texts below the image and then the menu line in the 'footer' being the worst offenders - I hope they enjoy their fines from the UK on the accessability grounds - The search box with it's akilter uneven spacing looks like a rendering error.
That the results are left justified but fixed width is annoying since the width they choose is a bit too narrow.
Brand new website and the markup is malformed.
This isn't the traditional validation errors you can ignore like empty alt tags, but geniune "the designer doesn't even know HTML" errors like block-level elements inside inline-level ones.
This extends to the filesizes where there's 31k of markup being used to deliver 400 BYTES of content, improperly linked stylesheets, and javascript that by all indications serves no good fathomable purpose - much less the lack of graceful degredation when javascript is disabled.
It also appears that in Opera the page never finishes loading from links to files that don't even exist.
Since the page is overly reliant upon javascript this means onload never fires - just brilliant.
I'm seeing four different broken layouts in four different browsers...

The search results?
Look like every other search engine - from fifteen years ago.
Reminds me of altavista back in the day.
While google has upped the ante adding the ability to white-list and black-list pages from their results, it looks like M$ has simply added tracking javascripts around all links on what is little more than a overglorified half-assed rehash of what search engines have been putting online for the better part of the past decade and a half.
I think their use of (broken) scripting is supposed to help them cater the results based on what people click on - but since you don't know if the page ACTUALLY has what you want until you visit it, that's not exactly going to help tune results any.
The site is entirely typical of what I've come to expect from Microsoft so far as web technologies are concerned, which is to say it is plainly evident the people they have writing websites have no clue how to actually DO SO!!!
Much like the new "live mail" this half-assed broken bloated codebase with the half-assed broken skin that doesn't even meet accessability norms should not be impressing anyone, and if anything should be resulting in people getting fired.
If anything, it's an embarassment to the company of monumental proportions... but then we're talking about the company who's site for their web design tool "Web Expression" has a broken layout on Large font/120dpi systems.
Color me unimpressed.
The ONLY reason it's seeing any sort of ranking spike is launch fever - I can't see anyone finding a good reason to actually stick with it apart from joe sixpack too stupid to know anything about the internet apart from clicking on the big blue E and having it go to MSN.COM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855</id>
	<title>Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They had a prime time commercial where I live.  I saw it, and I could tell it was going to be a bing advert so I paid attention.  So my wife paid attention too, and the first thing she said after the commercials was... "Biiiiing".  So it was catchy and probably stuck in her head (buy my years of "just use google" still remains).<br> <br>
Yahoo might be worried, but I don't think Google cares... at this point it's a race for second place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They had a prime time commercial where I live .
I saw it , and I could tell it was going to be a bing advert so I paid attention .
So my wife paid attention too , and the first thing she said after the commercials was... " Biiiiing " . So it was catchy and probably stuck in her head ( buy my years of " just use google " still remains ) .
Yahoo might be worried , but I do n't think Google cares... at this point it 's a race for second place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had a prime time commercial where I live.
I saw it, and I could tell it was going to be a bing advert so I paid attention.
So my wife paid attention too, and the first thing she said after the commercials was... "Biiiiing".  So it was catchy and probably stuck in her head (buy my years of "just use google" still remains).
Yahoo might be worried, but I don't think Google cares... at this point it's a race for second place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251019</id>
	<title>Re:Not acid3 compliant?</title>
	<author>Frankie70</author>
	<datestamp>1244476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acid3 is a test for browsers, not for websites. Bing being a website/SearchEngine cannot be acid3 compliant or acid3 non-compliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acid3 is a test for browsers , not for websites .
Bing being a website/SearchEngine can not be acid3 compliant or acid3 non-compliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acid3 is a test for browsers, not for websites.
Bing being a website/SearchEngine cannot be acid3 compliant or acid3 non-compliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28299021</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The results at the bottom are also more useless than Yahoo's, as there is links for The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there. These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight.</p></div><p>Really?  Other comic book movies aren't related to The Dark Knight?  No idea why Google would think that people who liked one comic book movie might be interested in another.  You're right, they sure suck.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have Dark Knight Houston, Dark Knight Shoes? and links to Dark Angel.</p></div><p>Shenanigans - I don't see any of that.  My search results from "the dark knight" on Bing:</p><p>The Dark Knight<br>thedarkknight.warnerbros.com/dvdsite &#194; cached page</p><p>The Dark Knight (2008)<br>www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569 &#194; cached page</p><p>The Dark Knight (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/&#226;The\_&#226;Dark\_&#226;Knight\_&#226;(film) &#194; enhanced view</p><p>Rolling Stone: The Dark Knight<br>www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/&#226;the\_&#226;dark\_&#226;knight &#194; cached page</p><p>THE DARK KNIGHT on Yahoo! Movies<br>movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809271891/info &#194; cached page</p><p>The Dark Knight (2009) - Overview - MSN Movies<br>movies.msn.com/movies/movie/&#226;the-dark-knight &#194; cached page</p><p>The Dark Knight Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes<br>www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the\_dark\_knight &#194; cached page</p><p>Apple - Movie Trailers - The Dark Knight<br>www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknight &#194; cached page</p><p>The Dark Knight (2008)<br>us.imdb.com/title/tt0468569 &#194; cached page<br>----</p><p>Looks pretty dead on to me.  On the left, there are a handful of links to Batman-related things:<br>RELATED SEARCHES<br>The Dark Knight Trailer<br>The Joker<br>Heath Ledger And The Joker<br>The Batman<br>The Dark Knight 2008<br>Superman The Man Of Steel<br>The Punisher<br>The Incredible Hulk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The results at the bottom are also more useless than Yahoo 's , as there is links for The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there .
These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight.Really ?
Other comic book movies are n't related to The Dark Knight ?
No idea why Google would think that people who liked one comic book movie might be interested in another .
You 're right , they sure suck.I have Dark Knight Houston , Dark Knight Shoes ?
and links to Dark Angel.Shenanigans - I do n't see any of that .
My search results from " the dark knight " on Bing : The Dark Knightthedarkknight.warnerbros.com/dvdsite   cached pageThe Dark Knight ( 2008 ) www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569   cached pageThe Dark Knight ( film ) - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/   The \ _   Dark \ _   Knight \ _   ( film )   enhanced viewRolling Stone : The Dark Knightwww.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/   the \ _   dark \ _   knight   cached pageTHE DARK KNIGHT on Yahoo !
Moviesmovies.yahoo.com/movie/1809271891/info   cached pageThe Dark Knight ( 2009 ) - Overview - MSN Moviesmovies.msn.com/movies/movie/   the-dark-knight   cached pageThe Dark Knight Movie Reviews , Pictures - Rotten Tomatoeswww.rottentomatoes.com/m/the \ _dark \ _knight   cached pageApple - Movie Trailers - The Dark Knightwww.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknight   cached pageThe Dark Knight ( 2008 ) us.imdb.com/title/tt0468569   cached page----Looks pretty dead on to me .
On the left , there are a handful of links to Batman-related things : RELATED SEARCHESThe Dark Knight TrailerThe JokerHeath Ledger And The JokerThe BatmanThe Dark Knight 2008Superman The Man Of SteelThe PunisherThe Incredible Hulk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results at the bottom are also more useless than Yahoo's, as there is links for The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there.
These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight.Really?
Other comic book movies aren't related to The Dark Knight?
No idea why Google would think that people who liked one comic book movie might be interested in another.
You're right, they sure suck.I have Dark Knight Houston, Dark Knight Shoes?
and links to Dark Angel.Shenanigans - I don't see any of that.
My search results from "the dark knight" on Bing:The Dark Knightthedarkknight.warnerbros.com/dvdsite Â cached pageThe Dark Knight (2008)www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569 Â cached pageThe Dark Knight (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/âThe\_âDark\_âKnight\_â(film) Â enhanced viewRolling Stone: The Dark Knightwww.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/âthe\_âdark\_âknight Â cached pageTHE DARK KNIGHT on Yahoo!
Moviesmovies.yahoo.com/movie/1809271891/info Â cached pageThe Dark Knight (2009) - Overview - MSN Moviesmovies.msn.com/movies/movie/âthe-dark-knight Â cached pageThe Dark Knight Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoeswww.rottentomatoes.com/m/the\_dark\_knight Â cached pageApple - Movie Trailers - The Dark Knightwww.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknight Â cached pageThe Dark Knight (2008)us.imdb.com/title/tt0468569 Â cached page----Looks pretty dead on to me.
On the left, there are a handful of links to Batman-related things:RELATED SEARCHESThe Dark Knight TrailerThe JokerHeath Ledger And The JokerThe BatmanThe Dark Knight 2008Superman The Man Of SteelThe PunisherThe Incredible Hulk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28259137</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1244467500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then they got ripped off. Even Ask Jeeves outperforms this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they got ripped off .
Even Ask Jeeves outperforms this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they got ripped off.
Even Ask Jeeves outperforms this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491</id>
	<title>"Microsoft+Antitrust"</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1244473140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was a test search I entered into bing to compare with what came out for google and yahoo.<p>

google returned these three first:</p><dl><dd>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Microsoft</dd></dl><dl><dd>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Union\_Microsoft\_antitrust\_case</dd></dl><dl><dd>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html</dd></dl><p>
So I compared that to Yahoo:
</p><dl><dd>http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/<dl>
<dd><dl><dd>http://www.zdnet.com.au/tag/anti\_trust-eu-microsoft.htm</dd></dl><dl><dd>http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39202361,00.htm</dd></dl><p>
Bing returned these three first:

</p><dl><dd>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.mspx</dd></dl><dl><dd>http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/legal\_newsroomarchive.mspx?case=Government\%20Anti-Trust\%20Case</dd></dl><dl><dd>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_antitrust\_case</dd></dl><p>
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. - Joseph Goebbels</p></dd></dl></dd></dl></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was a test search I entered into bing to compare with what came out for google and yahoo .
google returned these three first : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _v. \ _Microsofthttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European \ _Union \ _Microsoft \ _antitrust \ _casehttp : //www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html So I compared that to Yahoo : http : //www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/ http : //www.zdnet.com.au/tag/anti \ _trust-eu-microsoft.htmhttp : //www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39202361,00.htm Bing returned these three first : http : //www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.mspxhttp : //www.microsoft.com/Presspass/legal \ _newsroomarchive.mspx ? case = Government \ % 20Anti-Trust \ % 20Casehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft \ _antitrust \ _case If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it , people will eventually come to believe it .
