<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_14_2040209</id>
	<title>Does Bing Have Google Running Scared?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244982120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun alerts us to an anonymous-source story up at the NY Post, not what we would normally consider a leading source of tech news, claiming that <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142009/business/fear\_grips\_google\_174235.htm">Microsoft's introduction of Bing has alarmed Google</a>. <i>"...co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service, The Post has learned. Brin, according to sources..., is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists in an effort to determine how Bing's crucial search algorithm differs from that used by [Google]. 'New search engines have come and gone in the past 10 years, but Bing seems to be of particular interest to Sergey,' said one insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The move by Brin is unusual, as it is rare these days for the Google founders to have such hands-on involvement in day-to-day operations at the company, the source added."</i> CNet's <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805\_3-10264417-75.html">coverage of the rumor</a> begins with the NY Post and adds in Search Engine Land's speculation on what the world of search would look like if <a href="http://searchengineland.com/bartz-continues-torpedoing-yahoo-search-20705">Yahoo exited the field</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun alerts us to an anonymous-source story up at the NY Post , not what we would normally consider a leading source of tech news , claiming that Microsoft 's introduction of Bing has alarmed Google .
" ...co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft 's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service , The Post has learned .
Brin , according to sources... , is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists in an effort to determine how Bing 's crucial search algorithm differs from that used by [ Google ] .
'New search engines have come and gone in the past 10 years , but Bing seems to be of particular interest to Sergey, ' said one insider , who spoke on the condition of anonymity .
The move by Brin is unusual , as it is rare these days for the Google founders to have such hands-on involvement in day-to-day operations at the company , the source added .
" CNet 's coverage of the rumor begins with the NY Post and adds in Search Engine Land 's speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun alerts us to an anonymous-source story up at the NY Post, not what we would normally consider a leading source of tech news, claiming that Microsoft's introduction of Bing has alarmed Google.
"...co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service, The Post has learned.
Brin, according to sources..., is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists in an effort to determine how Bing's crucial search algorithm differs from that used by [Google].
'New search engines have come and gone in the past 10 years, but Bing seems to be of particular interest to Sergey,' said one insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The move by Brin is unusual, as it is rare these days for the Google founders to have such hands-on involvement in day-to-day operations at the company, the source added.
" CNet's coverage of the rumor begins with the NY Post and adds in Search Engine Land's speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330997</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1244991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites</p></div><p>So I gave Bing a shot and found the results pretty close with more "directories" showing up earlier in Bing's results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bing is better than google in many instances i 've tried it .
search for hardwood suppliers , bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies .
google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and " top 5 " sitesSo I gave Bing a shot and found the results pretty close with more " directories " showing up earlier in Bing 's results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it.
search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies.
google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sitesSo I gave Bing a shot and found the results pretty close with more "directories" showing up earlier in Bing's results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</id>
	<title>Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1244986920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites<p>
bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless. with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information. i could definately see why google has jumped into action, only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bing is better than google in many instances i 've tried it .
search for hardwood suppliers , bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies .
google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and " top 5 " sites bing is n't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless .
with bing i do n't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information .
i could definately see why google has jumped into action , only a fool would dismiss anything MS does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it.
search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies.
google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites
bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless.
with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information.
i could definately see why google has jumped into action, only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330983</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244991480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I.<br>Love.<br>You.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I.Love.You .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I.Love.You.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331431</id>
	<title>The article is most likely BS,</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1244996220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is most likely BS, written by someone who doesn't know how the Search industry works. Let me lay out some facts for you so that you see why I think it's BS:</p><p>1. Most, if not all algorithms that Live Search / Bing uses are PUBLICLY DISCLOSED in papers published by Microsoft Research, and the corresponding patents that Microsoft holds. You don't need to "identify" anything. And even if you did, the new features introduced by Bing are so superficial that "identifying" similar algorithms would not take Google's engineers and researchers much time.</p><p>2. All major search engines monitor each other constantly and they know exactly what the competition's NDCG metrics (normalized cumulative distributed gain - the measure of how relevant the results are) are. As a rule, it's undesirable to crank up the NDCG too much, since doing so reduces the click through rate on ads, so historically, Google has kept their NDCG just a wee bit ahead of Yahoo and Live, and every time the two would update their algorithms, Google would crank it up a notch to stay ahead. To think that they've been sitting on their ass in the past couple of years is stupid.</p><p>So at most, I think Google is working on some experimental stuff related to presentation of results, which is where it's currently lacking, in spite of their half assed, hidden-by-default sidebar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is most likely BS , written by someone who does n't know how the Search industry works .
Let me lay out some facts for you so that you see why I think it 's BS : 1 .
Most , if not all algorithms that Live Search / Bing uses are PUBLICLY DISCLOSED in papers published by Microsoft Research , and the corresponding patents that Microsoft holds .
You do n't need to " identify " anything .
And even if you did , the new features introduced by Bing are so superficial that " identifying " similar algorithms would not take Google 's engineers and researchers much time.2 .
All major search engines monitor each other constantly and they know exactly what the competition 's NDCG metrics ( normalized cumulative distributed gain - the measure of how relevant the results are ) are .
As a rule , it 's undesirable to crank up the NDCG too much , since doing so reduces the click through rate on ads , so historically , Google has kept their NDCG just a wee bit ahead of Yahoo and Live , and every time the two would update their algorithms , Google would crank it up a notch to stay ahead .
To think that they 've been sitting on their ass in the past couple of years is stupid.So at most , I think Google is working on some experimental stuff related to presentation of results , which is where it 's currently lacking , in spite of their half assed , hidden-by-default sidebar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is most likely BS, written by someone who doesn't know how the Search industry works.
Let me lay out some facts for you so that you see why I think it's BS:1.
Most, if not all algorithms that Live Search / Bing uses are PUBLICLY DISCLOSED in papers published by Microsoft Research, and the corresponding patents that Microsoft holds.
You don't need to "identify" anything.
And even if you did, the new features introduced by Bing are so superficial that "identifying" similar algorithms would not take Google's engineers and researchers much time.2.
All major search engines monitor each other constantly and they know exactly what the competition's NDCG metrics (normalized cumulative distributed gain - the measure of how relevant the results are) are.
As a rule, it's undesirable to crank up the NDCG too much, since doing so reduces the click through rate on ads, so historically, Google has kept their NDCG just a wee bit ahead of Yahoo and Live, and every time the two would update their algorithms, Google would crank it up a notch to stay ahead.
To think that they've been sitting on their ass in the past couple of years is stupid.So at most, I think Google is working on some experimental stuff related to presentation of results, which is where it's currently lacking, in spite of their half assed, hidden-by-default sidebar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331045</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244992140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's even better when you specify only long length and high quality videos with the convenient interface on the left</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's even better when you specify only long length and high quality videos with the convenient interface on the left</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's even better when you specify only long length and high quality videos with the convenient interface on the left</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333235</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1245063360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches. It was quite good, actualy, especially these video snippets searching yields. It very well may be Microsoft has found its niche in search market...</p></div><p>This is totally true. What you do is specify race, hair color, position, maybe place and search for videos. Results are amazingly accurate and you get instant gratification in a form of thumbnails that will play when you touch them. Just try 'redhead interracial blowjob' for example. This is ultimate Pr0n tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches .
It was quite good , actualy , especially these video snippets searching yields .
It very well may be Microsoft has found its niche in search market...This is totally true .
What you do is specify race , hair color , position , maybe place and search for videos .
Results are amazingly accurate and you get instant gratification in a form of thumbnails that will play when you touch them .
Just try 'redhead interracial blowjob ' for example .
This is ultimate Pr0n tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches.
It was quite good, actualy, especially these video snippets searching yields.
It very well may be Microsoft has found its niche in search market...This is totally true.
What you do is specify race, hair color, position, maybe place and search for videos.
Results are amazingly accurate and you get instant gratification in a form of thumbnails that will play when you touch them.
Just try 'redhead interracial blowjob' for example.
This is ultimate Pr0n tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28339343</id>
	<title>Isn't the point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that:  I installed the latest Internet Exploder and it defaulted to Bing.  I can't be arsed to change it.  Goolgle lost half my searches (I do the rest in FFox).  Multiply by N million lazy clueless losers -&gt; big transfer of ad traffic from Goo to MS.  It doesn't matter which is better, noone really cares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that : I installed the latest Internet Exploder and it defaulted to Bing .
I ca n't be arsed to change it .
Goolgle lost half my searches ( I do the rest in FFox ) .
Multiply by N million lazy clueless losers - &gt; big transfer of ad traffic from Goo to MS. It does n't matter which is better , noone really cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that:  I installed the latest Internet Exploder and it defaulted to Bing.
I can't be arsed to change it.
Goolgle lost half my searches (I do the rest in FFox).
Multiply by N million lazy clueless losers -&gt; big transfer of ad traffic from Goo to MS.  It doesn't matter which is better, noone really cares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333915</id>
	<title>Search is search. But Google is more than that.</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1245072780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood the people relying solely on google ranking to do their business. The day their ranking tanked for whatever reason, they had/have to close down.</p><p>I certainly don't understand an entire generation of new web useres mistaking Google for the Internet.</p><p>I like Google for the uncluttered interface and I like clusty.com for the grouped results branches.</p><p>Beyond that, search is search to me and I will use whatever machine gives me results I'm satisfied with. Most of the time that is Google.</p><p>Google itself OTOH is way more than just search by now. It's a massive counterpart to MS - a value in itself - a huge supporter of FOSS, a mobile OS vendor about to crack open the 80s style proprietary lockdown of the mobile market ('Android' anyone?) and it has a wide range of free webapps and services that actually work on all plattforms and not just some Active X enabled proprietary MS browser.</p><p>Bottom line:<br>As long as MS has the OS market in a firm monopolistic grip I'm shooing everyone I know away from b*ng and to other engines like Google or Clusty - better b*ng results be damned. They aren't that much better to just keep on lubeing up and bending over for MS.</p><p>My 2 Eurocents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood the people relying solely on google ranking to do their business .
The day their ranking tanked for whatever reason , they had/have to close down.I certainly do n't understand an entire generation of new web useres mistaking Google for the Internet.I like Google for the uncluttered interface and I like clusty.com for the grouped results branches.Beyond that , search is search to me and I will use whatever machine gives me results I 'm satisfied with .
Most of the time that is Google.Google itself OTOH is way more than just search by now .
It 's a massive counterpart to MS - a value in itself - a huge supporter of FOSS , a mobile OS vendor about to crack open the 80s style proprietary lockdown of the mobile market ( 'Android ' anyone ?
) and it has a wide range of free webapps and services that actually work on all plattforms and not just some Active X enabled proprietary MS browser.Bottom line : As long as MS has the OS market in a firm monopolistic grip I 'm shooing everyone I know away from b * ng and to other engines like Google or Clusty - better b * ng results be damned .
They are n't that much better to just keep on lubeing up and bending over for MS.My 2 Eurocents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood the people relying solely on google ranking to do their business.
The day their ranking tanked for whatever reason, they had/have to close down.I certainly don't understand an entire generation of new web useres mistaking Google for the Internet.I like Google for the uncluttered interface and I like clusty.com for the grouped results branches.Beyond that, search is search to me and I will use whatever machine gives me results I'm satisfied with.
Most of the time that is Google.Google itself OTOH is way more than just search by now.
It's a massive counterpart to MS - a value in itself - a huge supporter of FOSS, a mobile OS vendor about to crack open the 80s style proprietary lockdown of the mobile market ('Android' anyone?
) and it has a wide range of free webapps and services that actually work on all plattforms and not just some Active X enabled proprietary MS browser.Bottom line:As long as MS has the OS market in a firm monopolistic grip I'm shooing everyone I know away from b*ng and to other engines like Google or Clusty - better b*ng results be damned.
They aren't that much better to just keep on lubeing up and bending over for MS.My 2 Eurocents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330407</id>
	<title>Microsoft is doing what it's best at - Marketing</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1244985840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing to see here, move along...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing to see here , move along.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing to see here, move along...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332075</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245003480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Searching for manual lens and camera reviews I also find Bing to be better than Google.</p><p>First it is blazing fast, but more importantly the results I am getting are actual reviewed and not 'for sale' things.</p><p>Before Bing, in order to find anything on the subject I used photo.net as it became largest forum on the subject with very relevant info.<br>I remember that in '04 Google was a lot more useful for this particular subject.<br>Not sure what changed -- perhaps commercialization of search result is simply impacting the impartiality and usefulness of the searches on google.<br>May be the same thing will happen to Bing -- but right now it is quite good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching for manual lens and camera reviews I also find Bing to be better than Google.First it is blazing fast , but more importantly the results I am getting are actual reviewed and not 'for sale ' things.Before Bing , in order to find anything on the subject I used photo.net as it became largest forum on the subject with very relevant info.I remember that in '04 Google was a lot more useful for this particular subject.Not sure what changed -- perhaps commercialization of search result is simply impacting the impartiality and usefulness of the searches on google.May be the same thing will happen to Bing -- but right now it is quite good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching for manual lens and camera reviews I also find Bing to be better than Google.First it is blazing fast, but more importantly the results I am getting are actual reviewed and not 'for sale' things.Before Bing, in order to find anything on the subject I used photo.net as it became largest forum on the subject with very relevant info.I remember that in '04 Google was a lot more useful for this particular subject.Not sure what changed -- perhaps commercialization of search result is simply impacting the impartiality and usefulness of the searches on google.May be the same thing will happen to Bing -- but right now it is quite good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331409</id>
	<title>Bing is not yet a finished product. for nonenglish</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1244995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have tried for example to search the term "wortschaft" (economy) and with google I got first wikipedia  (de.wikipedia.org)then other stuff like spiegel.de etc... When I said to it "only german page" I STILL got de.wikipedia.org. And i get google news as search result somewhere on the first page (not on top!). But with Bing de.wikipedia.org is gone, probably because it is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org and not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.de so bing got ride of it (I assume) so here google shows more completeness of result no matter why, and on the first page I am not getting google news. Why don't I get google news on top ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have tried for example to search the term " wortschaft " ( economy ) and with google I got first wikipedia ( de.wikipedia.org ) then other stuff like spiegel.de etc... When I said to it " only german page " I STILL got de.wikipedia.org .
And i get google news as search result somewhere on the first page ( not on top ! ) .
But with Bing de.wikipedia.org is gone , probably because it is .org and not .de so bing got ride of it ( I assume ) so here google shows more completeness of result no matter why , and on the first page I am not getting google news .
Why do n't I get google news on top ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have tried for example to search the term "wortschaft" (economy) and with google I got first wikipedia  (de.wikipedia.org)then other stuff like spiegel.de etc... When I said to it "only german page" I STILL got de.wikipedia.org.
And i get google news as search result somewhere on the first page (not on top!).
But with Bing de.wikipedia.org is gone, probably because it is .org and not .de so bing got ride of it (I assume) so here google shows more completeness of result no matter why, and on the first page I am not getting google news.
Why don't I get google news on top ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331889</id>
	<title>3 letters.....  LOL</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1245001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL nuff said...</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL nuff said.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL nuff said...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28340251</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so... Which site was this? Looking for an amp myself and the site you mentioned sounds interesting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/m</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so... Which site was this ?
Looking for an amp myself and the site you mentioned sounds interesting .
/m</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so... Which site was this?
Looking for an amp myself and the site you mentioned sounds interesting.
/m</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330593</id>
	<title>The sound of "found": Bob Hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This morning, our dear leader Steve Ballmer is unveiling our completely new search service, that has Google absolutely <i>shitting its pants</i>, unrelated to anything we at Microsoft <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/05/28/the-sound-of-found-bob-hope/" title="today.com">have ever done before</a> [today.com]: <b>Bob Hope</b>.</p><p>We spent lots of time listening to you, except when you told us how much MSN Search^W^WLive Search^W^WKumo sucked 'cause you&#226;(TM)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 , that has Google absolutely shitting its pants , 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 ^ WLive Search ^ W ^ WKumo sucked 'cause you   ( TM ) 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, that has Google absolutely shitting its pants, 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^WLive Search^W^WKumo sucked 'cause youâ(TM)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_14_2040209.28330787</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244989200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguably Google hasn't had competition in years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably Google has n't had competition in years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably Google hasn't had competition in years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330719</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1244988480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the default search engine for IE 8.  I accidently used it and it was good enough that I didn't immediately retry in google (which Is what I did when confronted with their previous search engine.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the default search engine for IE 8 .
I accidently used it and it was good enough that I did n't immediately retry in google ( which Is what I did when confronted with their previous search engine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the default search engine for IE 8.
I accidently used it and it was good enough that I didn't immediately retry in google (which Is what I did when confronted with their previous search engine.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331817</id>
	<title>Ludicrous</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1245000180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ludicrous, just ludicrous.  Is this even a real story?  Someone out making shit up again?  Mother been telling ya stories again?</p><p>This is so far fetched as to make the author liable for defamation against Google and Sergey Brin.</p><p>In all honesty maybe those exaggerations regarding professional journalists vs. bloggers has some credibility.  Na, this guy is just a turd.  They shouldn't have given him a platform to write on.</p><p>Bing is a non-product.  Just move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ludicrous , just ludicrous .
Is this even a real story ?
Someone out making shit up again ?
Mother been telling ya stories again ? This is so far fetched as to make the author liable for defamation against Google and Sergey Brin.In all honesty maybe those exaggerations regarding professional journalists vs. bloggers has some credibility .
Na , this guy is just a turd .
They should n't have given him a platform to write on.Bing is a non-product .
Just move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ludicrous, just ludicrous.
Is this even a real story?
Someone out making shit up again?
Mother been telling ya stories again?This is so far fetched as to make the author liable for defamation against Google and Sergey Brin.In all honesty maybe those exaggerations regarding professional journalists vs. bloggers has some credibility.
Na, this guy is just a turd.
They shouldn't have given him a platform to write on.Bing is a non-product.
Just move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334419</id>
	<title>Last I checked</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1245076740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, Microsoft was mortally afraid of Google for some reason, and in turn, chairs were in fear for their lives.</p><p>There is something I really despise about Microsoft. It's not their success - I admire anyone who succeeds at honest business. Microsoft succeeded by being underhanded, deceptive, and downright dishonest. They ripped off QDos, they ripped off Mosaic, and they bullied resellers. Ever since they realized they peaked they have been bullying customers with their activation schemes.  They rip off "partners" all the time (Stacker, Intuit, etc. - fortunately Intuit not only survived but they stayed on top of their game).</p><p>But want to know what my biggest beef with Microsoft is? It is not their software quality, even though all too often it is abysmal. It is not their pricing, even though it's clear that they are now abusing their monopoly position (ever since they effectively killed off Wordperfect/Corel office and Lotus Smartsuite, Microsoft Office has increased in price by 300\% to 400\%). Windows has increased by &gt;100\% (athough you can still get the OEM version fairly cheaply - the ONLY reason though, is so M$ can maintain their abusive monopoly). Their licensing is entirely one-sided and they no longer honor any 30-day money-back guarantee, and they are large enough to fight your right of first sale vs. EULA claims.</p><p>Here is the problem with a EULA: software makers refuse to issue refunds. Software products sold off-the-shelf are commodity goods, so right of sale applies. You can do what you want with the software (aside from violate copyright law outside of Fair Use) because you OWN that copy. Microsoft does their best via propoganda and through technical measures to brainwash you to believe otherwise.</p><p>Now, on to my single biggest problem with Microsoft: They have a core business. Fine, that's great and god bless them for it. However, like a dog, it's not in the having but in the getting. If they see you having any measure of success in another, unrelated market, they consider that market theirs. They must enter that market and destroy you, or even just destroy you if they have no interest in that market. they cannot be satisfied with their position at the top of the mountain but they must stomp down even the pawns of the marketplace. They might approach you with partnerships with the idea of stealing your "IP" and then turn around and stab you in the back, or they might spread FUD just to try to discredit you.</p><p>What is their beef with Google? Microsoft obviously never cared about search engines, free software, and quality, enterprise-quality free email before Google went big with them. Even though "cloud computing" is obviously a huge fatal mistake for users requiring uptime and guarantee that their data will remain owned by themselves, Microsoft sees it as essential that they knock down Google, and have been trying desperately to do so.</p><p>This is despite that many have decided, consciously or subconsciously, that Microsoft does not belong in those markets, that they'll go to anyone who will do the job well and is NOT Microsoft. Google did well with their initial "do no evil" philosophy. Now Microsoft has been trying desperately with MSN Search, Live! search, trying to buy Yahoo, and now, "Bing," which sounds like the subject of a Monty Python or SNL skit.</p><p>As I said, with a stupid dog, it's not in the having, but in the getting. They see Google succeeding  amazingly well in a market they never cared about but now consider essential even though they have proven many times that they cannot do the job well. Why can they not be happy with running 94\% of the world's desktop computers and a good portion of embedded devices such as automobiles ECM/BCM interfaces, GPSes, game consoles, and telephones, not to mention the office suites on most of the applicable devices? Why is that not enough? They can't even do THAT well, but people keep buying Microsoft even though they hate Microsoft products.</p><p>There is room for other players to be at the top of other segments of</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , Microsoft was mortally afraid of Google for some reason , and in turn , chairs were in fear for their lives.There is something I really despise about Microsoft .