- Joseph Goebbels</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was a test search I entered into bing to compare with what came out for google and yahoo.
google returned these three first:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Microsofthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Union\_Microsoft\_antitrust\_casehttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
So I compared that to Yahoo:
http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/
http://www.zdnet.com.au/tag/anti\_trust-eu-microsoft.htmhttp://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39202361,00.htm
Bing returned these three first:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.mspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/legal\_newsroomarchive.mspx?case=Government\%20Anti-Trust\%20Casehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_antitrust\_case
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
- Joseph Goebbels</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250713</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Mr\_eX9</author>
	<datestamp>1244474520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've submitted stories before only to have them rejected up to four days later. That's probably not what happened here. Shame the editors don't like my submissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've submitted stories before only to have them rejected up to four days later .
That 's probably not what happened here .
Shame the editors do n't like my submissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've submitted stories before only to have them rejected up to four days later.
That's probably not what happened here.
Shame the editors don't like my submissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053</id>
	<title>It's the apps stupid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244470800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Around a decade ago, it was enough to have a better search engine to get people to switch.  But in the meantime, google has me hooked on mail, sites, and documents.  Other people use other apps, but just like Microsoft snagged the desktop OS market based on it being the default on commodity hardware and then maintaining it with applications later, I believe Google will keep it's top spot on the same idea.</p><p>Migrating from a search engine simply is a lot of hassle now especially since it's diminishing returns, I have a feeling that "perfect" results and google and maybe even bing won't be that far apart from each other.  Also, a decade ago, the internet was more of a wild west in terms of searching for information about some topics far and wide.  You just didn't know what sites had relevant information.  These days, a great majority of my searches start as "X Y wikipedia" because now there is a centralized spot for info.</p><p>I applaud Microsoft's effort though.  Competition is always a good thing and might bring something unexpected or at least keep google honest and on its toes.  Also, the bing page has learn/copied the good part of google, and that is the minimalization.  A far cry from the horrendous "portal"idea that Yahoo, MSN, comcast.net, AOL, and others are still attached too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Around a decade ago , it was enough to have a better search engine to get people to switch .
But in the meantime , google has me hooked on mail , sites , and documents .
Other people use other apps , but just like Microsoft snagged the desktop OS market based on it being the default on commodity hardware and then maintaining it with applications later , I believe Google will keep it 's top spot on the same idea.Migrating from a search engine simply is a lot of hassle now especially since it 's diminishing returns , I have a feeling that " perfect " results and google and maybe even bing wo n't be that far apart from each other .
Also , a decade ago , the internet was more of a wild west in terms of searching for information about some topics far and wide .
You just did n't know what sites had relevant information .
These days , a great majority of my searches start as " X Y wikipedia " because now there is a centralized spot for info.I applaud Microsoft 's effort though .
Competition is always a good thing and might bring something unexpected or at least keep google honest and on its toes .
Also , the bing page has learn/copied the good part of google , and that is the minimalization .
A far cry from the horrendous " portal " idea that Yahoo , MSN , comcast.net , AOL , and others are still attached too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Around a decade ago, it was enough to have a better search engine to get people to switch.
But in the meantime, google has me hooked on mail, sites, and documents.
Other people use other apps, but just like Microsoft snagged the desktop OS market based on it being the default on commodity hardware and then maintaining it with applications later, I believe Google will keep it's top spot on the same idea.Migrating from a search engine simply is a lot of hassle now especially since it's diminishing returns, I have a feeling that "perfect" results and google and maybe even bing won't be that far apart from each other.
Also, a decade ago, the internet was more of a wild west in terms of searching for information about some topics far and wide.
You just didn't know what sites had relevant information.
These days, a great majority of my searches start as "X Y wikipedia" because now there is a centralized spot for info.I applaud Microsoft's effort though.
Competition is always a good thing and might bring something unexpected or at least keep google honest and on its toes.
Also, the bing page has learn/copied the good part of google, and that is the minimalization.
A far cry from the horrendous "portal"idea that Yahoo, MSN, comcast.net, AOL, and others are still attached too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252203</id>
	<title>Good, Bad, Ugly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244482140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good - Easy to use, decent results, refreshing look.<br>Bad - Poor related links.<br>Ugly - Can't try out everything because I don't have silverlight on my laptop and cell phone.</p><p>I'm wondering if bing is more about Silverlight than it is about being better than MSN Search or Live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good - Easy to use , decent results , refreshing look.Bad - Poor related links.Ugly - Ca n't try out everything because I do n't have silverlight on my laptop and cell phone.I 'm wondering if bing is more about Silverlight than it is about being better than MSN Search or Live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good - Easy to use, decent results, refreshing look.Bad - Poor related links.Ugly - Can't try out everything because I don't have silverlight on my laptop and cell phone.I'm wondering if bing is more about Silverlight than it is about being better than MSN Search or Live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250511</id>
	<title>Ah, am I the only one here asking...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1244473380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...WTF is "Bing"?</p><p>Sorry, but seriously, can't say I've heard of it.  Windows Live is being pimped too hard everywhere I look (thanks IE8).</p><p>Obviously not the market penetration they really think it is.  Steve, call me when you start using Bing as a verb, OK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...WTF is " Bing " ? Sorry , but seriously , ca n't say I 've heard of it .
Windows Live is being pimped too hard everywhere I look ( thanks IE8 ) .Obviously not the market penetration they really think it is .
Steve , call me when you start using Bing as a verb , OK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...WTF is "Bing"?Sorry, but seriously, can't say I've heard of it.
Windows Live is being pimped too hard everywhere I look (thanks IE8).Obviously not the market penetration they really think it is.
Steve, call me when you start using Bing as a verb, OK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250449</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1244473020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what's hard to see? Someone using Yahoo. (badumpish)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what 's hard to see ?
Someone using Yahoo .
( badumpish )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what's hard to see?
Someone using Yahoo.
(badumpish)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255067</id>
	<title>Re:Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>ShaunC</author>
	<datestamp>1244494200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw the commercial too, and realized I was free to fly about the country...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the commercial too , and realized I was free to fly about the country.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw the commercial too, and realized I was free to fly about the country...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258289</id>
	<title>Acronyms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244462340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"just use google"</p></div><p> <a href="http://bing.com/" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">Bing Is Not Google =</a> [bing.com] <br>
<a href="http://jugs.com/" title="jugs.com" rel="nofollow">Just Use Google, Sweetie =</a> [jugs.com] ?<br> <br>Genius!<br>I'm off to register this domain! <br> <br>Wait a minute..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" just use google " Bing Is Not Google = [ bing.com ] Just Use Google , Sweetie = [ jugs.com ] ?
Genius ! I 'm off to register this domain !
Wait a minute. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"just use google" Bing Is Not Google = [bing.com] 
Just Use Google, Sweetie = [jugs.com] ?
Genius!I'm off to register this domain!
Wait a minute..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250211</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1244471940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of the Bing searches for the term "sex"  with the setting changed to India, with the user originating from slashdot? With the sparsity of non-google searches, a slashdotting could be almost significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of the Bing searches for the term " sex " with the setting changed to India , with the user originating from slashdot ?
With the sparsity of non-google searches , a slashdotting could be almost significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of the Bing searches for the term "sex"  with the setting changed to India, with the user originating from slashdot?
With the sparsity of non-google searches, a slashdotting could be almost significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250225</id>
	<title>Re:StatCounter's Baidu Stats is Alarming</title>
	<author>aodhan</author>
	<datestamp>1244472000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm from StatCounter and I would just like to address your concern. The detection for baidu was added on the 5th March 2009 at 21.00 GMT. When a new detection is added it is noted on the visual graph (but not in the csv download).<br>
<a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#search\_engine-CN-daily-20090509-20090607" title="statcounter.com" rel="nofollow">Also if you look at the stats just for China you can easily see Baidu's dominance there</a> [statcounter.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from StatCounter and I would just like to address your concern .
The detection for baidu was added on the 5th March 2009 at 21.00 GMT .
When a new detection is added it is noted on the visual graph ( but not in the csv download ) .
Also if you look at the stats just for China you can easily see Baidu 's dominance there [ statcounter.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from StatCounter and I would just like to address your concern.
The detection for baidu was added on the 5th March 2009 at 21.00 GMT.
When a new detection is added it is noted on the visual graph (but not in the csv download).
Also if you look at the stats just for China you can easily see Baidu's dominance there [statcounter.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253621</id>
	<title>If you can't join them, beat them!</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1244488500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can't join them, beat them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't join them , beat them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't join them, beat them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252875</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're either lying or doing it wrong.  I did the same search in all three search engines and got information about the movie right away in all three.  I'd guess doing it wrong, but if you want to admit you lied that's fine too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're either lying or doing it wrong .
I did the same search in all three search engines and got information about the movie right away in all three .
I 'd guess doing it wrong , but if you want to admit you lied that 's fine too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're either lying or doing it wrong.
I did the same search in all three search engines and got information about the movie right away in all three.
I'd guess doing it wrong, but if you want to admit you lied that's fine too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28263531</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>bhiestand</author>
	<datestamp>1244549100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't have cable, so I searched for the bing commerical on youtube. I watched it, it seemed like useless fluff that's not going to convince anyone to try anything because they never actually said what their search engine did differently from google, except that it was better</p></div><p>You remind me of me.  Just know that "Bing" is MS marketing, and large companies do not even try to market to people like us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have cable , so I searched for the bing commerical on youtube .
I watched it , it seemed like useless fluff that 's not going to convince anyone to try anything because they never actually said what their search engine did differently from google , except that it was betterYou remind me of me .
Just know that " Bing " is MS marketing , and large companies do not even try to market to people like us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have cable, so I searched for the bing commerical on youtube.
I watched it, it seemed like useless fluff that's not going to convince anyone to try anything because they never actually said what their search engine did differently from google, except that it was betterYou remind me of me.
Just know that "Bing" is MS marketing, and large companies do not even try to market to people like us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254339</id>
	<title>Olivia Munn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244491440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get off my lawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250337</id>
	<title>The only good thing about Bing...</title>
	<author>tjonnyc999</author>
	<datestamp>1244472480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is the integrated "porn theater" feature. Turn off SafeSearch (or w/e they call it, I care so little I forgot already), look up any porn search term - et voila! watch the videos right in the search results window.<br> <br>
Looks like they're trying to kill off Redtube, not Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the integrated " porn theater " feature .
Turn off SafeSearch ( or w/e they call it , I care so little I forgot already ) , look up any porn search term - et voila !
watch the videos right in the search results window .
Looks like they 're trying to kill off Redtube , not Google : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the integrated "porn theater" feature.