It 's not their success - I admire anyone who succeeds at honest business .
Microsoft succeeded by being underhanded , deceptive , and downright dishonest .
They ripped off QDos , they ripped off Mosaic , and they bullied resellers .
Ever since they realized they peaked they have been bullying customers with their activation schemes .
They rip off " partners " all the time ( Stacker , Intuit , etc .
- fortunately Intuit not only survived but they stayed on top of their game ) .But want to know what my biggest beef with Microsoft is ?
It is not their software quality , even though all too often it is abysmal .
It is not their pricing , even though it 's clear that they are now abusing their monopoly position ( ever since they effectively killed off Wordperfect/Corel office and Lotus Smartsuite , Microsoft Office has increased in price by 300 \ % to 400 \ % ) .
Windows has increased by &gt; 100 \ % ( athough you can still get the OEM version fairly cheaply - the ONLY reason though , is so M $ can maintain their abusive monopoly ) .
Their licensing is entirely one-sided and they no longer honor any 30-day money-back guarantee , and they are large enough to fight your right of first sale vs. EULA claims.Here is the problem with a EULA : software makers refuse to issue refunds .
Software products sold off-the-shelf are commodity goods , so right of sale applies .
You can do what you want with the software ( aside from violate copyright law outside of Fair Use ) because you OWN that copy .
Microsoft does their best via propoganda and through technical measures to brainwash you to believe otherwise.Now , on to my single biggest problem with Microsoft : They have a core business .
Fine , that 's great and god bless them for it .
However , like a dog , it 's not in the having but in the getting .
If they see you having any measure of success in another , unrelated market , they consider that market theirs .
They must enter that market and destroy you , or even just destroy you if they have no interest in that market .
they can not be satisfied with their position at the top of the mountain but they must stomp down even the pawns of the marketplace .
They might approach you with partnerships with the idea of stealing your " IP " and then turn around and stab you in the back , or they might spread FUD just to try to discredit you.What is their beef with Google ?
Microsoft obviously never cared about search engines , free software , and quality , enterprise-quality free email before Google went big with them .
Even though " cloud computing " is obviously a huge fatal mistake for users requiring uptime and guarantee that their data will remain owned by themselves , Microsoft sees it as essential that they knock down Google , and have been trying desperately to do so.This is despite that many have decided , consciously or subconsciously , that Microsoft does not belong in those markets , that they 'll go to anyone who will do the job well and is NOT Microsoft .
Google did well with their initial " do no evil " philosophy .
Now Microsoft has been trying desperately with MSN Search , Live !
search , trying to buy Yahoo , and now , " Bing , " which sounds like the subject of a Monty Python or SNL skit.As I said , with a stupid dog , it 's not in the having , but in the getting .
They see Google succeeding amazingly well in a market they never cared about but now consider essential even though they have proven many times that they can not do the job well .
Why can they not be happy with running 94 \ % of the world 's desktop computers and a good portion of embedded devices such as automobiles ECM/BCM interfaces , GPSes , game consoles , and telephones , not to mention the office suites on most of the applicable devices ?
Why is that not enough ?
They ca n't even do THAT well , but people keep buying Microsoft even though they hate Microsoft products.There is room for other players to be at the top of other segments of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, Microsoft was mortally afraid of Google for some reason, and in turn, chairs were in fear for their lives.There is something I really despise about Microsoft.
It's not their success - I admire anyone who succeeds at honest business.
Microsoft succeeded by being underhanded, deceptive, and downright dishonest.
They ripped off QDos, they ripped off Mosaic, and they bullied resellers.
Ever since they realized they peaked they have been bullying customers with their activation schemes.
They rip off "partners" all the time (Stacker, Intuit, etc.
- fortunately Intuit not only survived but they stayed on top of their game).But want to know what my biggest beef with Microsoft is?
It is not their software quality, even though all too often it is abysmal.
It is not their pricing, even though it's clear that they are now abusing their monopoly position (ever since they effectively killed off Wordperfect/Corel office and Lotus Smartsuite, Microsoft Office has increased in price by 300\% to 400\%).
Windows has increased by &gt;100\% (athough you can still get the OEM version fairly cheaply - the ONLY reason though, is so M$ can maintain their abusive monopoly).
Their licensing is entirely one-sided and they no longer honor any 30-day money-back guarantee, and they are large enough to fight your right of first sale vs. EULA claims.Here is the problem with a EULA: software makers refuse to issue refunds.
Software products sold off-the-shelf are commodity goods, so right of sale applies.
You can do what you want with the software (aside from violate copyright law outside of Fair Use) because you OWN that copy.
Microsoft does their best via propoganda and through technical measures to brainwash you to believe otherwise.Now, on to my single biggest problem with Microsoft: They have a core business.
Fine, that's great and god bless them for it.
However, like a dog, it's not in the having but in the getting.
If they see you having any measure of success in another, unrelated market, they consider that market theirs.
They must enter that market and destroy you, or even just destroy you if they have no interest in that market.
they cannot be satisfied with their position at the top of the mountain but they must stomp down even the pawns of the marketplace.
They might approach you with partnerships with the idea of stealing your "IP" and then turn around and stab you in the back, or they might spread FUD just to try to discredit you.What is their beef with Google?
Microsoft obviously never cared about search engines, free software, and quality, enterprise-quality free email before Google went big with them.
Even though "cloud computing" is obviously a huge fatal mistake for users requiring uptime and guarantee that their data will remain owned by themselves, Microsoft sees it as essential that they knock down Google, and have been trying desperately to do so.This is despite that many have decided, consciously or subconsciously, that Microsoft does not belong in those markets, that they'll go to anyone who will do the job well and is NOT Microsoft.
Google did well with their initial "do no evil" philosophy.
Now Microsoft has been trying desperately with MSN Search, Live!
search, trying to buy Yahoo, and now, "Bing," which sounds like the subject of a Monty Python or SNL skit.As I said, with a stupid dog, it's not in the having, but in the getting.
They see Google succeeding  amazingly well in a market they never cared about but now consider essential even though they have proven many times that they cannot do the job well.
Why can they not be happy with running 94\% of the world's desktop computers and a good portion of embedded devices such as automobiles ECM/BCM interfaces, GPSes, game consoles, and telephones, not to mention the office suites on most of the applicable devices?
Why is that not enough?
They can't even do THAT well, but people keep buying Microsoft even though they hate Microsoft products.There is room for other players to be at the top of other segments of</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330625</id>
	<title>This is all well and good...</title>
	<author>Punker22</author>
	<datestamp>1244987700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Bing sucks... Once the novelty of it wears off it will quickly relinquish it's temporary market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Bing sucks... Once the novelty of it wears off it will quickly relinquish it 's temporary market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Bing sucks... Once the novelty of it wears off it will quickly relinquish it's temporary market share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334047</id>
	<title>Don't trust Microsoft with search</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1245074220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was to search for something in Microsoft's search engine, I know they are going to mess with the results to favor what ever stupid marketing initiative or agenda they have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was to search for something in Microsoft 's search engine , I know they are going to mess with the results to favor what ever stupid marketing initiative or agenda they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was to search for something in Microsoft's search engine, I know they are going to mess with the results to favor what ever stupid marketing initiative or agenda they have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</id>
	<title>An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>fullgandoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244987220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been using Bing for the last few weeks and comparing with Google by running the same queries on both. <br> <br>
At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results). But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both. <br> <br>
Bing is a huge improvement over Yahoo at least for general queries.<br> <br>
It's a pity that Safari (at least on Mac) doesn't allow any other search engine except Google. That is just plain mean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been using Bing for the last few weeks and comparing with Google by running the same queries on both .
At it 's launch , there was considerable difference in the results of the two ( Google giving far more relevant results ) .
But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both .
Bing is a huge improvement over Yahoo at least for general queries .
It 's a pity that Safari ( at least on Mac ) does n't allow any other search engine except Google .
That is just plain mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been using Bing for the last few weeks and comparing with Google by running the same queries on both.
At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results).
But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.
Bing is a huge improvement over Yahoo at least for general queries.
It's a pity that Safari (at least on Mac) doesn't allow any other search engine except Google.
That is just plain mean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330941</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>motek</author>
	<datestamp>1244990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches. It was quite good, actualy, especially these video snippets searching yields. It very well may be Microsoft has found its niche in search market...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches .
It was quite good , actualy , especially these video snippets searching yields .
It very well may be Microsoft has found its niche in search market.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches.
It was quite good, actualy, especially these video snippets searching yields.
It very well may be Microsoft has found its niche in search market...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330649</id>
	<title>Fast</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244988000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried a few searches on Bing, and one thing I noticed right away is how fast it is.   It seems to be just a little snappier than Google.  The search results seem to have equal correctness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried a few searches on Bing , and one thing I noticed right away is how fast it is .
It seems to be just a little snappier than Google .
The search results seem to have equal correctness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried a few searches on Bing, and one thing I noticed right away is how fast it is.
It seems to be just a little snappier than Google.
The search results seem to have equal correctness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330543</id>
	<title>mod Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bleak fu7ure. In BSD has always</htmltext>
<tokenext>bleak fu7ure .
In BSD has always</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bleak fu7ure.
In BSD has always</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330979</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1244991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bing just doesn't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google doesn't already have"</p><p>What "exciting" search features does Google "already have"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bing just does n't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google does n't already have " What " exciting " search features does Google " already have " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bing just doesn't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google doesn't already have"What "exciting" search features does Google "already have"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332781</id>
	<title>new headline sugestion.</title>
	<author>sjwt</author>
	<datestamp>1245099420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> how about insted of "Technology: Does Bing Have Google Running Scared?" we try a more realistic "Technology: Google, still on top and willing to try and improve after Bing's release."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about insted of " Technology : Does Bing Have Google Running Scared ?
" we try a more realistic " Technology : Google , still on top and willing to try and improve after Bing 's release .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> how about insted of "Technology: Does Bing Have Google Running Scared?
" we try a more realistic "Technology: Google, still on top and willing to try and improve after Bing's release.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</id>
	<title>Uhuh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is Kleenex. You don't even really care that your wife bought Puffs. You'll still call them Kleenex and 9 out of 10 times you're going to pick them first by name. This simply isn't going to go the way of a meme. People aren't just going to jump ship in droves because it's different and not nearly as convenient. Start worrying when the numbers start talking. Getting excited about ANYTHING Microsoft does online is beyond premature. Hell, it might be IM-mature technologically speaking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is Kleenex .
You do n't even really care that your wife bought Puffs .
You 'll still call them Kleenex and 9 out of 10 times you 're going to pick them first by name .
This simply is n't going to go the way of a meme .
People are n't just going to jump ship in droves because it 's different and not nearly as convenient .
Start worrying when the numbers start talking .
Getting excited about ANYTHING Microsoft does online is beyond premature .
Hell , it might be IM-mature technologically speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is Kleenex.
You don't even really care that your wife bought Puffs.
You'll still call them Kleenex and 9 out of 10 times you're going to pick them first by name.
This simply isn't going to go the way of a meme.
People aren't just going to jump ship in droves because it's different and not nearly as convenient.
Start worrying when the numbers start talking.
Getting excited about ANYTHING Microsoft does online is beyond premature.
Hell, it might be IM-mature technologically speaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331333</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1244995320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just gave me a great idea. Suppose there was a plugin for firefox that randomized your search engine whenever you were looking for something other than a specialized search (like say, wowhead).
<br> <br>
Adding a "generico" style option in that little search-box dropdown that randomly chose from a predetermined list of search engines would be a great way of promoting competition between them without removing your ability to search from the provider of your choice when you needed that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just gave me a great idea .
Suppose there was a plugin for firefox that randomized your search engine whenever you were looking for something other than a specialized search ( like say , wowhead ) .
Adding a " generico " style option in that little search-box dropdown that randomly chose from a predetermined list of search engines would be a great way of promoting competition between them without removing your ability to search from the provider of your choice when you needed that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just gave me a great idea.
Suppose there was a plugin for firefox that randomized your search engine whenever you were looking for something other than a specialized search (like say, wowhead).
Adding a "generico" style option in that little search-box dropdown that randomly chose from a predetermined list of search engines would be a great way of promoting competition between them without removing your ability to search from the provider of your choice when you needed that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331073</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>TaggartAleslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1244992500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is Kleenex.</p></div><p>That's what we used to say about Lycos and Yahoo. The simple fact is, when something better comes along in the search engine market, they become the next "Kleenex". You can only change tissues so much, so the brands remain very static. It's not like that with search engines. There will always be ways to reinvent the product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is Kleenex.That 's what we used to say about Lycos and Yahoo .
The simple fact is , when something better comes along in the search engine market , they become the next " Kleenex " .
You can only change tissues so much , so the brands remain very static .
It 's not like that with search engines .
There will always be ways to reinvent the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is Kleenex.That's what we used to say about Lycos and Yahoo.
The simple fact is, when something better comes along in the search engine market, they become the next "Kleenex".
You can only change tissues so much, so the brands remain very static.
It's not like that with search engines.
There will always be ways to reinvent the product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333437</id>
	<title>Google deserves to die...</title>
	<author>tompiori</author>
	<datestamp>1245067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because they treat people "outside" from their shiny world like sh*t...I had an on-site interview a few months ago, in one of their European offices, for a technical position...After some days of waiting, they sent me an e-mail, telling me that I wasn't chosen, but without any detailed or convincing explanation...
Thus, I sent 5 e-mails in 2 months, to 3 different people, among the ones who interviewed me, asking for more feedback, but never received any answer...
For me this is simple rude behaviour, and lack of respect for people...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because they treat people " outside " from their shiny world like sh * t...I had an on-site interview a few months ago , in one of their European offices , for a technical position...After some days of waiting , they sent me an e-mail , telling me that I was n't chosen , but without any detailed or convincing explanation.. . Thus , I sent 5 e-mails in 2 months , to 3 different people , among the ones who interviewed me , asking for more feedback , but never received any answer.. . For me this is simple rude behaviour , and lack of respect for people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because they treat people "outside" from their shiny world like sh*t...I had an on-site interview a few months ago, in one of their European offices, for a technical position...After some days of waiting, they sent me an e-mail, telling me that I wasn't chosen, but without any detailed or convincing explanation...
Thus, I sent 5 e-mails in 2 months, to 3 different people, among the ones who interviewed me, asking for more feedback, but never received any answer...
For me this is simple rude behaviour, and lack of respect for people...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332477</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So tempted to say bing got be some hard wood right here.... o wait</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So tempted to say bing got be some hard wood right here.... o wait</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So tempted to say bing got be some hard wood right here.... o wait</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330989</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is really to Microsoft's advantage that the 'Anything But Microsoft' crowd here ignores Bing.</p><p>How? You ask.</p><p>Because Bing is in fact pretty good. Before you start your flame throwers let me tell you why.</p><p>In general Bing gives me results that are at least as good as those returned by Google,<br>per relevance. The shopping search (reviews, itemized sentiment analysis etc) is really<br>good that Google doesn't offer me. Also, the 'Travel' search is as good as any other, sidestep.com,<br>kayak etc.</p><p>I have been using Google since yr 2000, just fyi.</p><p>ok, now those with their KoolAid kegs on their side, take a gulp and throw flames.<br>Those who can actually do objective comparison with an open mind, please try out yourself<br>what I said and then make your statement here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is really to Microsoft 's advantage that the 'Anything But Microsoft ' crowd here ignores Bing.How ?
You ask.Because Bing is in fact pretty good .
Before you start your flame throwers let me tell you why.In general Bing gives me results that are at least as good as those returned by Google,per relevance .
The shopping search ( reviews , itemized sentiment analysis etc ) is reallygood that Google does n't offer me .
Also , the 'Travel ' search is as good as any other , sidestep.com,kayak etc.I have been using Google since yr 2000 , just fyi.ok , now those with their KoolAid kegs on their side , take a gulp and throw flames.Those who can actually do objective comparison with an open mind , please try out yourselfwhat I said and then make your statement here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is really to Microsoft's advantage that the 'Anything But Microsoft' crowd here ignores Bing.How?
You ask.Because Bing is in fact pretty good.
Before you start your flame throwers let me tell you why.In general Bing gives me results that are at least as good as those returned by Google,per relevance.
The shopping search (reviews, itemized sentiment analysis etc) is reallygood that Google doesn't offer me.
Also, the 'Travel' search is as good as any other, sidestep.com,kayak etc.I have been using Google since yr 2000, just fyi.ok, now those with their KoolAid kegs on their side, take a gulp and throw flames.Those who can actually do objective comparison with an open mind, please try out yourselfwhat I said and then make your statement here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331017</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>BradyB</author>
	<datestamp>1244991960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd.  I searched the same term "hardwood suppliers" in google and bing and they are pretty much the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd .
I searched the same term " hardwood suppliers " in google and bing and they are pretty much the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd.
I searched the same term "hardwood suppliers" in google and bing and they are pretty much the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330883</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244990280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results). But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.</p></div><p>Eh, isn't "pretty much identical results" pretty faint praise?  Aren't you supposed to switch products because you actually get some sort of net benefit out of it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At it 's launch , there was considerable difference in the results of the two ( Google giving far more relevant results ) .
But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.Eh , is n't " pretty much identical results " pretty faint praise ?
Are n't you supposed to switch products because you actually get some sort of net benefit out of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results).
But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.Eh, isn't "pretty much identical results" pretty faint praise?
Aren't you supposed to switch products because you actually get some sort of net benefit out of it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332827</id>
	<title>Re:Crap comes from people learning to Game Google</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1245056820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why game it, just pay Microsoft and they will bump your site to the top of the list<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... just like they always have done</p><p>This is why I don't trust Bing's results</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why game it , just pay Microsoft and they will bump your site to the top of the list .... just like they always have doneThis is why I do n't trust Bing 's results</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why game it, just pay Microsoft and they will bump your site to the top of the list .... just like they always have doneThis is why I don't trust Bing's results</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331003</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1244991840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that many Slashdotters will expect "a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering" because that's the way they think. Truth will not influence them one way or another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that many Slashdotters will expect " a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering " because that 's the way they think .