Turn off SafeSearch (or w/e they call it, I care so little I forgot already), look up any porn search term - et voila!
watch the videos right in the search results window.
Looks like they're trying to kill off Redtube, not Google :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28256423</id>
	<title>Re:Also Interesting:</title>
	<author>FreelanceWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1244455020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The results appear to be the same for me whether I use IE 8, Chrome 2, or Firefox 3 on Windows 7 RC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The results appear to be the same for me whether I use IE 8 , Chrome 2 , or Firefox 3 on Windows 7 RC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results appear to be the same for me whether I use IE 8, Chrome 2, or Firefox 3 on Windows 7 RC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250373</id>
	<title>give it time</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244472600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wait until the "new" wears off and people will go back to their old favorites, google, yahoo, askJeevs' &amp; etc... whatever, people are going to bing to see what it is capable of and when they are done they will leave, i am sure the microsofties &amp; msn users will gravitate to bing, but not all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>wait until the " new " wears off and people will go back to their old favorites , google , yahoo , askJeevs ' &amp; etc... whatever , people are going to bing to see what it is capable of and when they are done they will leave , i am sure the microsofties &amp; msn users will gravitate to bing , but not all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait until the "new" wears off and people will go back to their old favorites, google, yahoo, askJeevs' &amp; etc... whatever, people are going to bing to see what it is capable of and when they are done they will leave, i am sure the microsofties &amp; msn users will gravitate to bing, but not all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249877</id>
	<title>The sound of "found": Bob Hope</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1244469900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This morning, our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service, <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/05/28/the-sound-of-found-bob-hope/" title="today.com" rel="nofollow">unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before</a> [today.com]: Bob Hope.</p><p>We spent lots of time listening to you, except when you told us how much MSN Search^W^W Live Search^W^W Kumo sucked 'cause you're just <i>wrong</i> about that, to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today. Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so <i>passe</i>, dahling.</p><p>So today we're introducing a new kind of search, that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff, to <i>instead</i> help you make faster, more informed decisions. (Windows 7 is <i>peachy keen</i>, by the way.) We think of Bob Hope as a <i>Decision Engine</i>. We've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono, co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope.</p><p>So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search? We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach. A name that was memorable, short, easy to spell, and that would function well as a URL around the world.</p><p>And just look at these results!</p><p> <i>What do we want?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>When do we want them?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>What do I need to run Windows 7?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>What's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded?</i> <br> <b>Braaains.</b> <br> <i>What's the final proof of Steve Ballmer's equal genius to Steve Jobs?</i> <br> <b>Vistaaa.</b> </p><p>This is something new, something improved! You need to try it! It'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we can't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts! Please, come and try our new and improved service! FOR GOD'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE. <b>OR THE PUPPY GETS IT.</b> We're Microsoft. We're <i>serious as a heart attack</i> on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This morning , our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service , unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before [ today.com ] : Bob Hope.We spent lots of time listening to you , except when you told us how much MSN Search ^ W ^ W Live Search ^ W ^ W Kumo sucked 'cause you 're just wrong about that , to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today .
Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so passe , dahling.So today we 're introducing a new kind of search , that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff , to instead help you make faster , more informed decisions .
( Windows 7 is peachy keen , by the way .
) We think of Bob Hope as a Decision Engine .
We 've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono , co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram 's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope.So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search ?
We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach .
A name that was memorable , short , easy to spell , and that would function well as a URL around the world.And just look at these results !
What do we want ?
Braaains. When do we want them ?
Braaains. What do I need to run Windows 7 ?
Braaains. What 's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded ?
Braaains. What 's the final proof of Steve Ballmer 's equal genius to Steve Jobs ?
Vistaaa. This is something new , something improved !
You need to try it !
It 'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we ca n't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts !
Please , come and try our new and improved service !
FOR GOD 'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE .
OR THE PUPPY GETS IT .
We 're Microsoft .
We 're serious as a heart attack on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This morning, our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service, unrelated to anything we at Microsoft have ever done before [today.com]: Bob Hope.We spent lots of time listening to you, except when you told us how much MSN Search^W^W Live Search^W^W Kumo sucked 'cause you're just wrong about that, to learn which buzzwordy Web 2.0 thingies you use search for today.
Finding a webpage that has anything to do with the search terms you entered is so passe, dahling.So today we're introducing a new kind of search, that goes beyond traditional search engines that do tedious things like find stuff, to instead help you make faster, more informed decisions.
(Windows 7 is peachy keen, by the way.
) We think of Bob Hope as a Decision Engine.
We've sued Stephen Wolfram into atomic dust using our patents on FAT and Mono, co-opted the Wolfram Alpha engine and swapped Mathematica for Visual Basic and Wolfram's brain for the exhumed corpse of Bob Hope.So why did we pick Bob Hope as the new core of our search?
We needed a brand that was as fresh and new as our approach.
A name that was memorable, short, easy to spell, and that would function well as a URL around the world.And just look at these results!
What do we want?
Braaains.  When do we want them?
Braaains.  What do I need to run Windows 7?
Braaains.  What's Bill Gates got that means you should buy everything you can from the company he founded?
Braaains.  What's the final proof of Steve Ballmer's equal genius to Steve Jobs?
Vistaaa. This is something new, something improved!
You need to try it!
It'll give so much more betterer results than that other search engine we can't name because Steve will wedge another chair up our butts!
Please, come and try our new and improved service!
FOR GOD'S SAKE TRY THE DAMN SERVICE.
OR THE PUPPY GETS IT.
We're Microsoft.
We're serious as a heart attack on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249909</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244470020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not what happened in this case - tfa is dated today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not what happened in this case - tfa is dated today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not what happened in this case - tfa is dated today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28260041</id>
	<title>Windows Update for the win!</title>
	<author>oDDmON oUT</author>
	<datestamp>1244472900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least the spin.</p><p>Saw that the old default link to MSN now pointed to Bing on a couple of boxes I turn on every once in a blue moon, after they automatically updated to IE8.</p><p>"Move along now, nothing to see here."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least the spin.Saw that the old default link to MSN now pointed to Bing on a couple of boxes I turn on every once in a blue moon , after they automatically updated to IE8 .
" Move along now , nothing to see here .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least the spin.Saw that the old default link to MSN now pointed to Bing on a couple of boxes I turn on every once in a blue moon, after they automatically updated to IE8.
"Move along now, nothing to see here.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244474040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing. I didn't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something - I didn't bother looking at it since I didn't recognize it. So my first impression of the site, thanks to the redirect, was that it was an annoying ad site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing .
I did n't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something - I did n't bother looking at it since I did n't recognize it .
So my first impression of the site , thanks to the redirect , was that it was an annoying ad site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing.
I didn't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something - I didn't bother looking at it since I didn't recognize it.
So my first impression of the site, thanks to the redirect, was that it was an annoying ad site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258343</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1244462520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Hairyfeet - My first thought when reading the Title of the Article was "They passed Yahoo? That means, what... 10 people used Bing?</p><p>And here you have to go and post something well thought out and tell me you use Yahoo.  It made me realize that by exclusively using Google, perhaps I should be making fun of myself for insisting that something is better without checking out the competition for about 2 entire years.</p><p>You have convinced me to broaden my (search) Horizons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hairyfeet - My first thought when reading the Title of the Article was " They passed Yahoo ?
That means , what... 10 people used Bing ? And here you have to go and post something well thought out and tell me you use Yahoo .
It made me realize that by exclusively using Google , perhaps I should be making fun of myself for insisting that something is better without checking out the competition for about 2 entire years.You have convinced me to broaden my ( search ) Horizons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hairyfeet - My first thought when reading the Title of the Article was "They passed Yahoo?
That means, what... 10 people used Bing?And here you have to go and post something well thought out and tell me you use Yahoo.
It made me realize that by exclusively using Google, perhaps I should be making fun of myself for insisting that something is better without checking out the competition for about 2 entire years.You have convinced me to broaden my (search) Horizons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250543</id>
	<title>Here's my take on it.</title>
	<author>jskline</author>
	<datestamp>1244473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it did manage to over take Yahoo, my suspicions are that the only way Microsoft can accomplish that would be to install this as the default search and push it down with Windows mandatory updates and over ride the users default settings. Many users know nothing about their computers and can't change it back without calling a geek, so Microsoft would stand to win here. There's a word for this but it escapes me about now..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it did manage to over take Yahoo , my suspicions are that the only way Microsoft can accomplish that would be to install this as the default search and push it down with Windows mandatory updates and over ride the users default settings .
Many users know nothing about their computers and ca n't change it back without calling a geek , so Microsoft would stand to win here .
There 's a word for this but it escapes me about now.. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it did manage to over take Yahoo, my suspicions are that the only way Microsoft can accomplish that would be to install this as the default search and push it down with Windows mandatory updates and over ride the users default settings.
Many users know nothing about their computers and can't change it back without calling a geek, so Microsoft would stand to win here.
There's a word for this but it escapes me about now.. :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253591</id>
	<title>bing sucks:</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1244488380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried it out a couple of times, and it insists on offering me Finland-related search results. This made it completely useless for me. I guess it does the same for users from other countries - gives search results specific to the searcher's geographic location. Well, that's bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it out a couple of times , and it insists on offering me Finland-related search results .
This made it completely useless for me .
I guess it does the same for users from other countries - gives search results specific to the searcher 's geographic location .
Well , that 's bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it out a couple of times, and it insists on offering me Finland-related search results.
This made it completely useless for me.
I guess it does the same for users from other countries - gives search results specific to the searcher's geographic location.
Well, that's bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249853</id>
	<title>Bada</title>
	<author>Mana Mana</author>
	<datestamp>1244469660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing Is Not Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Is Not Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Is Not Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251703</id>
	<title>Re:I Still Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>aodhan</author>
	<datestamp>1244479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>StatCounter is a global service with members from every country in the world but it is more popular in certain countries. Therefore we collect more data from these countries. This means reports for Worldwide/Asia/Europe/North America/Oceania/South America can be skewed towards the countries where StatCounter is more popular. However, you can view each stat on a country level which negates any potential for a bias.<br> <br>

We could compensate for this bias in our reports for Worldwide/Asia/Europe/North America/Oceania/South America based on the total internet population size from each country. But this would mean manipulating the data, and we prefer to leave the data untouched. If other people want to build upon this data and manipulate it to account for any regional bias then they are very welcome to do so per our licensing agreement <a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/about" title="statcounter.com" rel="nofollow">http://gs.statcounter.com/about</a> [statcounter.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>StatCounter is a global service with members from every country in the world but it is more popular in certain countries .