Truth will not influence them one way or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that many Slashdotters will expect "a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering" because that's the way they think.
Truth will not influence them one way or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is how market competition is supposed to work.</p><p>Evil or not, a Google without competition inevitably stagnates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how market competition is supposed to work.Evil or not , a Google without competition inevitably stagnates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how market competition is supposed to work.Evil or not, a Google without competition inevitably stagnates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333021</id>
	<title>Re:Bing doesn't work...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really it's that way in the US too:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When PC World was testing Bing and comparing video search results on Bing and Live Search, we noticed both were virtually the same right down to the preview feature. In fact, the only difference PC World found between the two Microsoft search brands was the page layout and the look and feel. PC World even asked Microsoft about this similarity, and the company confirmed via e-mail the primary difference between Bing and Live Search is the user interface, which the company claims is more intuitive.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/165838/bing\_goes\_live\_some\_bloggers\_shocked\_to\_find\_porn.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">link</a> [pcworld.com]</p><p>AFAICT:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Bing = Live search + new UI + some canned search query types</p><p>It's progress, but it's more like MSN Search 2.1 than 3.0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really it 's that way in the US too : When PC World was testing Bing and comparing video search results on Bing and Live Search , we noticed both were virtually the same right down to the preview feature .
In fact , the only difference PC World found between the two Microsoft search brands was the page layout and the look and feel .
PC World even asked Microsoft about this similarity , and the company confirmed via e-mail the primary difference between Bing and Live Search is the user interface , which the company claims is more intuitive .
link [ pcworld.com ] AFAICT :     Bing = Live search + new UI + some canned search query typesIt 's progress , but it 's more like MSN Search 2.1 than 3.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really it's that way in the US too:When PC World was testing Bing and comparing video search results on Bing and Live Search, we noticed both were virtually the same right down to the preview feature.
In fact, the only difference PC World found between the two Microsoft search brands was the page layout and the look and feel.
PC World even asked Microsoft about this similarity, and the company confirmed via e-mail the primary difference between Bing and Live Search is the user interface, which the company claims is more intuitive.
link [pcworld.com]AFAICT:
    Bing = Live search + new UI + some canned search query typesIt's progress, but it's more like MSN Search 2.1 than 3.0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>pwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244986080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've only used Bing twice.  Once when i heard about it on slashdot and then again after I saw a commercial... thought i'd give it another try.  Other then a decent marketing campaign, Bing just doesn't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google doesn't already have.  Google does what I need so I'll continue using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only used Bing twice .
Once when i heard about it on slashdot and then again after I saw a commercial... thought i 'd give it another try .
Other then a decent marketing campaign , Bing just does n't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google does n't already have .
Google does what I need so I 'll continue using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've only used Bing twice.
Once when i heard about it on slashdot and then again after I saw a commercial... thought i'd give it another try.
Other then a decent marketing campaign, Bing just doesn't have any new and exciting features that I like and that Google doesn't already have.
Google does what I need so I'll continue using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335611</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1245082920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to Google her Bing-hole until she screams YAHOO all night long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to Google her Bing-hole until she screams YAHOO all night long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to Google her Bing-hole until she screams YAHOO all night long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331501</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>ouwiyaru</author>
	<datestamp>1244996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What was the specific search that you typed into Bing and what was the website you were looking for?</p><p>My experiences have been more the opposite way when testing Bing.</p><p>I'm sure we're all very interested in where Bing's strengths are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What was the specific search that you typed into Bing and what was the website you were looking for ? My experiences have been more the opposite way when testing Bing.I 'm sure we 're all very interested in where Bing 's strengths are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was the specific search that you typed into Bing and what was the website you were looking for?My experiences have been more the opposite way when testing Bing.I'm sure we're all very interested in where Bing's strengths are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332041</id>
	<title>"bing" search results on bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245003000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny. I went to bing by searching "bing" on Google. Sure enough, bing.com is top of the list.<br>Then I tried to search "bing" on bing, bing.com, is just 7th place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny .
I went to bing by searching " bing " on Google .
Sure enough , bing.com is top of the list.Then I tried to search " bing " on bing , bing.com , is just 7th place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny.
I went to bing by searching "bing" on Google.
Sure enough, bing.com is top of the list.Then I tried to search "bing" on bing, bing.com, is just 7th place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331127</id>
	<title>No need to worry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244993340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on guys-- have you at least TRIED Bing? Google has nothing to worry, BING SUCKS! I mean, I really tried to use Bing, just to see how it worked, and I was unable to get ANY useful results from my search.</p><p>Bing, you suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on guys-- have you at least TRIED Bing ?
Google has nothing to worry , BING SUCKS !
I mean , I really tried to use Bing , just to see how it worked , and I was unable to get ANY useful results from my search.Bing , you suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on guys-- have you at least TRIED Bing?
Google has nothing to worry, BING SUCKS!
I mean, I really tried to use Bing, just to see how it worked, and I was unable to get ANY useful results from my search.Bing, you suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333797</id>
	<title>New fodder for YouTube</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1245071580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe someone should set the text of Brin's ranting and raving to the clip from Valkyrie like they did for <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;oi=video\_result&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=1&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.youtube.com\%2Fwatch\%3Fv\%3Dl1wKO3rID9g&amp;ei=YDo2SoS8Mai\_twfI6rH5Dg&amp;rct=j&amp;q=agile+hitler&amp;usg=AFQjCNGmypkGObfBP9WkCre3K\_1tcT5koA" title="google.com">The Downfall of Agile Hitler</a> [google.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone should set the text of Brin 's ranting and raving to the clip from Valkyrie like they did for The Downfall of Agile Hitler [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone should set the text of Brin's ranting and raving to the clip from Valkyrie like they did for The Downfall of Agile Hitler [google.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331193</id>
	<title>Bing me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244994180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run a niche entertainment website. I have about a dozen competitors but am the only one who provides substantial content and has a large and active user base. Bing puts me halfway down the second page under some sites with zero content, several inactive forums, and a link farm. Compare that with Google who ranks me as the first result for most searches and does not start showing spam results until sometime on page three. The fact that a ton of obvious search spam is outranking me on Bing has left a very sour taste in my mouth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a niche entertainment website .
I have about a dozen competitors but am the only one who provides substantial content and has a large and active user base .
Bing puts me halfway down the second page under some sites with zero content , several inactive forums , and a link farm .
Compare that with Google who ranks me as the first result for most searches and does not start showing spam results until sometime on page three .
The fact that a ton of obvious search spam is outranking me on Bing has left a very sour taste in my mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a niche entertainment website.
I have about a dozen competitors but am the only one who provides substantial content and has a large and active user base.
Bing puts me halfway down the second page under some sites with zero content, several inactive forums, and a link farm.
Compare that with Google who ranks me as the first result for most searches and does not start showing spam results until sometime on page three.
The fact that a ton of obvious search spam is outranking me on Bing has left a very sour taste in my mouth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335487</id>
	<title>OH MY GOD</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245082380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didnt believe that it could be as good as it is for porn video searching. Thats pretty freaking sweet. Mouse over to see a preview... VERY nice!<br>
<br>
Google has definately met its match in the video search arena, and the killer thing is that for google to catch up it seems like they will be making their own youtube less relevant in the process, allowing competitors to be more easily visible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt believe that it could be as good as it is for porn video searching .
Thats pretty freaking sweet .
Mouse over to see a preview... VERY nice !
Google has definately met its match in the video search arena , and the killer thing is that for google to catch up it seems like they will be making their own youtube less relevant in the process , allowing competitors to be more easily visible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt believe that it could be as good as it is for porn video searching.
Thats pretty freaking sweet.
Mouse over to see a preview... VERY nice!
Google has definately met its match in the video search arena, and the killer thing is that for google to catch up it seems like they will be making their own youtube less relevant in the process, allowing competitors to be more easily visible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332845</id>
	<title>Re:Bing doesn't work...</title>
	<author>pimpimpim</author>
	<datestamp>1245057000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Any player in the search market that wants to compete with google should first get the non-US markets. Google is not very strong in countries that use non-latin characters and even for me in germany it is a pain to find german and english results at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Any player in the search market that wants to compete with google should first get the non-US markets .
Google is not very strong in countries that use non-latin characters and even for me in germany it is a pain to find german and english results at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Any player in the search market that wants to compete with google should first get the non-US markets.
Google is not very strong in countries that use non-latin characters and even for me in germany it is a pain to find german and english results at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332349</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hilarious to hear you people using the same argument you dismiss when Microsoft uses it to explain to you numbskulls why Windows has viruses and Linux/Apple have few - because nobody cares about Linux/Apple as they have a tiny market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hilarious to hear you people using the same argument you dismiss when Microsoft uses it to explain to you numbskulls why Windows has viruses and Linux/Apple have few - because nobody cares about Linux/Apple as they have a tiny market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hilarious to hear you people using the same argument you dismiss when Microsoft uses it to explain to you numbskulls why Windows has viruses and Linux/Apple have few - because nobody cares about Linux/Apple as they have a tiny market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331773</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244999580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Respectfully, I don't think you are current on Google algorithms.</p><p>You say that PageRank "hasn't altogether changed much". Of course it hasn't, it's a published algorithm. Some of the constants may get fudged a little, but the PageRank algorithm can't change or it wouldn't be PageRank.</p><p>You say that PageRank is "basically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... synonymous with Internet presence". Do you mean it's synonymous with search engine results? It's not. Google and any reputable SEO source you can find will tell you that there is a lot more going on in the SERPs than PageRank, and that PageRank seems to be playing a smaller and smaller part over time as other parts of the larger algorithm are refined.</p><p>You say "there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm". That's definitely true, but you don't mention that Google basically has its pick of the smartest people in the world right now, and they can hire as many of them as they want. And they can point all those people at developing the complete search results algorithms in ways that prevent gaming.</p><p>I'm sorry you had a hard time finding a guitar amp, but I'm intrigued: if you knew the entire time "the website I wanted from the beginning", why did you search Google or Bing? Why not go straight there?</p><p>I'd encourage you to read more about Google Search in interviews and articles from Google's employees. They've shared a plethora of fascinating improvements that they've made to their algorithms and search in general. You'll realize that they basically pioneered the idea of making a serious attempt at not allowing webmasters to game the system. Being the current search leaders means they are most targeted, which basically forces them to continue developing ways to remove opportunities to game the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Respectfully , I do n't think you are current on Google algorithms.You say that PageRank " has n't altogether changed much " .
Of course it has n't , it 's a published algorithm .
Some of the constants may get fudged a little , but the PageRank algorithm ca n't change or it would n't be PageRank.You say that PageRank is " basically ... synonymous with Internet presence " .
Do you mean it 's synonymous with search engine results ?
It 's not .
Google and any reputable SEO source you can find will tell you that there is a lot more going on in the SERPs than PageRank , and that PageRank seems to be playing a smaller and smaller part over time as other parts of the larger algorithm are refined.You say " there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm " .
That 's definitely true , but you do n't mention that Google basically has its pick of the smartest people in the world right now , and they can hire as many of them as they want .
And they can point all those people at developing the complete search results algorithms in ways that prevent gaming.I 'm sorry you had a hard time finding a guitar amp , but I 'm intrigued : if you knew the entire time " the website I wanted from the beginning " , why did you search Google or Bing ?
Why not go straight there ? I 'd encourage you to read more about Google Search in interviews and articles from Google 's employees .
They 've shared a plethora of fascinating improvements that they 've made to their algorithms and search in general .
You 'll realize that they basically pioneered the idea of making a serious attempt at not allowing webmasters to game the system .
Being the current search leaders means they are most targeted , which basically forces them to continue developing ways to remove opportunities to game the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Respectfully, I don't think you are current on Google algorithms.You say that PageRank "hasn't altogether changed much".
Of course it hasn't, it's a published algorithm.
Some of the constants may get fudged a little, but the PageRank algorithm can't change or it wouldn't be PageRank.You say that PageRank is "basically ... synonymous with Internet presence".
Do you mean it's synonymous with search engine results?
It's not.
Google and any reputable SEO source you can find will tell you that there is a lot more going on in the SERPs than PageRank, and that PageRank seems to be playing a smaller and smaller part over time as other parts of the larger algorithm are refined.You say "there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm".
That's definitely true, but you don't mention that Google basically has its pick of the smartest people in the world right now, and they can hire as many of them as they want.
And they can point all those people at developing the complete search results algorithms in ways that prevent gaming.I'm sorry you had a hard time finding a guitar amp, but I'm intrigued: if you knew the entire time "the website I wanted from the beginning", why did you search Google or Bing?
Why not go straight there?I'd encourage you to read more about Google Search in interviews and articles from Google's employees.
They've shared a plethora of fascinating improvements that they've made to their algorithms and search in general.
You'll realize that they basically pioneered the idea of making a serious attempt at not allowing webmasters to game the system.
Being the current search leaders means they are most targeted, which basically forces them to continue developing ways to remove opportunities to game the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337539</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shill much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>shill much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shill much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332151</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, here is the acid test. porn.</p><p>Turn off safe search, on both google and bing.</p><p>Search nude girls wallpaper. This shows up as one of the bing results:</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Nude+girls+Wallpaper#focal=20cab0835f80b0a47c8badc853d11a7f&amp;furl=http://www.cutegayteens.com/nude-male-galleries-00325.jpg" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Nude+girls+Wallpaper#focal=20cab0835f80b0a47c8badc853d11a7f&amp;furl=http://www.cutegayteens.com/nude-male-galleries-00325.jpg</a> [bing.com]</p><p>I just don't know how that would show up in  as a result for that search. Unless you were al least moderately susceptible to Search result manipulation.</p><p>That link on that result probably means that if bing starts to take off, it will get trashed by the spammers unless they make some changes.</p><p>Bing seems to have a fairly nice user interface if you are on a nice multi Megabyte/second line,  but even then the image search spends a lot of time watching the spinning circles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , here is the acid test .
porn.Turn off safe search , on both google and bing.Search nude girls wallpaper .
This shows up as one of the bing results : http : //www.bing.com/images/search ? q = Nude + girls + Wallpaper # focal = 20cab0835f80b0a47c8badc853d11a7f&amp;furl = http : //www.cutegayteens.com/nude-male-galleries-00325.jpg [ bing.com ] I just do n't know how that would show up in as a result for that search .
Unless you were al least moderately susceptible to Search result manipulation.That link on that result probably means that if bing starts to take off , it will get trashed by the spammers unless they make some changes.Bing seems to have a fairly nice user interface if you are on a nice multi Megabyte/second line , but even then the image search spends a lot of time watching the spinning circles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, here is the acid test.
porn.Turn off safe search, on both google and bing.Search nude girls wallpaper.
This shows up as one of the bing results:http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Nude+girls+Wallpaper#focal=20cab0835f80b0a47c8badc853d11a7f&amp;furl=http://www.cutegayteens.com/nude-male-galleries-00325.jpg [bing.com]I just don't know how that would show up in  as a result for that search.
Unless you were al least moderately susceptible to Search result manipulation.That link on that result probably means that if bing starts to take off, it will get trashed by the spammers unless they make some changes.Bing seems to have a fairly nice user interface if you are on a nice multi Megabyte/second line,  but even then the image search spends a lot of time watching the spinning circles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</id>
	<title>As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I first heard about Bing I laughed at the thought of people actually dropping tried and trusted Google for some kind of Microsoft re-branded Windows Live Search, then I started paying closer attention to what I was actually getting when I searched on Google.<br> <br>Over the last several years I thought it was my imagination or increasing impatience that has caused my increased dissatisfaction with Google's search results but when I think about it more closely pagerank has been around for a long time and it hasn't altogether changed much. With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm and finding ways to artificially boost your website's relevance and this has basically resulted in the increasing decline of Google's search results over the last several years.<br> <br>Just as an actual example I was looking into buying a guitar amp online I had heard about and I wanted to find a website I had been to before on another computer that had a database clips demoing various amps and other guitar gear but I couldn't remember the name. After getting frustrated with several Google searches yielding nothing but trash for the obvious search queries, I turned to Bing because I thought it might be worth a laugh. First result was the website I wanted from the beginning, and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft's products as much as anyone else around here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first heard about Bing I laughed at the thought of people actually dropping tried and trusted Google for some kind of Microsoft re-branded Windows Live Search , then I started paying closer attention to what I was actually getting when I searched on Google .
Over the last several years I thought it was my imagination or increasing impatience that has caused my increased dissatisfaction with Google 's search results but when I think about it more closely pagerank has been around for a long time and it has n't altogether changed much .
With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm and finding ways to artificially boost your website 's relevance and this has basically resulted in the increasing decline of Google 's search results over the last several years .
Just as an actual example I was looking into buying a guitar amp online I had heard about and I wanted to find a website I had been to before on another computer that had a database clips demoing various amps and other guitar gear but I could n't remember the name .
After getting frustrated with several Google searches yielding nothing but trash for the obvious search queries , I turned to Bing because I thought it might be worth a laugh .
First result was the website I wanted from the beginning , and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft 's products as much as anyone else around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first heard about Bing I laughed at the thought of people actually dropping tried and trusted Google for some kind of Microsoft re-branded Windows Live Search, then I started paying closer attention to what I was actually getting when I searched on Google.
Over the last several years I thought it was my imagination or increasing impatience that has caused my increased dissatisfaction with Google's search results but when I think about it more closely pagerank has been around for a long time and it hasn't altogether changed much.
With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm and finding ways to artificially boost your website's relevance and this has basically resulted in the increasing decline of Google's search results over the last several years.
Just as an actual example I was looking into buying a guitar amp online I had heard about and I wanted to find a website I had been to before on another computer that had a database clips demoing various amps and other guitar gear but I couldn't remember the name.
After getting frustrated with several Google searches yielding nothing but trash for the obvious search queries, I turned to Bing because I thought it might be worth a laugh.
First result was the website I wanted from the beginning, and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft's products as much as anyone else around here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334553</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1245077580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy - the Microsoft way usually gives you a virus.  So I'll stick to Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy - the Microsoft way usually gives you a virus .
So I 'll stick to Google : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy - the Microsoft way usually gives you a virus.
So I'll stick to Google :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330463</id>
	<title>Competition can only help</title>
	<author>chebucto</author>
	<datestamp>1244986260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not the story is true, competition - even from the likes of Microsoft - competition in the search market is a good thing to have. Google has been been without serious competition in the web search market for almost a decade, and there are definitely ways they can improve the quality of their results.</p><p>Two things that most people will want avoided are 1) feature-bloat rather than basic s/n improvement as the method of competition, and 2) unfair use by microsoft of its (diminished) OS monopoly. Both these things were seen in the browser wars, and it took 5 years (more or less) for browser software to recover from that fiasco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not the story is true , competition - even from the likes of Microsoft - competition in the search market is a good thing to have .
Google has been been without serious competition in the web search market for almost a decade , and there are definitely ways they can improve the quality of their results.Two things that most people will want avoided are 1 ) feature-bloat rather than basic s/n improvement as the method of competition , and 2 ) unfair use by microsoft of its ( diminished ) OS monopoly .
Both these things were seen in the browser wars , and it took 5 years ( more or less ) for browser software to recover from that fiasco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not the story is true, competition - even from the likes of Microsoft - competition in the search market is a good thing to have.
Google has been been without serious competition in the web search market for almost a decade, and there are definitely ways they can improve the quality of their results.Two things that most people will want avoided are 1) feature-bloat rather than basic s/n improvement as the method of competition, and 2) unfair use by microsoft of its (diminished) OS monopoly.
Both these things were seen in the browser wars, and it took 5 years (more or less) for browser software to recover from that fiasco.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337219</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches. It was quite good, actualy, especially these video snippets searching yields.</i> <br>
<br>
That's funny, I heard the same thing and decided to give it a shot.  I liked the little preview clips that Bing lets you see.  Also, while testing the porn search capability of Bing I discovered the funniest porn clip blooper reel I've ever seen.  I must have laughed for half an hour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches .
It was quite good , actualy , especially these video snippets searching yields .
That 's funny , I heard the same thing and decided to give it a shot .
I liked the little preview clips that Bing lets you see .
Also , while testing the porn search capability of Bing I discovered the funniest porn clip blooper reel I 've ever seen .
I must have laughed for half an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it after having read about their supperiority in porn searches.
It was quite good, actualy, especially these video snippets searching yields.
That's funny, I heard the same thing and decided to give it a shot.
I liked the little preview clips that Bing lets you see.
Also, while testing the porn search capability of Bing I discovered the funniest porn clip blooper reel I've ever seen.
I must have laughed for half an hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333645</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245069960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Plus, would you rather "Google" your friend's sister or "Bing" her?</i> <br> <br>What, are you some kind of stalker?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , would you rather " Google " your friend 's sister or " Bing " her ?
What , are you some kind of stalker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, would you rather "Google" your friend's sister or "Bing" her?
What, are you some kind of stalker?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331913</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1245001560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're so right.  Can't believe someone so insightful supports the "Fair Tax"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're so right .
Ca n't believe someone so insightful supports the " Fair Tax " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're so right.
Can't believe someone so insightful supports the "Fair Tax"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330879</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244990220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, specifically the 'mean' part means that I mostly use Firefox on the Mac. </p><p>That and the constant Safari 4 crashing thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , specifically the 'mean ' part means that I mostly use Firefox on the Mac .
That and the constant Safari 4 crashing thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, specifically the 'mean' part means that I mostly use Firefox on the Mac.
That and the constant Safari 4 crashing thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332253</id>
	<title>actually...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I laughed at Microsoft putting its name next to its new service.  I thought they would have had a chance had they not mentioned that it was from Microsoft.</p><p>I went to Bing.com to check it out and what I found was....</p><p>Google.</p><p>It works.  Well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I laughed at Microsoft putting its name next to its new service .
I thought they would have had a chance had they not mentioned that it was from Microsoft.I went to Bing.com to check it out and what I found was....Google.It works .
Well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I laughed at Microsoft putting its name next to its new service.
I thought they would have had a chance had they not mentioned that it was from Microsoft.I went to Bing.com to check it out and what I found was....Google.It works.
Well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334379</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unfortunately (for society) your comment is probably the truest here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unfortunately ( for society ) your comment is probably the truest here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unfortunately (for society) your comment is probably the truest here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330697</id>
	<title>My personal anecdote with Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244988360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that Microsoft is to be evil, and Google is to be the good guy, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers mostly side with Google, yada yada yada...</p><p>
All that asides, I'd like to say that, from my personal experiences, Bing is pretty good. I've been using it on and off since its launch, before its ad campaign. Note that I still use Google on an everyday basis, but Bing has been doing better and better.
</p><p>
I spent a bored Saturday afternoon, comparing the two, with different methods that I use everyday for searching:
</p><ul>
<li>keywords or phrases</li><li>keywords, with + sign, AND, OR etc</li><li>Chinese keywords + English keywords</li><li>Natural questions (e.g. Where do I find xxx?), in English and Chinese</li><li>Proper names, product names, location names, etc</li><li>Some others non-pattern searches</li></ul><p>In over half of what I put in, Bing came up with results that made more sense to me, and which are closer to what I'm searching for. I found that Google is more and more rigged with "hidden" ads, which is quite annoying at times. Maybe it's just that Google is better known, and all the so-called SEO experts work on it more, but it's still annoying.
</p><p>That's just personal experience, and it's by no means scientific. YMMV. I, for one, welcome good search engine, even from the evil empire.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that Microsoft is to be evil , and Google is to be the good guy , and /.ers mostly side with Google , yada yada yada.. . All that asides , I 'd like to say that , from my personal experiences , Bing is pretty good .
I 've been using it on and off since its launch , before its ad campaign .
Note that I still use Google on an everyday basis , but Bing has been doing better and better .
I spent a bored Saturday afternoon , comparing the two , with different methods that I use everyday for searching : keywords or phraseskeywords , with + sign , AND , OR etcChinese keywords + English keywordsNatural questions ( e.g .
Where do I find xxx ?
) , in English and ChineseProper names , product names , location names , etcSome others non-pattern searchesIn over half of what I put in , Bing came up with results that made more sense to me , and which are closer to what I 'm searching for .
I found that Google is more and more rigged with " hidden " ads , which is quite annoying at times .
Maybe it 's just that Google is better known , and all the so-called SEO experts work on it more , but it 's still annoying .
That 's just personal experience , and it 's by no means scientific .
YMMV. I , for one , welcome good search engine , even from the evil empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that Microsoft is to be evil, and Google is to be the good guy, and /.ers mostly side with Google, yada yada yada...
All that asides, I'd like to say that, from my personal experiences, Bing is pretty good.
I've been using it on and off since its launch, before its ad campaign.
Note that I still use Google on an everyday basis, but Bing has been doing better and better.
I spent a bored Saturday afternoon, comparing the two, with different methods that I use everyday for searching:

keywords or phraseskeywords, with + sign, AND, OR etcChinese keywords + English keywordsNatural questions (e.g.
Where do I find xxx?
), in English and ChineseProper names, product names, location names, etcSome others non-pattern searchesIn over half of what I put in, Bing came up with results that made more sense to me, and which are closer to what I'm searching for.
I found that Google is more and more rigged with "hidden" ads, which is quite annoying at times.
Maybe it's just that Google is better known, and all the so-called SEO experts work on it more, but it's still annoying.
That's just personal experience, and it's by no means scientific.
YMMV. I, for one, welcome good search engine, even from the evil empire.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333981</id>
	<title>Isn't Bing implemented with FAST?</title>
	<author>Lord Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1245073440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft purchased FAST Search and Transfer last year (<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/fast-customer.aspx" title="microsoft.com">here</a> [microsoft.com] is a 'welcome page' for existing FAST customers).  I had assumed that Bing is a specific implementation of the FAST technology, but I could very well be wrong.  But if I'm right, then Sergey Brin doesn't have a whole lot of homework to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft purchased FAST Search and Transfer last year ( here [ microsoft.com ] is a 'welcome page ' for existing FAST customers ) .
I had assumed that Bing is a specific implementation of the FAST technology , but I could very well be wrong .
But if I 'm right , then Sergey Brin does n't have a whole lot of homework to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft purchased FAST Search and Transfer last year (here [microsoft.com] is a 'welcome page' for existing FAST customers).
I had assumed that Bing is a specific implementation of the FAST technology, but I could very well be wrong.
But if I'm right, then Sergey Brin doesn't have a whole lot of homework to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330403</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>COULD IT BE??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>COULD IT BE ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COULD IT BE?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333087</id>
	<title>Re:Well, I didn't think Americans would fall for.</title>
	<author>SnowZero</author>
	<datestamp>1245060420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think "Google", but when I think, "Bing", I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.</p></div><p>Sheesh, you may want to reconsider your search terms when doing video/image searches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think " Google " , but when I think , " Bing " , I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.Sheesh , you may want to reconsider your search terms when doing video/image searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think "Google", but when I think, "Bing", I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.Sheesh, you may want to reconsider your search terms when doing video/image searches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331645</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like porn a'plenty to me in both:</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=naked+women&amp;go=&amp;form=QBVR" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=naked+women&amp;go=&amp;form=QBVR</a> [bing.com]</p><p><a href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=naked+women#" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=naked+women#</a> [google.com]</p><p>(You have to turn off the safe search option on either too.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like porn a'plenty to me in both : http : //www.bing.com/videos/search ? q = naked + women&amp;go = &amp;form = QBVR [ bing.com ] http : //video.google.com/videosearch ? q = naked + women # [ google.com ] ( You have to turn off the safe search option on either too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like porn a'plenty to me in both:http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=naked+women&amp;go=&amp;form=QBVR [bing.com]http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=naked+women# [google.com](You have to turn off the safe search option on either too.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332367</id>
	<title>Just a reversed PR by proxy.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1245007200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This must be the most transparent desperate try at getting good PR i have seen in a long time. Its pretty obvious Microsoft wants to distribute a picture of Google "putting their best" at finding out what new wonderful things has come from the name change Microsoft did. Everyone knows its just a rebranded Live Search with hand tweaked results.</p><p>Bing is just as bad as Live Search unless you stumble upon a very limited set of handmade search results. Bottomline, its still Live Search and the algorithm still sucks. No amount of PR will change that.</p><p>The only thing i think Google is afraid of is Microsoft using its monopoly to crush any competition. Like, using an upgrade to change peoples search presets or pushing people towards bing no matter where they really want to go...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This must be the most transparent desperate try at getting good PR i have seen in a long time .
Its pretty obvious Microsoft wants to distribute a picture of Google " putting their best " at finding out what new wonderful things has come from the name change Microsoft did .
Everyone knows its just a rebranded Live Search with hand tweaked results.Bing is just as bad as Live Search unless you stumble upon a very limited set of handmade search results .
Bottomline , its still Live Search and the algorithm still sucks .
No amount of PR will change that.The only thing i think Google is afraid of is Microsoft using its monopoly to crush any competition .
Like , using an upgrade to change peoples search presets or pushing people towards bing no matter where they really want to go.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This must be the most transparent desperate try at getting good PR i have seen in a long time.
Its pretty obvious Microsoft wants to distribute a picture of Google "putting their best" at finding out what new wonderful things has come from the name change Microsoft did.
Everyone knows its just a rebranded Live Search with hand tweaked results.Bing is just as bad as Live Search unless you stumble upon a very limited set of handmade search results.
Bottomline, its still Live Search and the algorithm still sucks.
No amount of PR will change that.The only thing i think Google is afraid of is Microsoft using its monopoly to crush any competition.
Like, using an upgrade to change peoples search presets or pushing people towards bing no matter where they really want to go...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</id>
	<title>parent is lying</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1244989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent got rated "+5, insightful"...really?  More like "-1, full of shit".</p><p>See for yourself.  <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=hardwood+suppliers&amp;btnG=Google+Search" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=hardwood+suppliers&amp;btnG=Google+Search</a> [google.com]</p><p>I'm no carpenter, but I looked at all of the first 20 links and only one of them was a link farm.  The rest were either actual vendors of hardwood floor supplies or legitimate lists of suppliers (like the ones magazines often have).  In nearly every case there was an actual physical location or an online store where I could purchase wood.</p><p>If you're going to troll for Microsoft, go do it somewhere where people are too dumb to verify your claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent got rated " + 5 , insightful " ...really ?
More like " -1 , full of shit " .See for yourself .
http : //www.google.com/ # hl = en&amp;q = hardwood + suppliers&amp;btnG = Google + Search [ google.com ] I 'm no carpenter , but I looked at all of the first 20 links and only one of them was a link farm .
The rest were either actual vendors of hardwood floor supplies or legitimate lists of suppliers ( like the ones magazines often have ) .
In nearly every case there was an actual physical location or an online store where I could purchase wood.If you 're going to troll for Microsoft , go do it somewhere where people are too dumb to verify your claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent got rated "+5, insightful"...really?
More like "-1, full of shit".See for yourself.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=hardwood+suppliers&amp;btnG=Google+Search [google.com]I'm no carpenter, but I looked at all of the first 20 links and only one of them was a link farm.
The rest were either actual vendors of hardwood floor supplies or legitimate lists of suppliers (like the ones magazines often have).
In nearly every case there was an actual physical location or an online store where I could purchase wood.If you're going to troll for Microsoft, go do it somewhere where people are too dumb to verify your claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335275</id>
	<title>its not keeping google from sponsoring bing</title>
	<author>brain\_fingered</author>
	<datestamp>1245081240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I came across google sponsoring bing during an image search, i took a screen capture, obviously google isnt THAT scared if they took microsofts money..

<a href="http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/vegmzqv548gm13hntc21.png" title="imageurlhost.com" rel="nofollow"> Image Here</a> [imageurlhost.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I came across google sponsoring bing during an image search , i took a screen capture , obviously google isnt THAT scared if they took microsofts money. . Image Here [ imageurlhost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came across google sponsoring bing during an image search, i took a screen capture, obviously google isnt THAT scared if they took microsofts money..

 Image Here [imageurlhost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331179</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244993940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>pagerank has been around for a long time and it hasn't altogether changed much.</p></div></blockquote><p>PageRank (the patented ranking algorithm that put Google on the map) may not have changed much in the past decade.  However Google has a $2.1<b>B</b> annual R&amp;D budget. PageRank is only one of many, many tools in their toolbox.  IIRC, a webpage's ranking in their search results is determined by around 400 different variables--PageRank being just one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>pagerank has been around for a long time and it has n't altogether changed much.PageRank ( the patented ranking algorithm that put Google on the map ) may not have changed much in the past decade .
However Google has a $ 2.1B annual R&amp;D budget .
PageRank is only one of many , many tools in their toolbox .
IIRC , a webpage 's ranking in their search results is determined by around 400 different variables--PageRank being just one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pagerank has been around for a long time and it hasn't altogether changed much.PageRank (the patented ranking algorithm that put Google on the map) may not have changed much in the past decade.
However Google has a $2.1B annual R&amp;D budget.
PageRank is only one of many, many tools in their toolbox.
IIRC, a webpage's ranking in their search results is determined by around 400 different variables--PageRank being just one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331109</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244993100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No new and exciting features? You didn't try video search with no filtering, did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No new and exciting features ?
You did n't try video search with no filtering , did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No new and exciting features?
You didn't try video search with no filtering, did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330621</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1244987700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites</p><p>bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless. with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information. i could definately see why google has jumped into action, only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.</p></div><p>Google's link-aggregators are there because of Google's market share.  Were Bing to...uh...somehow become dominant, it would have the same sorts of problems pop up.  Anyway, I don't think quality matters when it comes to web search.  Google is a verb, and that's enough to give it the number one slot for a very long time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bing is better than google in many instances i 've tried it .
search for hardwood suppliers , bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies .
google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and " top 5 " sitesbing is n't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless .
with bing i do n't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information .
i could definately see why google has jumped into action , only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.Google 's link-aggregators are there because of Google 's market share .
Were Bing to...uh...somehow become dominant , it would have the same sorts of problems pop up .
Anyway , I do n't think quality matters when it comes to web search .
Google is a verb , and that 's enough to give it the number one slot for a very long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it.
search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies.
google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sitesbing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless.
with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information.
i could definately see why google has jumped into action, only a fool would dismiss anything MS does.Google's link-aggregators are there because of Google's market share.
Were Bing to...uh...somehow become dominant, it would have the same sorts of problems pop up.
Anyway, I don't think quality matters when it comes to web search.
Google is a verb, and that's enough to give it the number one slot for a very long time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333501</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245067860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL.  Another MS shill.  It's the same old, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but I sure do like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Or, it's I love Linux as much as any other Linux user, but it sure isn't ready for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....   At which point they bring up something that either has never been true of Linux, or if it is was true years ago but isn't now.  If they really used Linux even just a little they would know what they said wasn't true, and if they really liked Linux they wouldn't be spreading FUD about it.</p><p>It's the same old whisper campaign with just a slight variation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
Another MS shill .
It 's the same old , I hate MS as much as the next guy , but I sure do like ....Or , it 's I love Linux as much as any other Linux user , but it sure is n't ready for ..... At which point they bring up something that either has never been true of Linux , or if it is was true years ago but is n't now .
If they really used Linux even just a little they would know what they said was n't true , and if they really liked Linux they would n't be spreading FUD about it.It 's the same old whisper campaign with just a slight variation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
Another MS shill.
It's the same old, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but I sure do like ....Or, it's I love Linux as much as any other Linux user, but it sure isn't ready for .....   At which point they bring up something that either has never been true of Linux, or if it is was true years ago but isn't now.
If they really used Linux even just a little they would know what they said wasn't true, and if they really liked Linux they wouldn't be spreading FUD about it.It's the same old whisper campaign with just a slight variation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330735</id>
	<title>News flash</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1244988720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Elephant scared of teeny tiny mouse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Elephant scared of teeny tiny mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elephant scared of teeny tiny mouse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330721</id>
	<title>True, but...</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1244988600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If google has been sitting on their laurels, relatively speaking, and allowing SEO types to game the algorithm outside of Google's advertising model, then something is wrong.  If Bing truly has a roughly comparable quality results without being vulnerable to current google SEO strategies, then maybe one way or another it could make SEO less effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If google has been sitting on their laurels , relatively speaking , and allowing SEO types to game the algorithm outside of Google 's advertising model , then something is wrong .
If Bing truly has a roughly comparable quality results without being vulnerable to current google SEO strategies , then maybe one way or another it could make SEO less effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If google has been sitting on their laurels, relatively speaking, and allowing SEO types to game the algorithm outside of Google's advertising model, then something is wrong.
If Bing truly has a roughly comparable quality results without being vulnerable to current google SEO strategies, then maybe one way or another it could make SEO less effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331119</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244993280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a good side-by-side comparison of search results between Google &amp; Bing, try this site:    www.bingle.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a good side-by-side comparison of search results between Google &amp; Bing , try this site : www.bingle.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a good side-by-side comparison of search results between Google &amp; Bing, try this site:    www.bingle.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</id>
	<title>Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to bing.com and click on video search. Then type in "naked women" and hit enter. Hover your mouse over each thumbnail. Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing, they are already destroying them where it counts, as a porn search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to bing.com and click on video search .
Then type in " naked women " and hit enter .
Hover your mouse over each thumbnail .
Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing , they are already destroying them where it counts , as a porn search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to bing.com and click on video search.
Then type in "naked women" and hit enter.
Hover your mouse over each thumbnail.
Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing, they are already destroying them where it counts, as a porn search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330975</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1244991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naah, piece of crap. Have to give them credit for prefetching results in js and feeding them rather quickly.<br>(but apart from that - lousy, flashy (in a bad sense), and way off what I was looking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naah , piece of crap .
Have to give them credit for prefetching results in js and feeding them rather quickly .
( but apart from that - lousy , flashy ( in a bad sense ) , and way off what I was looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naah, piece of crap.
Have to give them credit for prefetching results in js and feeding them rather quickly.
(but apart from that - lousy, flashy (in a bad sense), and way off what I was looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's use Bing because it has one syllable. Plus, would you rather "Google" your friend's sister or "Bing" her?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's use Bing because it has one syllable .
Plus , would you rather " Google " your friend 's sister or " Bing " her ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's use Bing because it has one syllable.
Plus, would you rather "Google" your friend's sister or "Bing" her?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330669</id>
	<title>No Big Deal!</title>
	<author>cashman73</author>
	<datestamp>1244988180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't worry about anything until Sergey starts throwing chairs around!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about anything until Sergey starts throwing chairs around !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about anything until Sergey starts throwing chairs around!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334683</id>
	<title>I don't understand the interest in foam insulation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But why would Google be so interested in <a href="http://www.bing.org/" title="bing.org" rel="nofollow">rigid polyurethane foam insulation</a> [bing.org]?  I don't get it.</p><p>Something to do with data centres, maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But why would Google be so interested in rigid polyurethane foam insulation [ bing.org ] ?
I do n't get it.Something to do with data centres , maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why would Google be so interested in rigid polyurethane foam insulation [bing.org]?