Therefore we collect more data from these countries .
This means reports for Worldwide/Asia/Europe/North America/Oceania/South America can be skewed towards the countries where StatCounter is more popular .
However , you can view each stat on a country level which negates any potential for a bias .
We could compensate for this bias in our reports for Worldwide/Asia/Europe/North America/Oceania/South America based on the total internet population size from each country .
But this would mean manipulating the data , and we prefer to leave the data untouched .
If other people want to build upon this data and manipulate it to account for any regional bias then they are very welcome to do so per our licensing agreement http : //gs.statcounter.com/about [ statcounter.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>StatCounter is a global service with members from every country in the world but it is more popular in certain countries.
Therefore we collect more data from these countries.
This means reports for Worldwide/Asia/Europe/North America/Oceania/South America can be skewed towards the countries where StatCounter is more popular.
However, you can view each stat on a country level which negates any potential for a bias.
We could compensate for this bias in our reports for Worldwide/Asia/Europe/North America/Oceania/South America based on the total internet population size from each country.
But this would mean manipulating the data, and we prefer to leave the data untouched.
If other people want to build upon this data and manipulate it to account for any regional bias then they are very welcome to do so per our licensing agreement http://gs.statcounter.com/about [statcounter.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258797</id>
	<title>Even Win2K does it ...</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1244465160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did the same test on a vintage Win2K / IE install which I run in a VM specifically because I have to test against ancient versions of windows and IE.  This 2000 era environment directed me straight to bing.com to do my search as well - so yes, there are going to be a lot of people using bing to do their searches by default.</p><p>Having said that, I have no idea why anybody thinks it's strange that bing is having a surge and then a fall in patronage - isn't that what happens with just about any new product on the planet??? We'll know in 6 months if bing was a success.  A day or even a month's data means nothing.   As far as quality of results go, I think bing is a big success merely because it is not noticeably worse than Google - that's a huge achievement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the same test on a vintage Win2K / IE install which I run in a VM specifically because I have to test against ancient versions of windows and IE .
This 2000 era environment directed me straight to bing.com to do my search as well - so yes , there are going to be a lot of people using bing to do their searches by default.Having said that , I have no idea why anybody thinks it 's strange that bing is having a surge and then a fall in patronage - is n't that what happens with just about any new product on the planet ? ? ?
We 'll know in 6 months if bing was a success .
A day or even a month 's data means nothing .
As far as quality of results go , I think bing is a big success merely because it is not noticeably worse than Google - that 's a huge achievement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the same test on a vintage Win2K / IE install which I run in a VM specifically because I have to test against ancient versions of windows and IE.
This 2000 era environment directed me straight to bing.com to do my search as well - so yes, there are going to be a lot of people using bing to do their searches by default.Having said that, I have no idea why anybody thinks it's strange that bing is having a surge and then a fall in patronage - isn't that what happens with just about any new product on the planet???
We'll know in 6 months if bing was a success.
A day or even a month's data means nothing.
As far as quality of results go, I think bing is a big success merely because it is not noticeably worse than Google - that's a huge achievement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've submitted stories before to only have them accepted up to four days later. That's probably what happened here. Shame the editors didn't catch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've submitted stories before to only have them accepted up to four days later .
That 's probably what happened here .
Shame the editors did n't catch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've submitted stories before to only have them accepted up to four days later.
That's probably what happened here.
Shame the editors didn't catch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250097</id>
	<title>Help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244471040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I type something in the address bar of firefox, it searches for it using bing (previously live search).  Is there a way I can change this to google I'm Feeling Lucky (Like it was on the ol gentoo box? (I'm on vista now)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I type something in the address bar of firefox , it searches for it using bing ( previously live search ) .
Is there a way I can change this to google I 'm Feeling Lucky ( Like it was on the ol gentoo box ?
( I 'm on vista now ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I type something in the address bar of firefox, it searches for it using bing (previously live search).
Is there a way I can change this to google I'm Feeling Lucky (Like it was on the ol gentoo box?
(I'm on vista now)).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249901</id>
	<title>Re:Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>getto man d</author>
	<datestamp>1244469960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, you're right. It is a race for second place. That is all it seems Microsoft is good for; releasing products that emulate others (especially if you believe the fanboys)*.
<br> <br>

I just don't understand <i>why</i> M$ needs or even wants to have a great search engine. I just want a freakin' better OS.
<br> <br>
*Sidenote: I do like the Zune even with all of the bashing here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , you 're right .
It is a race for second place .
That is all it seems Microsoft is good for ; releasing products that emulate others ( especially if you believe the fanboys ) * .
I just do n't understand why M $ needs or even wants to have a great search engine .
I just want a freakin ' better OS .
* Sidenote : I do like the Zune even with all of the bashing here on / .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, you're right.
It is a race for second place.
That is all it seems Microsoft is good for; releasing products that emulate others (especially if you believe the fanboys)*.
I just don't understand why M$ needs or even wants to have a great search engine.
I just want a freakin' better OS.
*Sidenote: I do like the Zune even with all of the bashing here on /.
.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252013</id>
	<title>Bing has 2 things going for it</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1244481180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. It has a catchy name.  Binging your mama sounds even cooler than googling her.</p><p>2. MS is throwing a lot of bling at bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It has a catchy name .
Binging your mama sounds even cooler than googling her.2 .
MS is throwing a lot of bling at bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It has a catchy name.
Binging your mama sounds even cooler than googling her.2.
MS is throwing a lot of bling at bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252599</id>
	<title>Re:as much as it pains me to do this...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244483580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I did a little experiment. I loaded up IE, hit the search button, typed something in, and ran the search. Whaddayaknow, Bing comes up with the search results. So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they brought it home from Walmart with IE as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Bing whether they know it or not. Apparently there are quite a few such idiots. Are we surprised?</p></div><p>Actually, yes, we are. Thing is, what you described worked that way before, only it used Live Search instead (and now Live Search redirects to Bing, and so you see the behavior you described). However, despite this, Live Search generally ranked third, pretty far behind Google (#1) and Yahoo (#2). If, as they claim, Bing did indeed overtake Yahoo, even briefly, then it means there was a significant increase in the number of users in a short amount of time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a little experiment .
I loaded up IE , hit the search button , typed something in , and ran the search .
Whaddayaknow , Bing comes up with the search results .
So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they brought it home from Walmart with IE as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Bing whether they know it or not .
Apparently there are quite a few such idiots .
Are we surprised ? Actually , yes , we are .
Thing is , what you described worked that way before , only it used Live Search instead ( and now Live Search redirects to Bing , and so you see the behavior you described ) .
However , despite this , Live Search generally ranked third , pretty far behind Google ( # 1 ) and Yahoo ( # 2 ) .
If , as they claim , Bing did indeed overtake Yahoo , even briefly , then it means there was a significant increase in the number of users in a short amount of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a little experiment.
I loaded up IE, hit the search button, typed something in, and ran the search.
Whaddayaknow, Bing comes up with the search results.
So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they brought it home from Walmart with IE as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Bing whether they know it or not.
Apparently there are quite a few such idiots.
Are we surprised?Actually, yes, we are.
Thing is, what you described worked that way before, only it used Live Search instead (and now Live Search redirects to Bing, and so you see the behavior you described).
However, despite this, Live Search generally ranked third, pretty far behind Google (#1) and Yahoo (#2).
If, as they claim, Bing did indeed overtake Yahoo, even briefly, then it means there was a significant increase in the number of users in a short amount of time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250887</id>
	<title>Re:Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>tooyoung</author>
	<datestamp>1244475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Bing commercial is hilarious.  I love how it subtly implies that the entire financial crisis was caused by people not using Microsoft's search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bing commercial is hilarious .
I love how it subtly implies that the entire financial crisis was caused by people not using Microsoft 's search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bing commercial is hilarious.
I love how it subtly implies that the entire financial crisis was caused by people not using Microsoft's search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250345</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1244472540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've submitted stories before to only have them accepted up to four days later. That's probably what happened here. Shame the editors didn't catch it.</p></div><p>Lucky you. I've got a submission over a year old. I'm guessing it's like emails at the bottom of the pile, they just get lost in the layers of time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've submitted stories before to only have them accepted up to four days later .
That 's probably what happened here .
Shame the editors did n't catch it.Lucky you .
I 've got a submission over a year old .
I 'm guessing it 's like emails at the bottom of the pile , they just get lost in the layers of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've submitted stories before to only have them accepted up to four days later.
That's probably what happened here.
Shame the editors didn't catch it.Lucky you.
I've got a submission over a year old.
I'm guessing it's like emails at the bottom of the pile, they just get lost in the layers of time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250761</id>
	<title>Re:Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>johnlcallaway</author>
	<datestamp>1244474700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had the opposite experience. I did a few searches on Bing that I had done yesterday on Google, and both took the same amount of time to find what I was looking for. I had to look closely just to make sure I was using Bing, the pages were so similar, down to the advertisement placements.
<br> <br>
So I tried the one thing I use Google most for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maps.  Same route, but I can't manipulate the route as easily on MS.
<br> <br>
So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. YAWN<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... back to Google. At least it remembers my prior searches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the opposite experience .
I did a few searches on Bing that I had done yesterday on Google , and both took the same amount of time to find what I was looking for .
I had to look closely just to make sure I was using Bing , the pages were so similar , down to the advertisement placements .
So I tried the one thing I use Google most for ... maps. Same route , but I ca n't manipulate the route as easily on MS . So .. YAWN .... back to Google .
At least it remembers my prior searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the opposite experience.
I did a few searches on Bing that I had done yesterday on Google, and both took the same amount of time to find what I was looking for.
I had to look closely just to make sure I was using Bing, the pages were so similar, down to the advertisement placements.
So I tried the one thing I use Google most for ... maps.  Same route, but I can't manipulate the route as easily on MS.
 
So .. YAWN .... back to Google.
At least it remembers my prior searches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253305</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>Stevecrox</author>
	<datestamp>1244486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is texting a new fad? I remember owning a Nokia 5510i (think 402) in 1998 which could text upto 160 characters. I beleive my Nan had a BT Cellnet Analogue phone (this was before the days of a standard GSM sim card) in 95/96 which was capable of sending 60 character text messages (worked until 2004 when BT forced her to upgrade to a digital phone).<br> <br>
Back then a Nokia 5110i on Orange Pay As You GO went for &pound;100, and were hardly rare. <a href="http://www.mobile88.com.my/gen/prodspics/nokia402\_front.jpg" title="mobile88.com.my"> Nokia 402</a> [mobile88.com.my]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is texting a new fad ?