I don't get it.Something to do with data centres, maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367</id>
	<title>Compare them yourself, without branding</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1244995560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare them yourself, without branding: <a href="http://blindsearch.fejus.com/" title="fejus.com">http://blindsearch.fejus.com/</a> [fejus.com]</p><p>This site basically outputs search results in three columns, with all formatting uniform, all branding removed and columns permuted on every search. You vote for the best results. I found myself unknowingly "voting" for Bing a surprising number of times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare them yourself , without branding : http : //blindsearch.fejus.com/ [ fejus.com ] This site basically outputs search results in three columns , with all formatting uniform , all branding removed and columns permuted on every search .
You vote for the best results .
I found myself unknowingly " voting " for Bing a surprising number of times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare them yourself, without branding: http://blindsearch.fejus.com/ [fejus.com]This site basically outputs search results in three columns, with all formatting uniform, all branding removed and columns permuted on every search.
You vote for the best results.
I found myself unknowingly "voting" for Bing a surprising number of times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335859</id>
	<title>Re:Compare them yourself, without branding</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245083760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I voted for bing on the one search I did, for Artificial Life.<br>
<br>
Mostly the results were the same, however two things stood out.<br>
<br>
One of the search engines did not link to the similar 'Synthetic Life' wikipedia page (which might have been what I was interrested in,) so I dropped it from the candidates...<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..while only one of them felt that the NOVA Science Now page on Artificial Life was important (something I am happy I found,) maing it the clear winner of the remaining two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I voted for bing on the one search I did , for Artificial Life .
Mostly the results were the same , however two things stood out .
One of the search engines did not link to the similar 'Synthetic Life ' wikipedia page ( which might have been what I was interrested in , ) so I dropped it from the candidates.. . ..while only one of them felt that the NOVA Science Now page on Artificial Life was important ( something I am happy I found , ) maing it the clear winner of the remaining two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I voted for bing on the one search I did, for Artificial Life.
Mostly the results were the same, however two things stood out.
One of the search engines did not link to the similar 'Synthetic Life' wikipedia page (which might have been what I was interrested in,) so I dropped it from the candidates...
 ..while only one of them felt that the NOVA Science Now page on Artificial Life was important (something I am happy I found,) maing it the clear winner of the remaining two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332901</id>
	<title>according to sources...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]Brin, according to sources..., is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists[/quote]</p><p>according to sources from Microsoft you mean, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] Brin , according to sources... , is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists [ /quote ] according to sources from Microsoft you mean , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]Brin, according to sources..., is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists[/quote]according to sources from Microsoft you mean, right?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333917</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>David Rolfe</author>
	<datestamp>1245072840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a similar sentiment the last time MS was spinning its wheels looking for traction in Internet search.<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=439888&amp;cid=22278050" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=439888&amp;cid=22278050</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>But let's look at what we get if we use Bing instead of Live... Re-writing that post a little bit we get:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bing can never be successful as a competitor in search because verbing its product produces absolute nonsense.  [...]</p><p>Evidence that Bing search will never dominate in mindshare:<br>"I Binged for my old highschool classmates."<br>"Just Bing my resume."<br>"You guys just sit around in your mom's basement Binging for pr0n."</p><p>If people are using Bing to <i>google</i> shit, they've lost.</p></div><p>It sounds like they are going to make some progress this time, but I'm still mostly on the outs with this name. For my demographic Bing doesn't associate with anything other than funny sounds and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler\_Bing" title="wikipedia.org">Chandler complaining about the WENUS</a> [wikipedia.org] or Annual Net Usage Statistics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar sentiment the last time MS was spinning its wheels looking for traction in Internet search.http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 439888&amp;cid = 22278050 [ slashdot.org ] But let 's look at what we get if we use Bing instead of Live... Re-writing that post a little bit we get : Bing can never be successful as a competitor in search because verbing its product produces absolute nonsense .
[ ... ] Evidence that Bing search will never dominate in mindshare : " I Binged for my old highschool classmates .
" " Just Bing my resume .
" " You guys just sit around in your mom 's basement Binging for pr0n .
" If people are using Bing to google shit , they 've lost.It sounds like they are going to make some progress this time , but I 'm still mostly on the outs with this name .
For my demographic Bing does n't associate with anything other than funny sounds and Chandler complaining about the WENUS [ wikipedia.org ] or Annual Net Usage Statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar sentiment the last time MS was spinning its wheels looking for traction in Internet search.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=439888&amp;cid=22278050 [slashdot.org]But let's look at what we get if we use Bing instead of Live... Re-writing that post a little bit we get:Bing can never be successful as a competitor in search because verbing its product produces absolute nonsense.
[...]Evidence that Bing search will never dominate in mindshare:"I Binged for my old highschool classmates.
""Just Bing my resume.
""You guys just sit around in your mom's basement Binging for pr0n.
"If people are using Bing to google shit, they've lost.It sounds like they are going to make some progress this time, but I'm still mostly on the outs with this name.
For my demographic Bing doesn't associate with anything other than funny sounds and Chandler complaining about the WENUS [wikipedia.org] or Annual Net Usage Statistics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336035</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>CreatorOfSmallTruths</author>
	<datestamp>1245084540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... just remember, that while you bing your friend's sister, someone is binging you...</p><p>I'll stay with google thanks the same M$..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... just remember , that while you bing your friend 's sister , someone is binging you...I 'll stay with google thanks the same M $ . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just remember, that while you bing your friend's sister, someone is binging you...I'll stay with google thanks the same M$..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331201</id>
	<title>Torn..</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1244994180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the one hand, the lack of a technologically compelling competitor to Google concerns me.  As a consequence, google susceptibility to SEO gaming is significant, but Google doesn't have a sound business justification to change what is working unless a competitor outdoes them.  Unfortunately, in business the only 'justifiable' time to fund improvements is when there is *something* to gain and Google simply has nothing to gain in this context without competition.</p><p>On the other hand, I don't think Microsoft should be the one to come in.  They are another goliath that retains some good technical people, but strategically knows little more than brute force nowadays to get into markets.  They bought their way into second place in game consoles, they are trying to buy their way into some niche markets where Linux currently leads (both in the server room and embedded spaces).  They tend to offer generally 'mostly sufficient' technology that doesn't really stack up to their competition or blow them away on a technical level, but earns what ground it can by sheer force of money earned through the markets they did corner at the right time with the right technology (invented or purchased).  Through dumping (and even further, sometimes essentially bribing customers to use their products) they pursue an obsessive need to take over new markets.</p><p>In other words, I want to see Google challenged by a competitor on the strength of the technology they offer, not on the strength of a massive marketing budget and the ability to blatantly lose money for future market share.  I have tons of respect for Google for actually innovating and revolutionizing search while every major player languished.  I want another google, not microsoft, to get Google back on its toes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , the lack of a technologically compelling competitor to Google concerns me .
As a consequence , google susceptibility to SEO gaming is significant , but Google does n't have a sound business justification to change what is working unless a competitor outdoes them .
Unfortunately , in business the only 'justifiable ' time to fund improvements is when there is * something * to gain and Google simply has nothing to gain in this context without competition.On the other hand , I do n't think Microsoft should be the one to come in .
They are another goliath that retains some good technical people , but strategically knows little more than brute force nowadays to get into markets .
They bought their way into second place in game consoles , they are trying to buy their way into some niche markets where Linux currently leads ( both in the server room and embedded spaces ) .
They tend to offer generally 'mostly sufficient ' technology that does n't really stack up to their competition or blow them away on a technical level , but earns what ground it can by sheer force of money earned through the markets they did corner at the right time with the right technology ( invented or purchased ) .
Through dumping ( and even further , sometimes essentially bribing customers to use their products ) they pursue an obsessive need to take over new markets.In other words , I want to see Google challenged by a competitor on the strength of the technology they offer , not on the strength of a massive marketing budget and the ability to blatantly lose money for future market share .
I have tons of respect for Google for actually innovating and revolutionizing search while every major player languished .
I want another google , not microsoft , to get Google back on its toes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, the lack of a technologically compelling competitor to Google concerns me.
As a consequence, google susceptibility to SEO gaming is significant, but Google doesn't have a sound business justification to change what is working unless a competitor outdoes them.
Unfortunately, in business the only 'justifiable' time to fund improvements is when there is *something* to gain and Google simply has nothing to gain in this context without competition.On the other hand, I don't think Microsoft should be the one to come in.
They are another goliath that retains some good technical people, but strategically knows little more than brute force nowadays to get into markets.
They bought their way into second place in game consoles, they are trying to buy their way into some niche markets where Linux currently leads (both in the server room and embedded spaces).
They tend to offer generally 'mostly sufficient' technology that doesn't really stack up to their competition or blow them away on a technical level, but earns what ground it can by sheer force of money earned through the markets they did corner at the right time with the right technology (invented or purchased).
Through dumping (and even further, sometimes essentially bribing customers to use their products) they pursue an obsessive need to take over new markets.In other words, I want to see Google challenged by a competitor on the strength of the technology they offer, not on the strength of a massive marketing budget and the ability to blatantly lose money for future market share.
I have tons of respect for Google for actually innovating and revolutionizing search while every major player languished.
I want another google, not microsoft, to get Google back on its toes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333141</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245061320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does video search really exist?  I'm in Spain, and have selected English language and unfiltered results, but I only see "Web", "Images", "compras", "News" and "xRank".  Oh, and the search results are abysmal:</p><p> <a href="http://www.ping.uio.no/~mortehu/bing.png" title="ping.uio.no" rel="nofollow">Bing search for salad</a> [ping.uio.no] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does video search really exist ?
I 'm in Spain , and have selected English language and unfiltered results , but I only see " Web " , " Images " , " compras " , " News " and " xRank " .
Oh , and the search results are abysmal : Bing search for salad [ ping.uio.no ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does video search really exist?
I'm in Spain, and have selected English language and unfiltered results, but I only see "Web", "Images", "compras", "News" and "xRank".
Oh, and the search results are abysmal: Bing search for salad [ping.uio.no] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332525</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245009540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an interesting theory... until you actually go ahead and do those searches and find that, yup, they're pretty much just as good as each other in speed and quality of the result, but Bing does better on the ancillary things like logical arrangement and UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an interesting theory... until you actually go ahead and do those searches and find that , yup , they 're pretty much just as good as each other in speed and quality of the result , but Bing does better on the ancillary things like logical arrangement and UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an interesting theory... until you actually go ahead and do those searches and find that, yup, they're pretty much just as good as each other in speed and quality of the result, but Bing does better on the ancillary things like logical arrangement and UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330511</id>
	<title>I don't know, but it should</title>
	<author>juanergie</author>
	<datestamp>1244986800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any self-respecting organization will take a close look at a competitor product, specially when such competitor happens to be one of the world's largest player in the industry.</p><p>Bing will certainly snatch a fraction of the market share owned by Google; modern top management theories demand that Google determines whether the market share lost to the rival will be a single user or a more considerable fraction.</p><p>It is not about Sergei pissing his pants, but about him and his company designing a solid strategy to respond to their competitor's move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any self-respecting organization will take a close look at a competitor product , specially when such competitor happens to be one of the world 's largest player in the industry.Bing will certainly snatch a fraction of the market share owned by Google ; modern top management theories demand that Google determines whether the market share lost to the rival will be a single user or a more considerable fraction.It is not about Sergei pissing his pants , but about him and his company designing a solid strategy to respond to their competitor 's move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any self-respecting organization will take a close look at a competitor product, specially when such competitor happens to be one of the world's largest player in the industry.Bing will certainly snatch a fraction of the market share owned by Google; modern top management theories demand that Google determines whether the market share lost to the rival will be a single user or a more considerable fraction.It is not about Sergei pissing his pants, but about him and his company designing a solid strategy to respond to their competitor's move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331147</id>
	<title>Google is doing...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1244993580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... exactly what they should be doing --- staying abreast of and responding to competitive threats.  <p>.<br>

The only news here is why some people think this is newsworthy.   Is Microsoft trying to push this issue to the forefront in order to embelish their faulty attempt to enter the search business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... exactly what they should be doing --- staying abreast of and responding to competitive threats .
. The only news here is why some people think this is newsworthy .
Is Microsoft trying to push this issue to the forefront in order to embelish their faulty attempt to enter the search business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... exactly what they should be doing --- staying abreast of and responding to competitive threats.
.

The only news here is why some people think this is newsworthy.
Is Microsoft trying to push this issue to the forefront in order to embelish their faulty attempt to enter the search business?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331225</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1244994420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try this: <a href="http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari/" title="inquisitorx.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari/</a> [inquisitorx.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this : http : //www.inquisitorx.com/safari/ [ inquisitorx.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this: http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari/ [inquisitorx.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330703</id>
	<title>You may hate to say it, (me too) but I've had the</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1244988360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...same good results. Google's page rank system can and is being gamed all the time and so Google results includes lots of results that Bing's algorithm spares us from. Brin is right to be nervous. And I hate to say it too (i.e.,that Bing is a Mircro$oft service.) It just goes to show that MS really can perform, when they want to. It was the same way during the browser wars years ago. MS made a better one at a lower cost and improved it constantly. But after Netscape was crushed MS just cruised along on the wave of a monopoly. IE got stale, slow and ripe for competition to emerge. Kinda like Google search is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...same good results .
Google 's page rank system can and is being gamed all the time and so Google results includes lots of results that Bing 's algorithm spares us from .
Brin is right to be nervous .
And I hate to say it too ( i.e.,that Bing is a Mircro $ oft service .
) It just goes to show that MS really can perform , when they want to .
It was the same way during the browser wars years ago .
MS made a better one at a lower cost and improved it constantly .
But after Netscape was crushed MS just cruised along on the wave of a monopoly .
IE got stale , slow and ripe for competition to emerge .
Kinda like Google search is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...same good results.
Google's page rank system can and is being gamed all the time and so Google results includes lots of results that Bing's algorithm spares us from.
Brin is right to be nervous.
And I hate to say it too (i.e.,that Bing is a Mircro$oft service.
) It just goes to show that MS really can perform, when they want to.
It was the same way during the browser wars years ago.
MS made a better one at a lower cost and improved it constantly.
But after Netscape was crushed MS just cruised along on the wave of a monopoly.
IE got stale, slow and ripe for competition to emerge.
Kinda like Google search is today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332187</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define "allow".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " allow " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "allow".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330627</id>
	<title>Simply No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is US centric garbage and the add rating agencies will note this in hours.</p><p>It is a further failure in M$ top down thinking, and their ability to hire and motivate good people.</p><p>Would you want to work for a chair throwing idiot standing for a college drop out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is US centric garbage and the add rating agencies will note this in hours.It is a further failure in M $ top down thinking , and their ability to hire and motivate good people.Would you want to work for a chair throwing idiot standing for a college drop out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is US centric garbage and the add rating agencies will note this in hours.It is a further failure in M$ top down thinking, and their ability to hire and motivate good people.Would you want to work for a chair throwing idiot standing for a college drop out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331923</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245001620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No video search on Bing, if you are in Finland (maybe in other countries, too).</p><p>Also, the search results are tailored for the Finnish. And they are brain-dead, compared to the Google search results.</p><p>At least Google works equally well in every country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No video search on Bing , if you are in Finland ( maybe in other countries , too ) .Also , the search results are tailored for the Finnish .
And they are brain-dead , compared to the Google search results.At least Google works equally well in every country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No video search on Bing, if you are in Finland (maybe in other countries, too).Also, the search results are tailored for the Finnish.
And they are brain-dead, compared to the Google search results.At least Google works equally well in every country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332431</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is used on Microsoft.com to search the knowledgebase.  So if you work in support or development, it's just a matter of time.  You can use Google with the site:support.microsoft.com search term if you feel compelled to avoid Bing.</p><p>I kind of like it.  It's so Crosby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is used on Microsoft.com to search the knowledgebase .
So if you work in support or development , it 's just a matter of time .
You can use Google with the site : support.microsoft.com search term if you feel compelled to avoid Bing.I kind of like it .
It 's so Crosby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is used on Microsoft.com to search the knowledgebase.
So if you work in support or development, it's just a matter of time.
You can use Google with the site:support.microsoft.com search term if you feel compelled to avoid Bing.I kind of like it.
It's so Crosby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334035</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1245074040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I've used it a half dozen times now and compared the results against Google.</p><p>The first time I used Bing I got a lot of results which Google didn't even show. I thought, "Wow! Maybe Bing really is better." Then I really started looking at the results. Most all that Google didn't provide required translation. None provided any value. With the exception of the results that Google also provided, the extra results were nothing but garbage. Even after translation they provided no value.</p><p>Result - Google won every comparison. Google did a far better job of removing the superfluous, irrelevant, and downright unrelated. Bing provide far more results but all of the "far more" was nothing but garbage.</p><p>Once you consider that despite Bing's serious advertising campaign their traffic has already significantly fallen off and their results (at least for me) were far worse than what Google provides, I can't possibly see how Google is worried. In fact, this entire story smells of Microsoft paying for a story and placement. As I said before, MS is an excellent marketing company. They've been caught doing this type thing many times before. I can't imagine they are not doing is now - especially since they have so much riding on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I 've used it a half dozen times now and compared the results against Google.The first time I used Bing I got a lot of results which Google did n't even show .
I thought , " Wow !
Maybe Bing really is better .
" Then I really started looking at the results .
Most all that Google did n't provide required translation .
None provided any value .
With the exception of the results that Google also provided , the extra results were nothing but garbage .
Even after translation they provided no value.Result - Google won every comparison .
Google did a far better job of removing the superfluous , irrelevant , and downright unrelated .
Bing provide far more results but all of the " far more " was nothing but garbage.Once you consider that despite Bing 's serious advertising campaign their traffic has already significantly fallen off and their results ( at least for me ) were far worse than what Google provides , I ca n't possibly see how Google is worried .
In fact , this entire story smells of Microsoft paying for a story and placement .
As I said before , MS is an excellent marketing company .
They 've been caught doing this type thing many times before .
I ca n't imagine they are not doing is now - especially since they have so much riding on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I've used it a half dozen times now and compared the results against Google.The first time I used Bing I got a lot of results which Google didn't even show.
I thought, "Wow!
Maybe Bing really is better.
" Then I really started looking at the results.
Most all that Google didn't provide required translation.
None provided any value.
With the exception of the results that Google also provided, the extra results were nothing but garbage.
Even after translation they provided no value.Result - Google won every comparison.
Google did a far better job of removing the superfluous, irrelevant, and downright unrelated.
Bing provide far more results but all of the "far more" was nothing but garbage.Once you consider that despite Bing's serious advertising campaign their traffic has already significantly fallen off and their results (at least for me) were far worse than what Google provides, I can't possibly see how Google is worried.
In fact, this entire story smells of Microsoft paying for a story and placement.
As I said before, MS is an excellent marketing company.
They've been caught doing this type thing many times before.
I can't imagine they are not doing is now - especially since they have so much riding on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331871</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>zx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1245001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did, and the search returned a Jimmy Kemel clip. Biggest. Letdown. Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did , and the search returned a Jimmy Kemel clip .
Biggest. Letdown .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did, and the search returned a Jimmy Kemel clip.
Biggest. Letdown.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330483</id>
	<title>The machine the goes BING!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical Microsoft.</p><p>It's all marketing.</p><p>Woo hoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical Microsoft.It 's all marketing.Woo hoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical Microsoft.It's all marketing.Woo hoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333665</id>
	<title>Bing?</title>
	<author>Povno</author>
	<datestamp>1245070140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it run in WINE?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it run in WINE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it run in WINE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331933</id>
	<title>ok so now we know someone at m$oft is feeding</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1245001680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>m$soft is getting desperate and feeding stories to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to get their name on the map.. lmao</htmltext>
<tokenext>m $ soft is getting desperate and feeding stories to / .
to get their name on the map.. lmao</tokentext>
<sentencetext>m$soft is getting desperate and feeding stories to /.
to get their name on the map.. lmao</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331061</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>HUKI365</author>
	<datestamp>1244992440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remeber the last time you bought a Biro or a thermos?