I remember owning a Nokia 5510i ( think 402 ) in 1998 which could text upto 160 characters .
I beleive my Nan had a BT Cellnet Analogue phone ( this was before the days of a standard GSM sim card ) in 95/96 which was capable of sending 60 character text messages ( worked until 2004 when BT forced her to upgrade to a digital phone ) .
Back then a Nokia 5110i on Orange Pay As You GO went for   100 , and were hardly rare .
Nokia 402 [ mobile88.com.my ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is texting a new fad?
I remember owning a Nokia 5510i (think 402) in 1998 which could text upto 160 characters.
I beleive my Nan had a BT Cellnet Analogue phone (this was before the days of a standard GSM sim card) in 95/96 which was capable of sending 60 character text messages (worked until 2004 when BT forced her to upgrade to a digital phone).
Back then a Nokia 5110i on Orange Pay As You GO went for £100, and were hardly rare.
Nokia 402 [mobile88.com.my]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252371</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>mgrassi99</author>
	<datestamp>1244482860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, because my related searches for "the dark knight" are:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Joker<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Heath Ledger And The Joker<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Batman<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Dark Knight 2008<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Superman The Man Of Steel<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Punisher<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Incredible Hulk</p><p>Seems pretty relevant to me.</p><p>You also get this nice little sidebar which assumes you're looking for a movie:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Images<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Trailer<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Review<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Quotes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Soundtrack<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Cast</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , because my related searches for " the dark knight " are :         * The Joker         * Heath Ledger And The Joker         * The Batman         * The Dark Knight 2008         * Superman The Man Of Steel         * The Punisher         * The Incredible HulkSeems pretty relevant to me.You also get this nice little sidebar which assumes you 're looking for a movie :         * Images         * Trailer         * Review         * Quotes         * Soundtrack         * Cast</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, because my related searches for "the dark knight" are:
        * The Joker
        * Heath Ledger And The Joker
        * The Batman
        * The Dark Knight 2008
        * Superman The Man Of Steel
        * The Punisher
        * The Incredible HulkSeems pretty relevant to me.You also get this nice little sidebar which assumes you're looking for a movie:
        * Images
        * Trailer
        * Review
        * Quotes
        * Soundtrack
        * Cast</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252513</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244483280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apparently it is the same search engine they had when it was MSN</p></div><p>It's not. You might have missed the story, but Microsoft had actually bought out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerset\_(company)" title="wikipedia.org">PowerSet</a> [wikipedia.org] to replace the old search engine, and that's what powering Bing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently it is the same search engine they had when it was MSNIt 's not .
You might have missed the story , but Microsoft had actually bought out PowerSet [ wikipedia.org ] to replace the old search engine , and that 's what powering Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently it is the same search engine they had when it was MSNIt's not.
You might have missed the story, but Microsoft had actually bought out PowerSet [wikipedia.org] to replace the old search engine, and that's what powering Bing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250741</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244474580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll of course Bling will out do Yahoo because Bling is shiny any Yahoo is noisy. Shiny trumps noisy. But...Google trumps them all, we'll because it's like you know a really big number and people like big numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll of course Bling will out do Yahoo because Bling is shiny any Yahoo is noisy .
Shiny trumps noisy .
But...Google trumps them all , we 'll because it 's like you know a really big number and people like big numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll of course Bling will out do Yahoo because Bling is shiny any Yahoo is noisy.
Shiny trumps noisy.
But...Google trumps them all, we'll because it's like you know a really big number and people like big numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250819</id>
	<title>I Still Don't Buy It</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1244475000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm from StatCounter and I would just like to address your concern. The detection for baidu was added on the 5th March 2009 at 21.00 GMT. When a new detection is added it is noted on the visual graph (but not in the csv download).

<a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#search\_engine-CN-daily-20090509-20090607" title="statcounter.com" rel="nofollow">Also if you look at the stats just for China you can easily see Baidu's dominance there</a> [statcounter.com].</p></div><p>Using Wikipedia for population, we have Asia at 4x10^9 or four billion.  We also see that the population of China is 1.33x10^9--that is over one fourth the population of Asia is in China.  Your data for the range you specified shows Baidu in China at 56.42\%--a figure I believe although I would expect Baidu to be trouncing Google more so than a 21\% lead.  So using these numbers we can establish that China's numbers should be reflected in Asia's numbers at 1.33/4 or 33\%.  Now, we know that over half of that third is using Baidu.  which means that <i>at least</i> 1/6 or 16.6\% of your Asia statistics for that same range should reflect 16\% using Baidu!  Instead you show 1.51\% of Asia using Baidu for that range.  <br> <br>

Ok?  I stand by my assessment that your collection methods are flawed and do not accurately represent usage across large expanses of users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from StatCounter and I would just like to address your concern .
The detection for baidu was added on the 5th March 2009 at 21.00 GMT .
When a new detection is added it is noted on the visual graph ( but not in the csv download ) .
Also if you look at the stats just for China you can easily see Baidu 's dominance there [ statcounter.com ] .Using Wikipedia for population , we have Asia at 4x10 ^ 9 or four billion .
We also see that the population of China is 1.33x10 ^ 9--that is over one fourth the population of Asia is in China .
Your data for the range you specified shows Baidu in China at 56.42 \ % --a figure I believe although I would expect Baidu to be trouncing Google more so than a 21 \ % lead .
So using these numbers we can establish that China 's numbers should be reflected in Asia 's numbers at 1.33/4 or 33 \ % .
Now , we know that over half of that third is using Baidu .
which means that at least 1/6 or 16.6 \ % of your Asia statistics for that same range should reflect 16 \ % using Baidu !
Instead you show 1.51 \ % of Asia using Baidu for that range .
Ok ? I stand by my assessment that your collection methods are flawed and do not accurately represent usage across large expanses of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from StatCounter and I would just like to address your concern.
The detection for baidu was added on the 5th March 2009 at 21.00 GMT.
When a new detection is added it is noted on the visual graph (but not in the csv download).
Also if you look at the stats just for China you can easily see Baidu's dominance there [statcounter.com].Using Wikipedia for population, we have Asia at 4x10^9 or four billion.
We also see that the population of China is 1.33x10^9--that is over one fourth the population of Asia is in China.
Your data for the range you specified shows Baidu in China at 56.42\%--a figure I believe although I would expect Baidu to be trouncing Google more so than a 21\% lead.
So using these numbers we can establish that China's numbers should be reflected in Asia's numbers at 1.33/4 or 33\%.
Now, we know that over half of that third is using Baidu.
which means that at least 1/6 or 16.6\% of your Asia statistics for that same range should reflect 16\% using Baidu!
Instead you show 1.51\% of Asia using Baidu for that range.
Ok?  I stand by my assessment that your collection methods are flawed and do not accurately represent usage across large expanses of users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251323</id>
	<title>Re:FYI</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1244477520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't know what Bing is, you should just Google it.</p></div><p>From what I know, Bing is an ice cream brand. I like the "sunday de chocolate" and the Freezer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know what Bing is , you should just Google it.From what I know , Bing is an ice cream brand .
I like the " sunday de chocolate " and the Freezer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know what Bing is, you should just Google it.From what I know, Bing is an ice cream brand.
I like the "sunday de chocolate" and the Freezer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250293</id>
	<title>Re:Prime Time Commercial</title>
	<author>SolitaryMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244472300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yahoo might be worried, but I don't think Google cares... at this point it's a race for second place.</p></div><p>I wouldn't be so sure.</p><p>I tried Bing and it is quite good. It beats Google in many of my "usual" searches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo might be worried , but I do n't think Google cares... at this point it 's a race for second place.I would n't be so sure.I tried Bing and it is quite good .
It beats Google in many of my " usual " searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo might be worried, but I don't think Google cares... at this point it's a race for second place.I wouldn't be so sure.I tried Bing and it is quite good.
It beats Google in many of my "usual" searches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253435</id>
	<title>Re:Amused by their general marketing..</title>
	<author>meyekul</author>
	<datestamp>1244487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The circle is now complete, the master has become the learner...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The circle is now complete , the master has become the learner.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The circle is now complete, the master has become the learner...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252507</id>
	<title>Also Interesting:</title>
	<author>hitchhacker</author>
	<datestamp>1244483280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go to <a href="http://www.bing.com/" title="bing.com">http://www.bing.com</a> [bing.com] and type 'Linux', but don't hit enter.  (Need javascript enabled)  These are the search hints I see:<ul>
<li>linux</li><li>linux windows</li><li>linux microsoft</li><li>linux vista</li><li>linux commands</li><li>... etc</li></ul><p>
-metric</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to http : //www.bing.com [ bing.com ] and type 'Linux ' , but do n't hit enter .
( Need javascript enabled ) These are the search hints I see : linuxlinux windowslinux microsoftlinux vistalinux commands... etc -metric</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to http://www.bing.com [bing.com] and type 'Linux', but don't hit enter.
(Need javascript enabled)  These are the search hints I see:
linuxlinux windowslinux microsoftlinux vistalinux commands... etc
-metric</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28264209</id>
	<title>"after the excitement wears off"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244555520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who was excited?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who was excited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who was excited?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244478300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing. I didn't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something</p></div></blockquote><p>

The only reason I even knew bing existed was from reading slashdot.  I'm a bit of a luddite so I don't catch onto the latest fads (e.g. I had texting is banned from my cell phone) but I think that it's right that the only people who know about bing are the ones who were looking for it, or are interested in computing in general.  Therein lies the problem for MS.  They could pour billions into advertising but I think most people tune out commercials nowadays, don't they?  <br> <br>I don't have cable, so I searched for the bing commerical on youtube.  I watched it, it seemed like useless fluff that's not going to convince anyone to try anything because they never actually said what their search engine did differently from google, except that it was better (better at what? finding restaurants? searching for back pain? wtf?).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing .
I did n't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something The only reason I even knew bing existed was from reading slashdot .
I 'm a bit of a luddite so I do n't catch onto the latest fads ( e.g .
I had texting is banned from my cell phone ) but I think that it 's right that the only people who know about bing are the ones who were looking for it , or are interested in computing in general .
Therein lies the problem for MS. They could pour billions into advertising but I think most people tune out commercials nowadays , do n't they ?
I do n't have cable , so I searched for the bing commerical on youtube .
I watched it , it seemed like useless fluff that 's not going to convince anyone to try anything because they never actually said what their search engine did differently from google , except that it was better ( better at what ?
finding restaurants ?
searching for back pain ?
wtf ? ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At work on Friday I mistyped a URL and it brought me to Bing.
I didn't know what it was and assumed it was a re-routed parked domain or something

The only reason I even knew bing existed was from reading slashdot.
I'm a bit of a luddite so I don't catch onto the latest fads (e.g.
I had texting is banned from my cell phone) but I think that it's right that the only people who know about bing are the ones who were looking for it, or are interested in computing in general.
Therein lies the problem for MS.  They could pour billions into advertising but I think most people tune out commercials nowadays, don't they?
I don't have cable, so I searched for the bing commerical on youtube.
I watched it, it seemed like useless fluff that's not going to convince anyone to try anything because they never actually said what their search engine did differently from google, except that it was better (better at what?
finding restaurants?
searching for back pain?
wtf?).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254365</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>dcollins117</author>
	<datestamp>1244491500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It should also be obvious that there will be a lot who will click it out of curiosity alone and never go back again, as I did.</p></div><p>They're probably just seeing the Slashdot effect. After the Slashdot article the other day about Bing not returning results for "sex" in India, I immediately went to Bing and searched for "Pictures of indians having sex" and "Why is Microsoft so fucked up?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should also be obvious that there will be a lot who will click it out of curiosity alone and never go back again , as I did.They 're probably just seeing the Slashdot effect .
After the Slashdot article the other day about Bing not returning results for " sex " in India , I immediately went to Bing and searched for " Pictures of indians having sex " and " Why is Microsoft so fucked up ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should also be obvious that there will be a lot who will click it out of curiosity alone and never go back again, as I did.They're probably just seeing the Slashdot effect.
After the Slashdot article the other day about Bing not returning results for "sex" in India, I immediately went to Bing and searched for "Pictures of indians having sex" and "Why is Microsoft so fucked up?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252035</id>
	<title>Re:"Microsoft+Antitrust"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not what I get from Bing.</p><p>All Results<br>1-10 of 57,700,000 results&#194;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Welcome Welcome to this web site established for coordinated state enforcement of federal court judgments against the Microsoft Corporation for Microsoft's unlawful monopoly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; o www.microsoft-antitrust.gov</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; U.S. v. Microsoft: Current Case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Public comments on the U.S. v. Microsoft settlement; Comments provided to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... of Plaintiff United States in Response to Motion of the American Antitrust<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; o www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms\_index.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not what I get from Bing.All Results1-10 of 57,700,000 results                           United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia .. .             Welcome Welcome to this web site established for coordinated state enforcement of federal court judgments against the Microsoft Corporation for Microsoft 's unlawful monopoly .. .                     o www.microsoft-antitrust.gov                         U.S. v. Microsoft : Current Case .. .             Public comments on the U.S. v. Microsoft settlement ; Comments provided to the ... of Plaintiff United States in Response to Motion of the American Antitrust .. .                     o www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms \ _index.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not what I get from Bing.All Results1-10 of 57,700,000 resultsÂ
                        United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...
            Welcome Welcome to this web site established for coordinated state enforcement of federal court judgments against the Microsoft Corporation for Microsoft's unlawful monopoly ...
                    o www.microsoft-antitrust.gov
                        U.S. v. Microsoft: Current Case ...
            Public comments on the U.S. v. Microsoft settlement; Comments provided to the ... of Plaintiff United States in Response to Motion of the American Antitrust ...
                    o www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms\_index.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258403</id>
	<title>UPDATE - BREAKING NEWS</title>
	<author>Slugster</author>
	<datestamp>1244462880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has issued a press release that Bing has now easily surpassed Windows95 in popularity, and is approaching Windows98 in total daily users. <br>
<br>
Steve Ballmer has even gone so far as to say that it may even overtake WindowsME, <i>if</i> it builds up enough momentum to break through that group's technological elitism.
<br>
~</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has issued a press release that Bing has now easily surpassed Windows95 in popularity , and is approaching Windows98 in total daily users .
Steve Ballmer has even gone so far as to say that it may even overtake WindowsME , if it builds up enough momentum to break through that group 's technological elitism .
~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has issued a press release that Bing has now easily surpassed Windows95 in popularity, and is approaching Windows98 in total daily users.
Steve Ballmer has even gone so far as to say that it may even overtake WindowsME, if it builds up enough momentum to break through that group's technological elitism.
~</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255923</id>
	<title>Re:Also Interesting:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244453400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are the "linux" search results.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>related searches</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Download<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Free Download Linux Operating System<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux TV<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Vs Windows<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux XP<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Definition<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Ubuntu Linux<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Linux Games</p><p>Search History</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * linux<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * See all<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Clear all | Turn off</p></div><p>This is on Fedora 6.  Debian provides similar results.  I have not been able to replicate the parent list or results.  I wonder if it matters what the user-agent is - maybe I will try with my UA switcher at home later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the " linux " search results.related searches         * Linux Download         * Free Download Linux Operating System         * Linux TV         * Linux Vs Windows         * Linux XP         * Linux Definition         * Ubuntu Linux         * Linux GamesSearch History         * linux         * See all         * Clear all | Turn offThis is on Fedora 6 .
Debian provides similar results .
I have not been able to replicate the parent list or results .
I wonder if it matters what the user-agent is - maybe I will try with my UA switcher at home later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the "linux" search results.related searches
        * Linux Download
        * Free Download Linux Operating System
        * Linux TV
        * Linux Vs Windows
        * Linux XP
        * Linux Definition
        * Ubuntu Linux
        * Linux GamesSearch History
        * linux
        * See all
        * Clear all | Turn offThis is on Fedora 6.
Debian provides similar results.
I have not been able to replicate the parent list or results.
I wonder if it matters what the user-agent is - maybe I will try with my UA switcher at home later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251575</id>
	<title>Re:Bada</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1244478600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bing Is Not Google</p></div><p>Just wait until their version of the search appliance comes out.  It really would be the machine that goes bing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Is Not GoogleJust wait until their version of the search appliance comes out .
It really would be the machine that goes bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Is Not GoogleJust wait until their version of the search appliance comes out.
It really would be the machine that goes bing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244469300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hard to see how someone wrote this post today - when the same site shows that Bing surpassing Yahoo! only lasted for a day.  TechCrunch already <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/07/quick-peak-bings-reign-as-2-search-engine-lasted-one-day/" title="techcrunch.com">pointed this out yesterday.</a> [techcrunch.com]  Bing may or may not have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know whether it will or not.  There is certainly a very long way to go before it even begins to approach google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to see how someone wrote this post today - when the same site shows that Bing surpassing Yahoo !
only lasted for a day .
TechCrunch already pointed this out yesterday .
[ techcrunch.com ] Bing may or may not have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know whether it will or not .
There is certainly a very long way to go before it even begins to approach google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to see how someone wrote this post today - when the same site shows that Bing surpassing Yahoo!
only lasted for a day.
TechCrunch already pointed this out yesterday.
[techcrunch.com]  Bing may or may not have a big impact - but I think it will take some more time before we know whether it will or not.
There is certainly a very long way to go before it even begins to approach google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251211</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1244477040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually forgot all about Bing, until now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually forgot all about Bing , until now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually forgot all about Bing, until now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251347</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1244477640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked 30 people here at work and friends if they use bing.</p><p>The universal response was....</p><p>"What  is bing?"</p><p>ASK them about Yahoo.   All of them say.....</p><p>"Yes, I use yahoo"</p><p>Bing has a REALLY REALLY long way to go to be more popular than Yahoo.   Most people have never heard of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked 30 people here at work and friends if they use bing.The universal response was.... " What is bing ?
" ASK them about Yahoo .
All of them say..... " Yes , I use yahoo " Bing has a REALLY REALLY long way to go to be more popular than Yahoo .
Most people have never heard of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked 30 people here at work and friends if they use bing.The universal response was...."What  is bing?
"ASK them about Yahoo.
All of them say....."Yes, I use yahoo"Bing has a REALLY REALLY long way to go to be more popular than Yahoo.
Most people have never heard of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250311</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1244472420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I saw this story on Slashdot just now I thought - is this a story or a paid commercial promotion? It is clearly way to soon to be evaluating the impact of bling (or whatever it is called - I am not paid to help establish brand recognition so I won't repeat it). It should also be obvious that there will be a lot who will click it out of curiosity alone and never go back again, as I did. Since Microsoft has made it clear that they intend to spend a fortune to promote bling, all articles become suspect since we are all well aware of how Microsoft routinely buys journalists and bloggers, and that in fact this is their preferred method these days. In the end, I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley story like any other to the Slashdot editors who know that we are interested in all things Microsoft. Obviously this site wouldn't enjoy the success it does if they pass off paid commercial promotions as subject matter, but there are so many others doing this that if I were an editor I would take pains to avoid even the appearance of such a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw this story on Slashdot just now I thought - is this a story or a paid commercial promotion ?
It is clearly way to soon to be evaluating the impact of bling ( or whatever it is called - I am not paid to help establish brand recognition so I wo n't repeat it ) .
It should also be obvious that there will be a lot who will click it out of curiosity alone and never go back again , as I did .
Since Microsoft has made it clear that they intend to spend a fortune to promote bling , all articles become suspect since we are all well aware of how Microsoft routinely buys journalists and bloggers , and that in fact this is their preferred method these days .
In the end , I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley story like any other to the Slashdot editors who know that we are interested in all things Microsoft .
Obviously this site would n't enjoy the success it does if they pass off paid commercial promotions as subject matter , but there are so many others doing this that if I were an editor I would take pains to avoid even the appearance of such a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw this story on Slashdot just now I thought - is this a story or a paid commercial promotion?
It is clearly way to soon to be evaluating the impact of bling (or whatever it is called - I am not paid to help establish brand recognition so I won't repeat it).
It should also be obvious that there will be a lot who will click it out of curiosity alone and never go back again, as I did.
Since Microsoft has made it clear that they intend to spend a fortune to promote bling, all articles become suspect since we are all well aware of how Microsoft routinely buys journalists and bloggers, and that in fact this is their preferred method these days.
In the end, I arrived at the decision that this is simply a timley story like any other to the Slashdot editors who know that we are interested in all things Microsoft.
Obviously this site wouldn't enjoy the success it does if they pass off paid commercial promotions as subject matter, but there are so many others doing this that if I were an editor I would take pains to avoid even the appearance of such a thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250091</id>
	<title>Re:Bada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244471040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahah, very nice. Not to mention: passed Yahoo! up? Dude, that's not even an achievement. That's like passing up the retarded kid next door sprinting when you're trying to catch an Olympic class athlete. It's not even worth mentioning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahah , very nice .