Just because your name is used as a verb rather than a noun doesn't mean you won't eventually disappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remeber the last time you bought a Biro or a thermos ?
Just because your name is used as a verb rather than a noun does n't mean you wo n't eventually disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remeber the last time you bought a Biro or a thermos?
Just because your name is used as a verb rather than a noun doesn't mean you won't eventually disappear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28339235</id>
	<title>More competition please!</title>
	<author>frukostflingor</author>
	<datestamp>1245097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I think we certainly do need more competition in this field. The features that Bing seems to bring to the table seems more like bling than actually useful features, but none the less, it might get Google to actually improve their service.<br>

My main gripe today is that with any search engine you will find 2000000 hits, or none. Not often something in between. Why? Because first thing the search engine does after you feed it your query, is ignore most of the important parts and spew nonsense result at you as a result. So you add more words to limit the query, probably picking the other word for the same thing (ie not the one the author of the page you're looking for used) and so you miss the pages you want.<br>
<br>
An example... put "Get(Set(go))" nicely quoted into Google, and it will happy mash it down to "get" "set" "go", ignoring everything that was important (caps and parenthesis) to make the query specific and useful.<br>
<br>
Imagine something like "near" (within 20 words, maybe), "exact" that actually took into account caps and non-alphabetic characters, or dream of all dreams "regexp" to search with:<br>
<tt>("X" near "Y") and (regexp "z+" near (exact "/." or "Slashdot")) and fuzzy "brauser setings" and synonym "save"</tt> <br>
<br>
What if you could drop something like that into Google? You would actually be able to find what you needed! I'm not saying this should be a default search mode. Natural language parsing would be a nicer default one. But even the simplest thing like "search for this exact string (caps, strange characters and all)" isn't available today, even in advanced mode!<br>
<br>
Now I know there are search engines out there that actually have/had parts of these features (like one which I found that could do regexp, but used it only to broaden the search, not limit it, making it useless). But I have yet to find one that actually works well. Feel free to point me at one if you know one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think we certainly do need more competition in this field .
The features that Bing seems to bring to the table seems more like bling than actually useful features , but none the less , it might get Google to actually improve their service .
My main gripe today is that with any search engine you will find 2000000 hits , or none .
Not often something in between .
Why ? Because first thing the search engine does after you feed it your query , is ignore most of the important parts and spew nonsense result at you as a result .
So you add more words to limit the query , probably picking the other word for the same thing ( ie not the one the author of the page you 're looking for used ) and so you miss the pages you want .
An example... put " Get ( Set ( go ) ) " nicely quoted into Google , and it will happy mash it down to " get " " set " " go " , ignoring everything that was important ( caps and parenthesis ) to make the query specific and useful .
Imagine something like " near " ( within 20 words , maybe ) , " exact " that actually took into account caps and non-alphabetic characters , or dream of all dreams " regexp " to search with : ( " X " near " Y " ) and ( regexp " z + " near ( exact " / .
" or " Slashdot " ) ) and fuzzy " brauser setings " and synonym " save " What if you could drop something like that into Google ?
You would actually be able to find what you needed !
I 'm not saying this should be a default search mode .
Natural language parsing would be a nicer default one .
But even the simplest thing like " search for this exact string ( caps , strange characters and all ) " is n't available today , even in advanced mode !
Now I know there are search engines out there that actually have/had parts of these features ( like one which I found that could do regexp , but used it only to broaden the search , not limit it , making it useless ) .
But I have yet to find one that actually works well .
Feel free to point me at one if you know one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think we certainly do need more competition in this field.
The features that Bing seems to bring to the table seems more like bling than actually useful features, but none the less, it might get Google to actually improve their service.
My main gripe today is that with any search engine you will find 2000000 hits, or none.
Not often something in between.
Why? Because first thing the search engine does after you feed it your query, is ignore most of the important parts and spew nonsense result at you as a result.
So you add more words to limit the query, probably picking the other word for the same thing (ie not the one the author of the page you're looking for used) and so you miss the pages you want.
An example... put "Get(Set(go))" nicely quoted into Google, and it will happy mash it down to "get" "set" "go", ignoring everything that was important (caps and parenthesis) to make the query specific and useful.
Imagine something like "near" (within 20 words, maybe), "exact" that actually took into account caps and non-alphabetic characters, or dream of all dreams "regexp" to search with:
("X" near "Y") and (regexp "z+" near (exact "/.
" or "Slashdot")) and fuzzy "brauser setings" and synonym "save" 

What if you could drop something like that into Google?
You would actually be able to find what you needed!
I'm not saying this should be a default search mode.
Natural language parsing would be a nicer default one.
But even the simplest thing like "search for this exact string (caps, strange characters and all)" isn't available today, even in advanced mode!
Now I know there are search engines out there that actually have/had parts of these features (like one which I found that could do regexp, but used it only to broaden the search, not limit it, making it useless).
But I have yet to find one that actually works well.
Feel free to point me at one if you know one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330793</id>
	<title>Re:What do you mean "If"?</title>
	<author>Allicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1244989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com">http://www.alexa.com/topsites</a> [alexa.com]</p><p>Only one domain on the entire web gets more traffic than yahoo.com and that's obviously google.com.</p><p>In various countries in the far-east, Yahoo beats out Google to the #1 spot.</p><p>Yahoo is still a vast presence in search-engine-land.</p><p>And yep, my granny says "I'll google it" and promptly clicks on her yahoo.com bookmark. The term means "search" to many users, not any specific brand. In much the same way (at least in the UK) that someone might "hoover the room" with their Dyson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.alexa.com/topsites [ alexa.com ] Only one domain on the entire web gets more traffic than yahoo.com and that 's obviously google.com.In various countries in the far-east , Yahoo beats out Google to the # 1 spot.Yahoo is still a vast presence in search-engine-land.And yep , my granny says " I 'll google it " and promptly clicks on her yahoo.com bookmark .
The term means " search " to many users , not any specific brand .
In much the same way ( at least in the UK ) that someone might " hoover the room " with their Dyson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.alexa.com/topsites [alexa.com]Only one domain on the entire web gets more traffic than yahoo.com and that's obviously google.com.In various countries in the far-east, Yahoo beats out Google to the #1 spot.Yahoo is still a vast presence in search-engine-land.And yep, my granny says "I'll google it" and promptly clicks on her yahoo.com bookmark.
The term means "search" to many users, not any specific brand.
In much the same way (at least in the UK) that someone might "hoover the room" with their Dyson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28343881</id>
	<title>"The Post has learned"</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1245082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is an oxymoron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is an oxymoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is an oxymoron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330803</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1244989320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used it once.  There were Spanish and Italian links within the first three results. Around result seven was a title full of line noise and text full of random words.  Somewhere in the results I saw \_anal sex\_.

I had to wipe away a tear, for bing reminded me of the Alta Vista search engine from the 1990s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used it once .
There were Spanish and Italian links within the first three results .
Around result seven was a title full of line noise and text full of random words .
Somewhere in the results I saw \ _anal sex \ _ .
I had to wipe away a tear , for bing reminded me of the Alta Vista search engine from the 1990s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used it once.
There were Spanish and Italian links within the first three results.
Around result seven was a title full of line noise and text full of random words.
Somewhere in the results I saw \_anal sex\_.
I had to wipe away a tear, for bing reminded me of the Alta Vista search engine from the 1990s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331679</id>
	<title>Simple answer...</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1244998440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331185</id>
	<title>Google actually IS vulnerable</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1244994060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the past 5 years or so, I've outright dismissed every pretender "Google killer" that comes along.  Then, after the Bing release I started thinking about my latest searches through Google.  The fact is I've been getting so many advertising links returned instead of what I'm looking for that the first page often doesn't give me what I'm looking for (quite different from the past).  I don't know when this degradation in performance for commercial interests happened, but I'm now aware of it and annoyed enough that I'd consider another search engine.  That to me is what makes this time different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the past 5 years or so , I 've outright dismissed every pretender " Google killer " that comes along .
Then , after the Bing release I started thinking about my latest searches through Google .
The fact is I 've been getting so many advertising links returned instead of what I 'm looking for that the first page often does n't give me what I 'm looking for ( quite different from the past ) .
I do n't know when this degradation in performance for commercial interests happened , but I 'm now aware of it and annoyed enough that I 'd consider another search engine .
That to me is what makes this time different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the past 5 years or so, I've outright dismissed every pretender "Google killer" that comes along.
Then, after the Bing release I started thinking about my latest searches through Google.
The fact is I've been getting so many advertising links returned instead of what I'm looking for that the first page often doesn't give me what I'm looking for (quite different from the past).
I don't know when this degradation in performance for commercial interests happened, but I'm now aware of it and annoyed enough that I'd consider another search engine.
That to me is what makes this time different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28357287</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Grail</author>
	<datestamp>1245169500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Bing every day. Every time I'm looking for some information, I'll ask Google and Bing the same question.</p><p>Bing rocks at questions like, "what is searchability?" (searchability is the marketing phrase describing the ability for people to find stuff - that is, the efficacy of your Search function). In the meantime, Google is better at answering questions such as "what is element 102 on the periodic table?" Bing answers that question with preference to marketing-style pages (what is the periodic table? here is an interactive periodic table!), Google answers "Nobelium".</p><p>So Bing is very much like the Microsoft support desk: "element 102 on the periodic table is the one you find at position 102 in the table." Google is more like the computer geek over in the back corner: "The answer is 42, but don't expect me to explain the question to you."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Bing every day .
Every time I 'm looking for some information , I 'll ask Google and Bing the same question.Bing rocks at questions like , " what is searchability ?
" ( searchability is the marketing phrase describing the ability for people to find stuff - that is , the efficacy of your Search function ) .
In the meantime , Google is better at answering questions such as " what is element 102 on the periodic table ?
" Bing answers that question with preference to marketing-style pages ( what is the periodic table ?
here is an interactive periodic table !
) , Google answers " Nobelium " .So Bing is very much like the Microsoft support desk : " element 102 on the periodic table is the one you find at position 102 in the table .
" Google is more like the computer geek over in the back corner : " The answer is 42 , but do n't expect me to explain the question to you .
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Bing every day.
Every time I'm looking for some information, I'll ask Google and Bing the same question.Bing rocks at questions like, "what is searchability?
" (searchability is the marketing phrase describing the ability for people to find stuff - that is, the efficacy of your Search function).
In the meantime, Google is better at answering questions such as "what is element 102 on the periodic table?
" Bing answers that question with preference to marketing-style pages (what is the periodic table?
here is an interactive periodic table!
), Google answers "Nobelium".So Bing is very much like the Microsoft support desk: "element 102 on the periodic table is the one you find at position 102 in the table.
" Google is more like the computer geek over in the back corner: "The answer is 42, but don't expect me to explain the question to you.
" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332507</id>
	<title>Shopping - Money Back will grab customers....</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1245009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surprised no one said anything about this. Once people discover they can get money back while shopping online, they just might stay. Thats a big incentive for some people. Also, the technology they recently bought for travel is also a big deal.
I dont like Microsoft, I believe they are dumping on the market to grab share and then screw everyone eventually. They can afford to do this because they are not a search company at the core.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprised no one said anything about this .
Once people discover they can get money back while shopping online , they just might stay .
Thats a big incentive for some people .
Also , the technology they recently bought for travel is also a big deal .
I dont like Microsoft , I believe they are dumping on the market to grab share and then screw everyone eventually .
They can afford to do this because they are not a search company at the core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprised no one said anything about this.
Once people discover they can get money back while shopping online, they just might stay.
Thats a big incentive for some people.
Also, the technology they recently bought for travel is also a big deal.
I dont like Microsoft, I believe they are dumping on the market to grab share and then screw everyone eventually.
They can afford to do this because they are not a search company at the core.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330731</id>
	<title>Dot Connections</title>
	<author>DannyO152</author>
	<datestamp>1244988660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see. NY Post = NewsCorp, Hulu; Google = Newspaper-killer who should pay to link news articles, YouTube. MySpace fits in the mix somehow (NewsCorp owned).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see .
NY Post = NewsCorp , Hulu ; Google = Newspaper-killer who should pay to link news articles , YouTube .
MySpace fits in the mix somehow ( NewsCorp owned ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see.
NY Post = NewsCorp, Hulu; Google = Newspaper-killer who should pay to link news articles, YouTube.
MySpace fits in the mix somehow (NewsCorp owned).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333799</id>
	<title>I knew Bing sucked when....</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1245071580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I clicked on one of the image hotspots on the Bing homepage, and Bing prompted me to install Silverlight.</p><p>Oh.. I get it... another demonstration of Microsoft's inability to NOT leverage platform.</p><p>Fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I clicked on one of the image hotspots on the Bing homepage , and Bing prompted me to install Silverlight.Oh.. I get it... another demonstration of Microsoft 's inability to NOT leverage platform.Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I clicked on one of the image hotspots on the Bing homepage, and Bing prompted me to install Silverlight.Oh.. I get it... another demonstration of Microsoft's inability to NOT leverage platform.Fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330929</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244990700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, but I guess it's just unfortunate that Microsoft is the one to offer that competition. It just seems like it'd be such a tragedy if they won. I'd feel a lot more charitable towards a competing search engine if it were some startup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , but I guess it 's just unfortunate that Microsoft is the one to offer that competition .
It just seems like it 'd be such a tragedy if they won .
I 'd feel a lot more charitable towards a competing search engine if it were some startup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, but I guess it's just unfortunate that Microsoft is the one to offer that competition.
It just seems like it'd be such a tragedy if they won.
I'd feel a lot more charitable towards a competing search engine if it were some startup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330503</id>
	<title>Bing doesn't work...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this might shock the US crowd, but the rest of the world exists too, and nobody told Microsoft while they were developing Bing's neat features. So what happens is, that all those interesting little local search and filter things are useless to everyone else and winds just winds up being Live Search with new branding.</p><p>I like the concept of the filters but they only work for a very small selection of US centric pre-selected results. In fact if it isn't on MSN.com it doesn't seem to exist as far as Bing is concerned.</p><p>So bing is meh, it was an interesting demo but just wasn't developed enough to be a real product. Google's unfiltered results are still much better than Live Search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this might shock the US crowd , but the rest of the world exists too , and nobody told Microsoft while they were developing Bing 's neat features .
So what happens is , that all those interesting little local search and filter things are useless to everyone else and winds just winds up being Live Search with new branding.I like the concept of the filters but they only work for a very small selection of US centric pre-selected results .
In fact if it is n't on MSN.com it does n't seem to exist as far as Bing is concerned.So bing is meh , it was an interesting demo but just was n't developed enough to be a real product .
Google 's unfiltered results are still much better than Live Search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this might shock the US crowd, but the rest of the world exists too, and nobody told Microsoft while they were developing Bing's neat features.
So what happens is, that all those interesting little local search and filter things are useless to everyone else and winds just winds up being Live Search with new branding.I like the concept of the filters but they only work for a very small selection of US centric pre-selected results.
In fact if it isn't on MSN.com it doesn't seem to exist as far as Bing is concerned.So bing is meh, it was an interesting demo but just wasn't developed enough to be a real product.
Google's unfiltered results are still much better than Live Search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330741</id>
	<title>Video Search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244988780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After putting "stargate s05e08" in the video search, I must say, I'm impressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After putting " stargate s05e08 " in the video search , I must say , I 'm impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After putting "stargate s05e08" in the video search, I must say, I'm impressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331139</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1244993520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing?</p><p>
&nbsp; If Sergei Brin is worried about Bing it's because he hasn't actually used it.  Even on Channel 9, Microsoft's official fanboy site, people are trashing Bing.</p><p>Bing is to Google as Microsoft Paint is to Adobe Photoshop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing ?
  If Sergei Brin is worried about Bing it 's because he has n't actually used it .
Even on Channel 9 , Microsoft 's official fanboy site , people are trashing Bing.Bing is to Google as Microsoft Paint is to Adobe Photoshop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing?
  If Sergei Brin is worried about Bing it's because he hasn't actually used it.
Even on Channel 9, Microsoft's official fanboy site, people are trashing Bing.Bing is to Google as Microsoft Paint is to Adobe Photoshop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331023</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1244991960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have bing set as the default search engine in IE8 and use the Firefox home page portal to google in Firefox.  I use each about 50\% of the time.  I'm still learning how to use Bing properly; i.e. typing in the name of a town doesn't always take me to a map; but it took me a while how to use google too.</p><p>I'd say that competition is great these days; I use multiple things and bounce back and forth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have bing set as the default search engine in IE8 and use the Firefox home page portal to google in Firefox .
I use each about 50 \ % of the time .
I 'm still learning how to use Bing properly ; i.e .
typing in the name of a town does n't always take me to a map ; but it took me a while how to use google too.I 'd say that competition is great these days ; I use multiple things and bounce back and forth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have bing set as the default search engine in IE8 and use the Firefox home page portal to google in Firefox.
I use each about 50\% of the time.
I'm still learning how to use Bing properly; i.e.
typing in the name of a town doesn't always take me to a map; but it took me a while how to use google too.I'd say that competition is great these days; I use multiple things and bounce back and forth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334545</id>
	<title>Remembering search engine dead ends</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1245077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose everybody that reads your post and finds it interesting will head over to the blind search and do their own test.  I know I did.  Score:  Google 3, Bing 3, Yahoo 4.  Weird.</p><p>The only thing I've learned here is how much I miss the old Dogpile with its results broken out by search engine, the old Northern Light with its ability to parse URLs so wonderfully and the way HotBot just seemed, back in the day, to find stuff.</p><p>Anybody know a good URL search engine, one that allows me to search for text strings within URLs, including specifying at what level in the URL the string appears?  I *really* miss Northern Light; I hope some current search engine can do the same and I just don't know how to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose everybody that reads your post and finds it interesting will head over to the blind search and do their own test .
I know I did .
Score : Google 3 , Bing 3 , Yahoo 4 .
Weird.The only thing I 've learned here is how much I miss the old Dogpile with its results broken out by search engine , the old Northern Light with its ability to parse URLs so wonderfully and the way HotBot just seemed , back in the day , to find stuff.Anybody know a good URL search engine , one that allows me to search for text strings within URLs , including specifying at what level in the URL the string appears ?
I * really * miss Northern Light ; I hope some current search engine can do the same and I just do n't know how to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose everybody that reads your post and finds it interesting will head over to the blind search and do their own test.
I know I did.
Score:  Google 3, Bing 3, Yahoo 4.
Weird.The only thing I've learned here is how much I miss the old Dogpile with its results broken out by search engine, the old Northern Light with its ability to parse URLs so wonderfully and the way HotBot just seemed, back in the day, to find stuff.Anybody know a good URL search engine, one that allows me to search for text strings within URLs, including specifying at what level in the URL the string appears?
I *really* miss Northern Light; I hope some current search engine can do the same and I just don't know how to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333079</id>
	<title>Hats off to Microsoft's PR</title>
	<author>drunkenoafoffofb3ta</author>
	<datestamp>1245060240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really. Well done. This story; the "sound of found" name for something I'd associate with the waste product of coal mining (bing).

Actually, Bing's pretty good too. I did bother to try it, thanks to the marketing. But for some reason, I've returned to Google since trying it. Hmm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really .
Well done .
This story ; the " sound of found " name for something I 'd associate with the waste product of coal mining ( bing ) .
Actually , Bing 's pretty good too .
I did bother to try it , thanks to the marketing .
But for some reason , I 've returned to Google since trying it .
Hmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really.
Well done.
This story; the "sound of found" name for something I'd associate with the waste product of coal mining (bing).
Actually, Bing's pretty good too.
I did bother to try it, thanks to the marketing.
But for some reason, I've returned to Google since trying it.
Hmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330603</id>
	<title>What do you mean "If"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you mean "<b>If</b> Yahoo exited the field"? Do you actually know anyone who uses Yahoo for search? What was the last time you've heard "yahoo it"? How about "google it"?

Yahoo still makes the best portal (my.yahoo.com - although they are getting annoying with their cutesy changes), but search? Anyone remember Altavista? Yahoo, meet Altavista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean " If Yahoo exited the field " ?
Do you actually know anyone who uses Yahoo for search ?
What was the last time you 've heard " yahoo it " ?
How about " google it " ?
Yahoo still makes the best portal ( my.yahoo.com - although they are getting annoying with their cutesy changes ) , but search ?
Anyone remember Altavista ?
Yahoo , meet Altavista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean "If Yahoo exited the field"?
Do you actually know anyone who uses Yahoo for search?
What was the last time you've heard "yahoo it"?
How about "google it"?
Yahoo still makes the best portal (my.yahoo.com - although they are getting annoying with their cutesy changes), but search?
Anyone remember Altavista?
Yahoo, meet Altavista.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332935</id>
	<title>Bing Error messages</title>
	<author>idigitallDotCom</author>
	<datestamp>1245058200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading many comments in this feed, I decided to get over to <a href="http://www.bing.com/" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/</a> [bing.com] to search for something I use regularly (eclipse rcp) and compare it to Google's results on that same topic. But, I got this error when I hit [Enter]. In the 5 years I've been using Google, this sort of error has *never* happened [to me]. That was my cue to get off slashdot, stop wasting time with Bing and start some work.</p><p>ASSERT: *** Search: \_installLocation: engine has no file!</p><p>Stack Trace:</p><p>0:ENSURE\_WARN(false,\_installLocation: engine has no file!,2147500037)</p><p>1:()</p><p>2:()</p><p>3:()</p><p>4:epsGetAttr([object Object],alias)</p><p>5:()</p><p>6:SRCH\_SVC\_getEngineByAlias(http://www.bing.com)</p><p>7:getEngineByAlias(http://www.bing.com)</p><p>8:getShortcutOrURI(http://www.bing.com,[object Object])</p><p>9:canonizeUrl([object KeyboardEvent],[object Object])</p><p>10:handleURLBarCommand([object KeyboardEvent])</p><p>11:anonymous(textentered,[object KeyboardEvent])</p><p>12:fireEvent(textentered,[object KeyboardEvent])</p><p>13:onTextEntered()</p><p>14:handleEnter(false)</p><p>15:onKeyPress([object KeyboardEvent])</p><p>16:onxblkeypress([object KeyboardEvent])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading many comments in this feed , I decided to get over to http : //www.bing.com/ [ bing.com ] to search for something I use regularly ( eclipse rcp ) and compare it to Google 's results on that same topic .
But , I got this error when I hit [ Enter ] .
In the 5 years I 've been using Google , this sort of error has * never * happened [ to me ] .
That was my cue to get off slashdot , stop wasting time with Bing and start some work.ASSERT : * * * Search : \ _installLocation : engine has no file ! Stack Trace : 0 : ENSURE \ _WARN ( false , \ _installLocation : engine has no file ! ,2147500037 ) 1 : ( ) 2 : ( ) 3 : ( ) 4 : epsGetAttr ( [ object Object ] ,alias ) 5 : ( ) 6 : SRCH \ _SVC \ _getEngineByAlias ( http : //www.bing.com ) 7 : getEngineByAlias ( http : //www.bing.com ) 8 : getShortcutOrURI ( http : //www.bing.com , [ object Object ] ) 9 : canonizeUrl ( [ object KeyboardEvent ] , [ object Object ] ) 10 : handleURLBarCommand ( [ object KeyboardEvent ] ) 11 : anonymous ( textentered , [ object KeyboardEvent ] ) 12 : fireEvent ( textentered , [ object KeyboardEvent ] ) 13 : onTextEntered ( ) 14 : handleEnter ( false ) 15 : onKeyPress ( [ object KeyboardEvent ] ) 16 : onxblkeypress ( [ object KeyboardEvent ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading many comments in this feed, I decided to get over to http://www.bing.com/ [bing.com] to search for something I use regularly (eclipse rcp) and compare it to Google's results on that same topic.
But, I got this error when I hit [Enter].
In the 5 years I've been using Google, this sort of error has *never* happened [to me].
That was my cue to get off slashdot, stop wasting time with Bing and start some work.ASSERT: *** Search: \_installLocation: engine has no file!Stack Trace:0:ENSURE\_WARN(false,\_installLocation: engine has no file!,2147500037)1:()2:()3:()4:epsGetAttr([object Object],alias)5:()6:SRCH\_SVC\_getEngineByAlias(http://www.bing.com)7:getEngineByAlias(http://www.bing.com)8:getShortcutOrURI(http://www.bing.com,[object Object])9:canonizeUrl([object KeyboardEvent],[object Object])10:handleURLBarCommand([object KeyboardEvent])11:anonymous(textentered,[object KeyboardEvent])12:fireEvent(textentered,[object KeyboardEvent])13:onTextEntered()14:handleEnter(false)15:onKeyPress([object KeyboardEvent])16:onxblkeypress([object KeyboardEvent])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331739</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's a pity that Safari (at least on Mac) doesn't allow any other search engine except Google. That is just plain mean.</p></div><p>This must be a troll, because nobody could be that stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pity that Safari ( at least on Mac ) does n't allow any other search engine except Google .
That is just plain mean.This must be a troll , because nobody could be that stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's a pity that Safari (at least on Mac) doesn't allow any other search engine except Google.
That is just plain mean.This must be a troll, because nobody could be that stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333243</id>
	<title>Re:Compare them yourself, without branding</title>
	<author>cobbaut</author>
	<datestamp>1245063420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curious that the search string "cobbaut aernout" turns up nothing for Google in your link...<br><a href="http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=\%22cobbaut+aernout\%22&amp;type=web" title="fejus.com">http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=\%22cobbaut+aernout\%22&amp;type=web</a> [fejus.com]</p><p>But it does give a result in google...<br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=\%22cobbaut+aernout\%22" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=\%22cobbaut+aernout\%22</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious that the search string " cobbaut aernout " turns up nothing for Google in your link...http : //blindsearch.fejus.com/ ? q = \ % 22cobbaut + aernout \ % 22&amp;type = web [ fejus.com ] But it does give a result in google...http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = \ % 22cobbaut + aernout \ % 22 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious that the search string "cobbaut aernout" turns up nothing for Google in your link...http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=\%22cobbaut+aernout\%22&amp;type=web [fejus.com]But it does give a result in google...http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=\%22cobbaut+aernout\%22 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332671</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THAN not then, than!</p><p>Gaaaah. ThAn not thEn. Learn the fucking difference!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THAN not then , than ! Gaaaah .
ThAn not thEn .
Learn the fucking difference !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THAN not then, than!Gaaaah.
ThAn not thEn.
Learn the fucking difference!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331157</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>HR</author>
	<datestamp>1244993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know... it is possible that the Google algorithm was tweaked between the time he did his search and the time you did yours. I'm not defending the guy, he might be full of shit or not. I'm just saying it's a possibility, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know... it is possible that the Google algorithm was tweaked between the time he did his search and the time you did yours .
I 'm not defending the guy , he might be full of shit or not .
I 'm just saying it 's a possibility , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know... it is possible that the Google algorithm was tweaked between the time he did his search and the time you did yours.
I'm not defending the guy, he might be full of shit or not.
I'm just saying it's a possibility, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331815</id>
	<title>You can't be serious</title>
	<author>Skythe</author>
	<datestamp>1245000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The site looks like it was made using a combination of Paint/Frontpage. I'm not sure how i'm meant to take anything that looks like that seriously. And from my limited experience using Bing and WolframAlpha, WA has been more useful every time.
<br>
<br>
P.s. I found <a href="http://www.google.com/squared" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Squared</a> [google.com] quite interesting, even though it doesn't target the same thing as either of the above.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The site looks like it was made using a combination of Paint/Frontpage .
I 'm not sure how i 'm meant to take anything that looks like that seriously .
And from my limited experience using Bing and WolframAlpha , WA has been more useful every time .
P.s. I found Google Squared [ google.com ] quite interesting , even though it does n't target the same thing as either of the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site looks like it was made using a combination of Paint/Frontpage.
I'm not sure how i'm meant to take anything that looks like that seriously.
And from my limited experience using Bing and WolframAlpha, WA has been more useful every time.
P.s. I found Google Squared [google.com] quite interesting, even though it doesn't target the same thing as either of the above.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330439</id>
	<title>They probably should be scared</title>
	<author>mgkimsal2</author>
	<datestamp>1244986140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being scared may be just the motivation they need to keep innovating, and potentially culling some more fat.  They dropped notebook and some other services last year, which, while a bit crappy for those of us using those services, was probably ultimately a good move which freed resource to be better spent elsewhere.
<br> <br>
As we're all fond of saying, MS tends to get things right on the third try (or just eventually).  MS themselves got scared enough a few years back to actually put together a good search engine this time.  Yeah, it took them awhile, but they've got a decent chance of becoming a good alternative to Google again.  I've used Bing as my main search system for about 4 days after launch, and it was fine.  I find myself alternating between google and bing about once per day now.
<br> <br>

What if MS was able to use Bing to get back to a 30-40\% search market share in the next few years?  That would certainly change the dynamics of the search field again, and I think it would be changed for the better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being scared may be just the motivation they need to keep innovating , and potentially culling some more fat .
They dropped notebook and some other services last year , which , while a bit crappy for those of us using those services , was probably ultimately a good move which freed resource to be better spent elsewhere .
As we 're all fond of saying , MS tends to get things right on the third try ( or just eventually ) .
MS themselves got scared enough a few years back to actually put together a good search engine this time .
Yeah , it took them awhile , but they 've got a decent chance of becoming a good alternative to Google again .
I 've used Bing as my main search system for about 4 days after launch , and it was fine .
I find myself alternating between google and bing about once per day now .
What if MS was able to use Bing to get back to a 30-40 \ % search market share in the next few years ?
That would certainly change the dynamics of the search field again , and I think it would be changed for the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being scared may be just the motivation they need to keep innovating, and potentially culling some more fat.
They dropped notebook and some other services last year, which, while a bit crappy for those of us using those services, was probably ultimately a good move which freed resource to be better spent elsewhere.
As we're all fond of saying, MS tends to get things right on the third try (or just eventually).
MS themselves got scared enough a few years back to actually put together a good search engine this time.
Yeah, it took them awhile, but they've got a decent chance of becoming a good alternative to Google again.
I've used Bing as my main search system for about 4 days after launch, and it was fine.
I find myself alternating between google and bing about once per day now.
What if MS was able to use Bing to get back to a 30-40\% search market share in the next few years?
That would certainly change the dynamics of the search field again, and I think it would be changed for the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330713</id>
	<title>Please! Thwart that Search Monster that is Yahoo!</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1244988420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.</p><p>Similar to how the world of racing would look if stuffed turtles left it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.Similar to how the world of racing would look if stuffed turtles left it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.Similar to how the world of racing would look if stuffed turtles left it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333161</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>droptone</author>
	<datestamp>1245061740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their Bird's eye view on their maps is quite nice (no clue how much of the country they have covered, but it works for Chapel Hill, NC). The way it lets you zoom out of the Street view clone is nice when I am scoping the route to a new place; the zoomed out view makes it easier to become familiar with the general area (<a href="http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&amp;FORM=LMLTCP&amp;cp=pzn1hp8dd9pf&amp;style=b&amp;lvl=1&amp;tilt=-90&amp;dir=0&amp;alt=-1000&amp;phx=0&amp;phy=0&amp;phscl=1&amp;scene=14606136&amp;ss=yp.Sunrise\%20Biscuit\%20Kitchen~pg.1~sst.0&amp;encType=1" title="bing.com">example</a> [bing.com]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their Bird 's eye view on their maps is quite nice ( no clue how much of the country they have covered , but it works for Chapel Hill , NC ) .
The way it lets you zoom out of the Street view clone is nice when I am scoping the route to a new place ; the zoomed out view makes it easier to become familiar with the general area ( example [ bing.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their Bird's eye view on their maps is quite nice (no clue how much of the country they have covered, but it works for Chapel Hill, NC).
The way it lets you zoom out of the Street view clone is nice when I am scoping the route to a new place; the zoomed out view makes it easier to become familiar with the general area (example [bing.com]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334123</id>
	<title>All Bing</title>
	<author>Linuss</author>
	<datestamp>1245074820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seems to be good for is porn. I just tried 10 different searches and all I got was porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seems to be good for is porn .
I just tried 10 different searches and all I got was porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems to be good for is porn.
I just tried 10 different searches and all I got was porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330531</id>
	<title>Bing promotion</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1244986920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft drones doing a "Microsoft product is good" ad campaign, just that using that plain words they said "Even competition thinks that is good".<br><br>Of course that if some competitor does a big fanfare move Google should be concerned, and see if what looks as pure vapor have some smoke in there, as if something is being cooked there. Is it just aesthetics? There were some prizes recently for photographical iGoogle themes. But if is something more complex than that, and if not covered by some of the weird Labs testing runnings, a better understanding on that is required.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft drones doing a " Microsoft product is good " ad campaign , just that using that plain words they said " Even competition thinks that is good " .Of course that if some competitor does a big fanfare move Google should be concerned , and see if what looks as pure vapor have some smoke in there , as if something is being cooked there .
Is it just aesthetics ?
There were some prizes recently for photographical iGoogle themes .
But if is something more complex than that , and if not covered by some of the weird Labs testing runnings , a better understanding on that is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft drones doing a "Microsoft product is good" ad campaign, just that using that plain words they said "Even competition thinks that is good".Of course that if some competitor does a big fanfare move Google should be concerned, and see if what looks as pure vapor have some smoke in there, as if something is being cooked there.
Is it just aesthetics?
There were some prizes recently for photographical iGoogle themes.
But if is something more complex than that, and if not covered by some of the weird Labs testing runnings, a better understanding on that is required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330861</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>x\_IamSpartacus\_x</author>
	<datestamp>1244989860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used it when someone on slickdeals posted that you can save a bit of money searching for your purchase through bing and then buying it from the link bing gives. I saved $7 on a $25 item. I won't use it as a search engine instead of Google, but when I want to buy something online I'll see if bing offers a cashback option on it. You have to sign up for a hotmail account and go through all of the windows live id crap to get the cash but for a 30\% discount that's worth the hassle of creating an account that I'll never use for anything else. Meh... I may not be using bing as a primary search engine (so Google is losing none of my business) but I'll use it to see if my product can get any cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used it when someone on slickdeals posted that you can save a bit of money searching for your purchase through bing and then buying it from the link bing gives .
I saved $ 7 on a $ 25 item .
I wo n't use it as a search engine instead of Google , but when I want to buy something online I 'll see if bing offers a cashback option on it .
You have to sign up for a hotmail account and go through all of the windows live id crap to get the cash but for a 30 \ % discount that 's worth the hassle of creating an account that I 'll never use for anything else .
Meh... I may not be using bing as a primary search engine ( so Google is losing none of my business ) but I 'll use it to see if my product can get any cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used it when someone on slickdeals posted that you can save a bit of money searching for your purchase through bing and then buying it from the link bing gives.
I saved $7 on a $25 item.
I won't use it as a search engine instead of Google, but when I want to buy something online I'll see if bing offers a cashback option on it.
You have to sign up for a hotmail account and go through all of the windows live id crap to get the cash but for a 30\% discount that's worth the hassle of creating an account that I'll never use for anything else.
Meh... I may not be using bing as a primary search engine (so Google is losing none of my business) but I'll use it to see if my product can get any cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331475</id>
	<title>Re:My personal anecdote with Bing</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(e.g. Where do I find xxx?)</p><p>Freudian slip or intentional double meaning?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( e.g .
Where do I find xxx ?
) Freudian slip or intentional double meaning ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(e.g.
Where do I find xxx?
)Freudian slip or intentional double meaning?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28338259</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1245094440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends... how big is your friend, and how ok would he be with you doing that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends... how big is your friend , and how ok would he be with you doing that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends... how big is your friend, and how ok would he be with you doing that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333651</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1245070020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try "concrete corner fence posts". Majority of the results are link farms.<br><br>I didn't even want to buy, just find out what sizes they came in.<br><br>eBay gave me my answers. Work that one out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try " concrete corner fence posts " .
Majority of the results are link farms.I did n't even want to buy , just find out what sizes they came in.eBay gave me my answers .
Work that one out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try "concrete corner fence posts".
Majority of the results are link farms.I didn't even want to buy, just find out what sizes they came in.eBay gave me my answers.
Work that one out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332139</id>
	<title>Re:Compare them yourself, without branding</title>
	<author>m85476585</author>
	<datestamp>1245004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up

I usually find myself voting for Google, with bing second and Yahoo third.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up I usually find myself voting for Google , with bing second and Yahoo third .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up

I usually find myself voting for Google, with bing second and Yahoo third.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332419</id>
	<title>BING=Bill is Now Gone....Bing still sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245007920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far, BING is not impressive, nothing more than their old search with a new name, still sux..MS can screw up anything now days..Ballmer is wrecking the company.. Needs to go "spend more time with his family"
We are watching in realtime latter stages of Stage 4 of  How the Mighty Fall. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09\_21/b4132026786379\_page\_4.htm" title="businessweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09\_21/b4132026786379\_page\_4.htm</a> [businessweek.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , BING is not impressive , nothing more than their old search with a new name , still sux..MS can screw up anything now days..Ballmer is wrecking the company.. Needs to go " spend more time with his family " We are watching in realtime latter stages of Stage 4 of How the Mighty Fall .
http : //www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09 \ _21/b4132026786379 \ _page \ _4.htm [ businessweek.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, BING is not impressive, nothing more than their old search with a new name, still sux..MS can screw up anything now days..Ballmer is wrecking the company.. Needs to go "spend more time with his family"
We are watching in realtime latter stages of Stage 4 of  How the Mighty Fall.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09\_21/b4132026786379\_page\_4.htm [businessweek.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330509</id>
	<title>Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>sc0ob5</author>
	<datestamp>1244986800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a few random searches will prove that google brings back more relevant results. I'm actually surprised people are still talking about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a few random searches will prove that google brings back more relevant results .
I 'm actually surprised people are still talking about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a few random searches will prove that google brings back more relevant results.
I'm actually surprised people are still talking about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330747</id>
	<title>Crap comes from people learning to Game Google</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1244988840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If getting your site in Bing's search results means big bucks, they're gonna Game that just the same.  You'll see the crap come flushing in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If getting your site in Bing 's search results means big bucks , they 're gon na Game that just the same .
You 'll see the crap come flushing in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If getting your site in Bing's search results means big bucks, they're gonna Game that just the same.
You'll see the crap come flushing in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336165</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1245085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results). But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.</p></div></blockquote><p>So their version of improvement is doing a google search and routing it through the Bing.com website? Brilliant!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At it 's launch , there was considerable difference in the results of the two ( Google giving far more relevant results ) .