Not to mention : passed Yahoo !
up ? Dude , that 's not even an achievement .
That 's like passing up the retarded kid next door sprinting when you 're trying to catch an Olympic class athlete .
It 's not even worth mentioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahah, very nice.
Not to mention: passed Yahoo!
up? Dude, that's not even an achievement.
That's like passing up the retarded kid next door sprinting when you're trying to catch an Olympic class athlete.
It's not even worth mentioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254135</id>
	<title>2nd Best?</title>
	<author>ndrw</author>
	<datestamp>1244490540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one ever won by being 2nd!</p><p>Okay, so truism aside - Isn't it sad that the behemoth of technology is aiming for second? Why not shoot for the top? Did MS get to be the biggest seller of software on the planet by aiming low? Whatever Ballmer is, he ain't Bill Gates!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one ever won by being 2nd ! Okay , so truism aside - Is n't it sad that the behemoth of technology is aiming for second ?
Why not shoot for the top ?
Did MS get to be the biggest seller of software on the planet by aiming low ?
Whatever Ballmer is , he ai n't Bill Gates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one ever won by being 2nd!Okay, so truism aside - Isn't it sad that the behemoth of technology is aiming for second?
Why not shoot for the top?
Did MS get to be the biggest seller of software on the planet by aiming low?
Whatever Ballmer is, he ain't Bill Gates!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250393</id>
	<title>Re:It's the apps stupid!</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1244472720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is not better yet.</p><p>&gt; A far cry from the horrendous "portal"idea that Yahoo, MSN, comcast.net, AOL, and others are still attached too.</p><p>I would suggest that the "porn search" public argument works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is not better yet. &gt; A far cry from the horrendous " portal " idea that Yahoo , MSN , comcast.net , AOL , and others are still attached too.I would suggest that the " porn search " public argument works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is not better yet.&gt; A far cry from the horrendous "portal"idea that Yahoo, MSN, comcast.net, AOL, and others are still attached too.I would suggest that the "porn search" public argument works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253603</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244488440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think someone who reads Slashdot has much chance of being a luddite. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think someone who reads Slashdot has much chance of being a luddite .
Perhaps that word does n't mean what you think it means ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think someone who reads Slashdot has much chance of being a luddite.
Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254335</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244491440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there probably is a long way to go - before they get bored with it and stuff it in the trash. Ballmer might want to challenge Google with the new "Bling!", but he also wanted the Zune to outsell the iPod. Web search has been a thorn in their side since the day that Gates realized it was quicker to Google than use the Windows "Find" function. Who knows, perhaps the little cute search doggie used up vital CPU cycles. Once it dawned on Ballmer that not only was Google making MS look foolish as a search companion but also that Google was raking in cash while they made them look foolish, well, Hell hath no fury like a chair in mid air. Tiny snag, MS are crap once they step outside their comfort zone. That's if you accept that they are not crap within it as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there probably is a long way to go - before they get bored with it and stuff it in the trash .
Ballmer might want to challenge Google with the new " Bling !
" , but he also wanted the Zune to outsell the iPod .
Web search has been a thorn in their side since the day that Gates realized it was quicker to Google than use the Windows " Find " function .
Who knows , perhaps the little cute search doggie used up vital CPU cycles .
Once it dawned on Ballmer that not only was Google making MS look foolish as a search companion but also that Google was raking in cash while they made them look foolish , well , Hell hath no fury like a chair in mid air .
Tiny snag , MS are crap once they step outside their comfort zone .
That 's if you accept that they are not crap within it as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there probably is a long way to go - before they get bored with it and stuff it in the trash.
Ballmer might want to challenge Google with the new "Bling!
", but he also wanted the Zune to outsell the iPod.
Web search has been a thorn in their side since the day that Gates realized it was quicker to Google than use the Windows "Find" function.
Who knows, perhaps the little cute search doggie used up vital CPU cycles.
Once it dawned on Ballmer that not only was Google making MS look foolish as a search companion but also that Google was raking in cash while they made them look foolish, well, Hell hath no fury like a chair in mid air.
Tiny snag, MS are crap once they step outside their comfort zone.
That's if you accept that they are not crap within it as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28260157</id>
	<title>Mod parent down</title>
	<author>Shandalar</author>
	<datestamp>1244473680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The acquisition of PowerSet was a few days ago and is presumably not what is powering Bing.

Apologies if this is inaccurate, it's the result of spending 5 seconds skimming the parent's TFA link.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The acquisition of PowerSet was a few days ago and is presumably not what is powering Bing .
Apologies if this is inaccurate , it 's the result of spending 5 seconds skimming the parent 's TFA link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The acquisition of PowerSet was a few days ago and is presumably not what is powering Bing.
Apologies if this is inaccurate, it's the result of spending 5 seconds skimming the parent's TFA link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28261883</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>SocioDude</author>
	<datestamp>1244485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like you're not being quite honest about the search results you said were returned.<br><br>First of all, when searching for "The Dark Knight" on bing, the string "Dark Knight Shoes" doesn't appear on the page.  There is also nothing that says "Dark Knight Houston".  If you search for "Dark Knight" then those terms do show up, but only in the "related searches" sidebar.  The main search terms returned are all (every single one of them) related to the movie.  There are 21 results, and they are categorized by type (unlike google and yahoo) including links containing the trailer, reviews, information on the cast, posters, the soundtrack, and video links.  You can even hover over the video links for a video preview (which google doesn't do, and yahoo doesn't even embed video links).  And, to top it off, there were no advertisements on the page.<br><br>I know that here on Slashdot any post that doesn't bash M$ is against our religion, but at least a cursory glance suggests that dismissing bing as a "shitty" search engine that people need to be tricked by advertising to use is false.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like you 're not being quite honest about the search results you said were returned.First of all , when searching for " The Dark Knight " on bing , the string " Dark Knight Shoes " does n't appear on the page .
There is also nothing that says " Dark Knight Houston " .
If you search for " Dark Knight " then those terms do show up , but only in the " related searches " sidebar .
The main search terms returned are all ( every single one of them ) related to the movie .
There are 21 results , and they are categorized by type ( unlike google and yahoo ) including links containing the trailer , reviews , information on the cast , posters , the soundtrack , and video links .
You can even hover over the video links for a video preview ( which google does n't do , and yahoo does n't even embed video links ) .
And , to top it off , there were no advertisements on the page.I know that here on Slashdot any post that does n't bash M $ is against our religion , but at least a cursory glance suggests that dismissing bing as a " shitty " search engine that people need to be tricked by advertising to use is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like you're not being quite honest about the search results you said were returned.First of all, when searching for "The Dark Knight" on bing, the string "Dark Knight Shoes" doesn't appear on the page.
There is also nothing that says "Dark Knight Houston".
If you search for "Dark Knight" then those terms do show up, but only in the "related searches" sidebar.
The main search terms returned are all (every single one of them) related to the movie.
There are 21 results, and they are categorized by type (unlike google and yahoo) including links containing the trailer, reviews, information on the cast, posters, the soundtrack, and video links.
You can even hover over the video links for a video preview (which google doesn't do, and yahoo doesn't even embed video links).
And, to top it off, there were no advertisements on the page.I know that here on Slashdot any post that doesn't bash M$ is against our religion, but at least a cursory glance suggests that dismissing bing as a "shitty" search engine that people need to be tricked by advertising to use is false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253155</id>
	<title>Bing is screwed at Daimler Trucks North America</title>
	<author>decaffeinated</author>
	<datestamp>1244486040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our company-wide web filter (Websense) blocks all access to bing.com .</p><p>Guess our employees won't be using Bing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our company-wide web filter ( Websense ) blocks all access to bing.com .Guess our employees wo n't be using Bing : - ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our company-wide web filter (Websense) blocks all access to bing.com .Guess our employees won't be using Bing :-) .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252861</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there. These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight.</p> </div><p>Nothing? Seriously? Nothing? No possible connection between those.<br>What does your precious Christopher Nolan interview have to do with The Dark Knight the graphic novel that I was searching for?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there .
These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight .
Nothing ? Seriously ?
Nothing ? No possible connection between those.What does your precious Christopher Nolan interview have to do with The Dark Knight the graphic novel that I was searching for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fantastic Four and Iron Man there.
These of course have nothing to do with the subject of my search the Dark Knight.
Nothing? Seriously?
Nothing? No possible connection between those.What does your precious Christopher Nolan interview have to do with The Dark Knight the graphic novel that I was searching for?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255215</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244494560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yesterday night something strange happened to my firefox install on windows:<br>y typed in the adress bar mcanime, trying to go to certain pagem and the stupid bing page come out (the first time I saw It).<br>I went to about:config and searched for edited items and I was surprised the search in bar was redirecting to Bing. I really don't know how that happened, I NEVER use the msn or similar services so I was wondering how the hell did that happen? maybe If I'm not the only one, that could explain the stats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yesterday night something strange happened to my firefox install on windows : y typed in the adress bar mcanime , trying to go to certain pagem and the stupid bing page come out ( the first time I saw It ) .I went to about : config and searched for edited items and I was surprised the search in bar was redirecting to Bing .
I really do n't know how that happened , I NEVER use the msn or similar services so I was wondering how the hell did that happen ?
maybe If I 'm not the only one , that could explain the stats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yesterday night something strange happened to my firefox install on windows:y typed in the adress bar mcanime, trying to go to certain pagem and the stupid bing page come out (the first time I saw It).I went to about:config and searched for edited items and I was surprised the search in bar was redirecting to Bing.
I really don't know how that happened, I NEVER use the msn or similar services so I was wondering how the hell did that happen?
maybe If I'm not the only one, that could explain the stats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250319</id>
	<title>apples and oranges...</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1244472420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or *is* bing a search engine after all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>or * is * bing a search engine after all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or *is* bing a search engine after all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249827</id>
	<title>StatCounter's Baidu Stats is Alarming</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1244469540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm skeptical of this data--at least worldwide.  When I click the gs.statcounter.com link and go to Statistic:Search Engine and Country/Region:Asia I see Baidu at an alarmingly low rate.  Barely even recognizable.  The CSV sheet shows it at zero until 03/05/2009 which is hilarious and then it bumps up to 1\%.  Yeah, I think they have some problems with their data collection methods or who is reporting this data anyhow.  Maybe their software's only in English?  I don't know but that data alarms me and I would take their stats in other realms lightly as that's a vote of no confidence from me--something is skewed horribly and I don't like it.  They <i>might</i> be right about Yahoo! compared to Bing but this is certainly not reassuring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm skeptical of this data--at least worldwide .