But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.So their version of improvement is doing a google search and routing it through the Bing.com website ?
Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At it's launch, there was considerable difference in the results of the two (Google giving far more relevant results).
But Bing has been rapidly improving and now I get pretty much identical results from both.So their version of improvement is doing a google search and routing it through the Bing.com website?
Brilliant!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333941</id>
	<title>I heard a rumor :o</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1245072960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard a rumor that MS was seeding the blogosphere with negative publicity regarding Google and talking up it's own late-to-the-party Bing. That's just a rumor mind, so I don't have to produce any actual evidence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard a rumor that MS was seeding the blogosphere with negative publicity regarding Google and talking up it 's own late-to-the-party Bing .
That 's just a rumor mind , so I do n't have to produce any actual evidence .. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard a rumor that MS was seeding the blogosphere with negative publicity regarding Google and talking up it's own late-to-the-party Bing.
That's just a rumor mind, so I don't have to produce any actual evidence .. :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28339429</id>
	<title>Due Diligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is doing their due diligence.  Search is the heart and soul of Google - if Bing proves to be the real deal, Google will be in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is doing their due diligence .
Search is the heart and soul of Google - if Bing proves to be the real deal , Google will be in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is doing their due diligence.
Search is the heart and soul of Google - if Bing proves to be the real deal, Google will be in trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332801</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1245056400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithm</p></div><p>You may be right, but don't you think that any major search engine will attract people into bending its results ?</p><p>Bing is still too young to be mastered by spammers, but I bet that if it succeeds in having a few percent of popularity, it will be as much gamed as Google (and it'll probably worst if the algorithm is flawed).</p><p>This reminds me about viruses and malware: Windows is the most gamed system, since it's so widely used.<br>Google has the same problem as Microsoft in this area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithmYou may be right , but do n't you think that any major search engine will attract people into bending its results ? Bing is still too young to be mastered by spammers , but I bet that if it succeeds in having a few percent of popularity , it will be as much gamed as Google ( and it 'll probably worst if the algorithm is flawed ) .This reminds me about viruses and malware : Windows is the most gamed system , since it 's so widely used.Google has the same problem as Microsoft in this area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With pagerank basically being synonymous with Internet presence there has been a ton of research into gaming the algorithmYou may be right, but don't you think that any major search engine will attract people into bending its results ?Bing is still too young to be mastered by spammers, but I bet that if it succeeds in having a few percent of popularity, it will be as much gamed as Google (and it'll probably worst if the algorithm is flawed).This reminds me about viruses and malware: Windows is the most gamed system, since it's so widely used.Google has the same problem as Microsoft in this area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331821</id>
	<title>Re:Uhuh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245000240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh, I'd care.  Kleenex is like sandpaper compared to puffs...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh , I 'd care .
Kleenex is like sandpaper compared to puffs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh, I'd care.
Kleenex is like sandpaper compared to puffs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333629</id>
	<title>A theory on how it works</title>
	<author>Nishi-no-wan</author>
	<datestamp>1245069660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run a web site and have had robots.txt request that msnbot not index my site.  So far as I can tell from my access logs, msnbot and its relatives (media, and others) respect this request.</p><p>Needless to say, I was surprised when I suddenly started getting references from Bing queries.  That simply shouldn't be.  I've expelled the stench of Microsoft from my servers.  I prefer quality over quantity, and don't care to have Microsoft benefit from anything I put my heart and sole into.  So how did Microsoft index my pages?</p><p>My first thought what that they have another bot.  Yet there is no reference to a bing*bot in my logs.  And as I said, msnbot* isn't identifying itself if it's ignoring robots.txt.  So, if I were being denied indexing access to the best sites on a given topic, but wanted to index them anyway, how would I go about it?</p><p>Well, I'd probably start off by going through a bunch of blogs with something that could understand the context - much like the recent Google Wave demonstration with respect to their new context sensitive spell checker.  A lot of blogs link back to my site for detailed information and as a primary source.  So if someone queries Bing with regard to this subject matter, then the indexed pages' links to my site could be used to suggest it as a primary source, thus my site would appear in the results, perhaps even higher than the blogs references it.</p><p>Thus, Microsoft can circumvent my desire to not have them index my site - and I see little that I can do to change that.  Their support page says that site administrators can have some control, but only if they have an MSN Live login - which isn't going to happen.</p><p>Needless to say, I'm not at all happy about this, and will be working in some of my free time to see to it that anyone coming in from Bing are rerouted elsewhere.  You couldn't pay me to use a Microsoft product.  (I overwrote my final MS partition at the stroke of midnight, January 1, 2000, and have refused to use their products since, much to the headache of the HR department.  Anything not available on FreeBSD, Linux, or Mac OS/X isn't necessary.)  Microsoft will pay for this overstepping of bounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a web site and have had robots.txt request that msnbot not index my site .
So far as I can tell from my access logs , msnbot and its relatives ( media , and others ) respect this request.Needless to say , I was surprised when I suddenly started getting references from Bing queries .
That simply should n't be .
I 've expelled the stench of Microsoft from my servers .
I prefer quality over quantity , and do n't care to have Microsoft benefit from anything I put my heart and sole into .
So how did Microsoft index my pages ? My first thought what that they have another bot .
Yet there is no reference to a bing * bot in my logs .
And as I said , msnbot * is n't identifying itself if it 's ignoring robots.txt .
So , if I were being denied indexing access to the best sites on a given topic , but wanted to index them anyway , how would I go about it ? Well , I 'd probably start off by going through a bunch of blogs with something that could understand the context - much like the recent Google Wave demonstration with respect to their new context sensitive spell checker .
A lot of blogs link back to my site for detailed information and as a primary source .
So if someone queries Bing with regard to this subject matter , then the indexed pages ' links to my site could be used to suggest it as a primary source , thus my site would appear in the results , perhaps even higher than the blogs references it.Thus , Microsoft can circumvent my desire to not have them index my site - and I see little that I can do to change that .
Their support page says that site administrators can have some control , but only if they have an MSN Live login - which is n't going to happen.Needless to say , I 'm not at all happy about this , and will be working in some of my free time to see to it that anyone coming in from Bing are rerouted elsewhere .
You could n't pay me to use a Microsoft product .
( I overwrote my final MS partition at the stroke of midnight , January 1 , 2000 , and have refused to use their products since , much to the headache of the HR department .
Anything not available on FreeBSD , Linux , or Mac OS/X is n't necessary .
) Microsoft will pay for this overstepping of bounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a web site and have had robots.txt request that msnbot not index my site.
So far as I can tell from my access logs, msnbot and its relatives (media, and others) respect this request.Needless to say, I was surprised when I suddenly started getting references from Bing queries.
That simply shouldn't be.
I've expelled the stench of Microsoft from my servers.
I prefer quality over quantity, and don't care to have Microsoft benefit from anything I put my heart and sole into.
So how did Microsoft index my pages?My first thought what that they have another bot.
Yet there is no reference to a bing*bot in my logs.
And as I said, msnbot* isn't identifying itself if it's ignoring robots.txt.
So, if I were being denied indexing access to the best sites on a given topic, but wanted to index them anyway, how would I go about it?Well, I'd probably start off by going through a bunch of blogs with something that could understand the context - much like the recent Google Wave demonstration with respect to their new context sensitive spell checker.
A lot of blogs link back to my site for detailed information and as a primary source.
So if someone queries Bing with regard to this subject matter, then the indexed pages' links to my site could be used to suggest it as a primary source, thus my site would appear in the results, perhaps even higher than the blogs references it.Thus, Microsoft can circumvent my desire to not have them index my site - and I see little that I can do to change that.
Their support page says that site administrators can have some control, but only if they have an MSN Live login - which isn't going to happen.Needless to say, I'm not at all happy about this, and will be working in some of my free time to see to it that anyone coming in from Bing are rerouted elsewhere.
You couldn't pay me to use a Microsoft product.
(I overwrote my final MS partition at the stroke of midnight, January 1, 2000, and have refused to use their products since, much to the headache of the HR department.
Anything not available on FreeBSD, Linux, or Mac OS/X isn't necessary.
)  Microsoft will pay for this overstepping of bounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333387</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1245066240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really quite bizarre -- <em>every</em> time there's a story on google, there's a flurry of posts decrying how awful google's results have become, claiming that the SEO guys have completely gamed them, blah blah blah.
</p><p>But these claims seem to have utterly no relationship to reality as I can see it.
</p><p>The results I get from google are if anything more accurate now than they've ever been, and the exceptions to that trend are almost always searches I already know are questionable (e.g. because I can only think of extremely generic terms).  Moreover, the speed with which data shows up in google has become almost bizarrely fast (posts I make to mailing lists typically show up in google after a few <em>hours</em> [on the list's archive site]).
</p><p>When the complainer gives a specific example (this is rare -- the claims are usually very vague), and I try it myself, the results <em>I</em> get are usually great.
</p><p>I figure that at least a portion of these complainers are (1) MS astroturfers, (2) desperate SEO marketers, or (3) people searching for vague and highly gamed subjects (e.g. pr0n), and/or (4) people that simply suck so much at constructing search queries that they're doomed regardless of the engine they use.
</p><p>However, given the number of such complaints, I often wonder if there's something else going on, that somehow strongly messes with google results for some searchers, but not others (if so, luckily I seem to be in the "not messed up" group)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really quite bizarre -- every time there 's a story on google , there 's a flurry of posts decrying how awful google 's results have become , claiming that the SEO guys have completely gamed them , blah blah blah .
But these claims seem to have utterly no relationship to reality as I can see it .
The results I get from google are if anything more accurate now than they 've ever been , and the exceptions to that trend are almost always searches I already know are questionable ( e.g .
because I can only think of extremely generic terms ) .
Moreover , the speed with which data shows up in google has become almost bizarrely fast ( posts I make to mailing lists typically show up in google after a few hours [ on the list 's archive site ] ) .
When the complainer gives a specific example ( this is rare -- the claims are usually very vague ) , and I try it myself , the results I get are usually great .
I figure that at least a portion of these complainers are ( 1 ) MS astroturfers , ( 2 ) desperate SEO marketers , or ( 3 ) people searching for vague and highly gamed subjects ( e.g .
pr0n ) , and/or ( 4 ) people that simply suck so much at constructing search queries that they 're doomed regardless of the engine they use .
However , given the number of such complaints , I often wonder if there 's something else going on , that somehow strongly messes with google results for some searchers , but not others ( if so , luckily I seem to be in the " not messed up " group ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really quite bizarre -- every time there's a story on google, there's a flurry of posts decrying how awful google's results have become, claiming that the SEO guys have completely gamed them, blah blah blah.
But these claims seem to have utterly no relationship to reality as I can see it.
The results I get from google are if anything more accurate now than they've ever been, and the exceptions to that trend are almost always searches I already know are questionable (e.g.
because I can only think of extremely generic terms).
Moreover, the speed with which data shows up in google has become almost bizarrely fast (posts I make to mailing lists typically show up in google after a few hours [on the list's archive site]).
When the complainer gives a specific example (this is rare -- the claims are usually very vague), and I try it myself, the results I get are usually great.
I figure that at least a portion of these complainers are (1) MS astroturfers, (2) desperate SEO marketers, or (3) people searching for vague and highly gamed subjects (e.g.
pr0n), and/or (4) people that simply suck so much at constructing search queries that they're doomed regardless of the engine they use.
However, given the number of such complaints, I often wonder if there's something else going on, that somehow strongly messes with google results for some searchers, but not others (if so, luckily I seem to be in the "not messed up" group)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331095</id>
	<title>Re:You may hate to say it, (me too) but I've had t</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1244992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is as much coding talent in Redmond as there is in Mountain View. The hackers and gamers will always be with us so whoever takes the initiative to beat them down the best without making their product difficult to use will win this particular battle, IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is as much coding talent in Redmond as there is in Mountain View .
The hackers and gamers will always be with us so whoever takes the initiative to beat them down the best without making their product difficult to use will win this particular battle , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is as much coding talent in Redmond as there is in Mountain View.
The hackers and gamers will always be with us so whoever takes the initiative to beat them down the best without making their product difficult to use will win this particular battle, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333761</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1245071160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The level of either laziness or ignorance that post implies is astonishing. How does Safari not allow you to use a search engine other than Google?</p><p>If you type in "www.yahoo.com" do you not get to Yahoo, and are able to enter a search term and hit submit?</p><p>If you type in www.bing.com (I assume thats the address, I have no intention of ever bothering with it) does it not take you to MS' latest attempt at relevance, and allow you to use its search form?</p><p>All I can figure is you are assuming that the built in 'search' form in the browser is the only way to use a search engine. Possibly you aren't even aware of the 'address' field in your browser or what it is for (Its astonishing the number of people that have [for instance] Yahoo as their home page, and I tell them to go to a specific page address and instead of typing the address into their browser's address bar they *search* for that address in Yahoo - like calling information to ask what the number for 911 is [999 for you UK folk] )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The level of either laziness or ignorance that post implies is astonishing .
How does Safari not allow you to use a search engine other than Google ? If you type in " www.yahoo.com " do you not get to Yahoo , and are able to enter a search term and hit submit ? If you type in www.bing.com ( I assume thats the address , I have no intention of ever bothering with it ) does it not take you to MS ' latest attempt at relevance , and allow you to use its search form ? All I can figure is you are assuming that the built in 'search ' form in the browser is the only way to use a search engine .
Possibly you are n't even aware of the 'address ' field in your browser or what it is for ( Its astonishing the number of people that have [ for instance ] Yahoo as their home page , and I tell them to go to a specific page address and instead of typing the address into their browser 's address bar they * search * for that address in Yahoo - like calling information to ask what the number for 911 is [ 999 for you UK folk ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The level of either laziness or ignorance that post implies is astonishing.
How does Safari not allow you to use a search engine other than Google?If you type in "www.yahoo.com" do you not get to Yahoo, and are able to enter a search term and hit submit?If you type in www.bing.com (I assume thats the address, I have no intention of ever bothering with it) does it not take you to MS' latest attempt at relevance, and allow you to use its search form?All I can figure is you are assuming that the built in 'search' form in the browser is the only way to use a search engine.
Possibly you aren't even aware of the 'address' field in your browser or what it is for (Its astonishing the number of people that have [for instance] Yahoo as their home page, and I tell them to go to a specific page address and instead of typing the address into their browser's address bar they *search* for that address in Yahoo - like calling information to ask what the number for 911 is [999 for you UK folk] )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330457</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>It is now  official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  </p><p>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  </p><p> You don't need to be a <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow">Kreskin</a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  </p><p> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  </p><p> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  </p><p> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
</p><p> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  </p><p> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a <a href="http://198.62.75.1/www1/apparitions/jesus.gif" title="198.62.75.1" rel="nofollow">miracle</a> [198.62.75.1]
 could reanimate the corpse at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  </p><p> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be a Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle [ 198.62.75.1 ] could reanimate the corpse at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is now  official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying  
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle [198.62.75.1]
 could reanimate the corpse at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334795</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1245079020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First result was the website I wanted from the beginning, and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft's products as much as anyone else around here.</p></div><p>Ok, just so we now you're not a shill: post us the search terms used to find the site with MS Bing that didn't find it on Google, plus of course the name of the site and the date you did the search on. Bing's only been out a few weeks it'll all be in your history still. Plus, did you try Yahoo?</p><p>The only reason I can see that this would work, as most searches get pretty similar results, is if the site in question had done some bad SEO and been demoted by Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First result was the website I wanted from the beginning , and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft 's products as much as anyone else around here.Ok , just so we now you 're not a shill : post us the search terms used to find the site with MS Bing that did n't find it on Google , plus of course the name of the site and the date you did the search on .
Bing 's only been out a few weeks it 'll all be in your history still .
Plus , did you try Yahoo ? The only reason I can see that this would work , as most searches get pretty similar results , is if the site in question had done some bad SEO and been demoted by Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First result was the website I wanted from the beginning, and that pains me a lot as someone who hates most of Microsoft's products as much as anyone else around here.Ok, just so we now you're not a shill: post us the search terms used to find the site with MS Bing that didn't find it on Google, plus of course the name of the site and the date you did the search on.
Bing's only been out a few weeks it'll all be in your history still.
Plus, did you try Yahoo?The only reason I can see that this would work, as most searches get pretty similar results, is if the site in question had done some bad SEO and been demoted by Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336865</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>ais523</author>
	<datestamp>1245088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once used the old Live Search in order to grab a webpage from its cache which wasn't in Google's cache for some reason. I suspect that's rather a corner case, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once used the old Live Search in order to grab a webpage from its cache which was n't in Google 's cache for some reason .
I suspect that 's rather a corner case , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once used the old Live Search in order to grab a webpage from its cache which wasn't in Google's cache for some reason.
I suspect that's rather a corner case, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331615</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1244997900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? So what was your search term, because i find this very hard to believe without that tiny bit of proof, that would have been so easy to include??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
So what was your search term , because i find this very hard to believe without that tiny bit of proof , that would have been so easy to include ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
So what was your search term, because i find this very hard to believe without that tiny bit of proof, that would have been so easy to include?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331297</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1244995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>um no you fail. the 5th non sponsored result for me is from www.globalsources.com, which is a china based resource aggregator which i can't actually buy anything from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>um no you fail .
the 5th non sponsored result for me is from www.globalsources.com , which is a china based resource aggregator which i ca n't actually buy anything from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um no you fail.
the 5th non sponsored result for me is from www.globalsources.com, which is a china based resource aggregator which i can't actually buy anything from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330597</id>
	<title>On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244987520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>shouldn't we expect a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering such as this with a re-re-re-launch of MS's search engines?  By now they must be pretty desperate...</htmltext>
<tokenext>should n't we expect a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering such as this with a re-re-re-launch of MS 's search engines ?
By now they must be pretty desperate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shouldn't we expect a lot of astroturfing and scaremongering such as this with a re-re-re-launch of MS's search engines?
By now they must be pretty desperate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333569</id>
	<title>insert free advert for MICROS~1</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1245068760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>:)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>: ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:) ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28340241</id>
	<title>Yahoo exited the field.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo exited my field the week the pop up adds started.   By that time, they were just using Google's results - so I moved to Google and have not looked back.</p><p>I can't imagine that bing is going to give a less full of ads experience than yahoo! or Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo exited my field the week the pop up adds started .
By that time , they were just using Google 's results - so I moved to Google and have not looked back.I ca n't imagine that bing is going to give a less full of ads experience than yahoo !
or Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo exited my field the week the pop up adds started.
By that time, they were just using Google's results - so I moved to Google and have not looked back.I can't imagine that bing is going to give a less full of ads experience than yahoo!
or Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331149</id>
	<title>Re:As much as I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>Fuzzlekits</author>
	<datestamp>1244993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I posit that through several iterations of the search on google, by the time you got to bing you probably had a much better base query. Just saying...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I posit that through several iterations of the search on google , by the time you got to bing you probably had a much better base query .
Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posit that through several iterations of the search on google, by the time you got to bing you probably had a much better base query.
Just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330911</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate to Google atleast</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1244990580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glims for Safari lets you tweak a million things, including user-defined search options:</p><p><a href="http://www.machangout.com/" title="machangout.com">http://www.machangout.com/</a> [machangout.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glims for Safari lets you tweak a million things , including user-defined search options : http : //www.machangout.com/ [ machangout.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glims for Safari lets you tweak a million things, including user-defined search options:http://www.machangout.com/ [machangout.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28338687</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245096120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go to bing.com and click on video search. Then type in "naked women" and hit enter. Hover your mouse over each thumbnail. Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing, they are already destroying them where it counts, as a porn search engine.</p></div><p>Perhaps they should have called it