When I click the gs.statcounter.com link and go to Statistic : Search Engine and Country/Region : Asia I see Baidu at an alarmingly low rate .
Barely even recognizable .
The CSV sheet shows it at zero until 03/05/2009 which is hilarious and then it bumps up to 1 \ % .
Yeah , I think they have some problems with their data collection methods or who is reporting this data anyhow .
Maybe their software 's only in English ?
I do n't know but that data alarms me and I would take their stats in other realms lightly as that 's a vote of no confidence from me--something is skewed horribly and I do n't like it .
They might be right about Yahoo !
compared to Bing but this is certainly not reassuring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm skeptical of this data--at least worldwide.
When I click the gs.statcounter.com link and go to Statistic:Search Engine and Country/Region:Asia I see Baidu at an alarmingly low rate.
Barely even recognizable.
The CSV sheet shows it at zero until 03/05/2009 which is hilarious and then it bumps up to 1\%.
Yeah, I think they have some problems with their data collection methods or who is reporting this data anyhow.
Maybe their software's only in English?
I don't know but that data alarms me and I would take their stats in other realms lightly as that's a vote of no confidence from me--something is skewed horribly and I don't like it.
They might be right about Yahoo!
compared to Bing but this is certainly not reassuring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251835</id>
	<title>Re:Amused by their general marketing..</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1244480160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 'Bing is not google' abbreviation seems particularly weird.</p><p>But at least it's honest.</p><p>I imagine a conversation going something like, "I know Google.  Google is a friend of mine.  You, BING, are no Google."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 'Bing is not google ' abbreviation seems particularly weird.But at least it 's honest.I imagine a conversation going something like , " I know Google .
Google is a friend of mine .
You , BING , are no Google .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 'Bing is not google' abbreviation seems particularly weird.But at least it's honest.I imagine a conversation going something like, "I know Google.
Google is a friend of mine.
You, BING, are no Google.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250049</id>
	<title>I'll tell you one thing...</title>
	<author>bbowers</author>
	<datestamp>1244470740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The commercial that I saw for bing was the most horrible commercial ever. Made me feel like if I searched for something that I'd get everything back that I didn't want to see as a result and nothing I was actually looking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The commercial that I saw for bing was the most horrible commercial ever .
Made me feel like if I searched for something that I 'd get everything back that I did n't want to see as a result and nothing I was actually looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The commercial that I saw for bing was the most horrible commercial ever.
Made me feel like if I searched for something that I'd get everything back that I didn't want to see as a result and nothing I was actually looking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251639</id>
	<title>Re:Redirects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like they are doing this already.  In of my home pcs - running Vista - my firefox(!) address bar's searches started defaulting to Bing... last Wedns or Thurs I think.  I have no idea how this could have happened other than a Windows update.  I run noscript/adblock/etc. and do very little on it other than text editing &amp; playing 1 video game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like they are doing this already .
In of my home pcs - running Vista - my firefox ( !
) address bar 's searches started defaulting to Bing... last Wedns or Thurs I think .
I have no idea how this could have happened other than a Windows update .
I run noscript/adblock/etc .
and do very little on it other than text editing &amp; playing 1 video game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like they are doing this already.
In of my home pcs - running Vista - my firefox(!
) address bar's searches started defaulting to Bing... last Wedns or Thurs I think.
I have no idea how this could have happened other than a Windows update.
I run noscript/adblock/etc.
and do very little on it other than text editing &amp; playing 1 video game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249935</id>
	<title>Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244470140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over the weekend, I went to yahoo to search immigration information on pre-WWI Germany and the site kept timing out. Google was giving me nothing. I went to Bing and got a few good listings. Yahoo is just a poor search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the weekend , I went to yahoo to search immigration information on pre-WWI Germany and the site kept timing out .
Google was giving me nothing .
I went to Bing and got a few good listings .
Yahoo is just a poor search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the weekend, I went to yahoo to search immigration information on pre-WWI Germany and the site kept timing out.
Google was giving me nothing.
I went to Bing and got a few good listings.
Yahoo is just a poor search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249911</id>
	<title>Amused by their general marketing..</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1244470020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  Their marketing strategy seems to be to push the name 'Microsoft' as far away as possible.  Interesting they view their own name as a liability in this space.</p><p>2.  'Bing is not google' abbreviation seems particularly weird.  Suggesting that currently google has an oppressive, monopolistic grip on the search industry, leaving little choice but to have to go with them as they are the defacto standard.  The company that wants to save a market from an oppressive, de-facto standard monopoly is.... Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Their marketing strategy seems to be to push the name 'Microsoft ' as far away as possible .
Interesting they view their own name as a liability in this space.2 .
'Bing is not google ' abbreviation seems particularly weird .
Suggesting that currently google has an oppressive , monopolistic grip on the search industry , leaving little choice but to have to go with them as they are the defacto standard .
The company that wants to save a market from an oppressive , de-facto standard monopoly is.... Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Their marketing strategy seems to be to push the name 'Microsoft' as far away as possible.
Interesting they view their own name as a liability in this space.2.
'Bing is not google' abbreviation seems particularly weird.
Suggesting that currently google has an oppressive, monopolistic grip on the search industry, leaving little choice but to have to go with them as they are the defacto standard.
The company that wants to save a market from an oppressive, de-facto standard monopoly is.... Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250981</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1244475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It's an easy to anticipate effect - try the new thing.<br> <br>

My search queries typically consist of Google, and not-Google, just in-case Google isn't getting what I'm looking for.  My not-Google used to be Yahoo, but when Cuil was new I tried it for a while, the results out of Bing are much more impressive than Cuil, it might permanently replace Yahoo as my not-Google search engine, but when not-Google isn't the new thing to try out, it only gets about 2-5\% of my search traffic, as compared to 30-50\% when trying something new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an easy to anticipate effect - try the new thing .
My search queries typically consist of Google , and not-Google , just in-case Google is n't getting what I 'm looking for .
My not-Google used to be Yahoo , but when Cuil was new I tried it for a while , the results out of Bing are much more impressive than Cuil , it might permanently replace Yahoo as my not-Google search engine , but when not-Google is n't the new thing to try out , it only gets about 2-5 \ % of my search traffic , as compared to 30-50 \ % when trying something new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's an easy to anticipate effect - try the new thing.
My search queries typically consist of Google, and not-Google, just in-case Google isn't getting what I'm looking for.
My not-Google used to be Yahoo, but when Cuil was new I tried it for a while, the results out of Bing are much more impressive than Cuil, it might permanently replace Yahoo as my not-Google search engine, but when not-Google isn't the new thing to try out, it only gets about 2-5\% of my search traffic, as compared to 30-50\% when trying something new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253775</id>
	<title>Re:as much as it pains me to do this...</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1244489100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I</i> did a little experiment. I loaded up <i>Firefox</i>, hit the search button, typed something in, and ran the search. Whaddayaknow, <i>Google</i> comes up with the search results. So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they had it delivered from Dell with Firefox as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Google whether they know it or not. Apparently there are quite a few such idiots. Are we surprised?</p><p>FWIW, both IE &amp; FF show the search provider in the search box, and both allow you to change who the default search provider is. Both also told me during installation/first run who the default search provider is and actually prompted me to set an alternative. And yes, Firefox does ship on some PCs as default, including at least for a time, those from Dell.</p><p>The Google/Bing results page is a pretty good clue to enable these "idiots" to see who they are getting their search results from. It's actually one of very few things I noticed "idiots" to not only noticing if it changes, but making a concerted effort to change back. Most computer novices (or those completely disinterested in them) that I have been around may have a lack of knowledge about computers in general but they tend to be a bit savvier with the internet, because it's the thing that interests them. They are simply not interested in the computer, it is just the tool that gets them on the internet and anything complicated with it is merely an annoyance. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a little experiment .
I loaded up Firefox , hit the search button , typed something in , and ran the search .
Whaddayaknow , Google comes up with the search results .
So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they had it delivered from Dell with Firefox as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Google whether they know it or not .
Apparently there are quite a few such idiots .
Are we surprised ? FWIW , both IE &amp; FF show the search provider in the search box , and both allow you to change who the default search provider is .
Both also told me during installation/first run who the default search provider is and actually prompted me to set an alternative .
And yes , Firefox does ship on some PCs as default , including at least for a time , those from Dell.The Google/Bing results page is a pretty good clue to enable these " idiots " to see who they are getting their search results from .
It 's actually one of very few things I noticed " idiots " to not only noticing if it changes , but making a concerted effort to change back .
Most computer novices ( or those completely disinterested in them ) that I have been around may have a lack of knowledge about computers in general but they tend to be a bit savvier with the internet , because it 's the thing that interests them .
They are simply not interested in the computer , it is just the tool that gets them on the internet and anything complicated with it is merely an annoyance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I did a little experiment.
I loaded up Firefox, hit the search button, typed something in, and ran the search.
Whaddayaknow, Google comes up with the search results.
So every idiot that has the same Windows installed as the day they had it delivered from Dell with Firefox as the default browser and the little search button as their only gateway to the world is going to use Google whether they know it or not.
Apparently there are quite a few such idiots.
Are we surprised?FWIW, both IE &amp; FF show the search provider in the search box, and both allow you to change who the default search provider is.
Both also told me during installation/first run who the default search provider is and actually prompted me to set an alternative.
And yes, Firefox does ship on some PCs as default, including at least for a time, those from Dell.The Google/Bing results page is a pretty good clue to enable these "idiots" to see who they are getting their search results from.
It's actually one of very few things I noticed "idiots" to not only noticing if it changes, but making a concerted effort to change back.
Most computer novices (or those completely disinterested in them) that I have been around may have a lack of knowledge about computers in general but they tend to be a bit savvier with the internet, because it's the thing that interests them.
They are simply not interested in the computer, it is just the tool that gets them on the internet and anything complicated with it is merely an annoyance. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649</id>
	<title>FYI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't know what Bing is, you should just Google it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know what Bing is , you should just Google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know what Bing is, you should just Google it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28261883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28262793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28263531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28359965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28299021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28256423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28259137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28260157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28256353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1235226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255923
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28256423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250819
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250311
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254365
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28254335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252471
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251491
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28263531
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253603
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28255755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252513
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28259137
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28260157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28256353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28261883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28299021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28262793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28251079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28253775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28258797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28252599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28249935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1235226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28250337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1235226.28359965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
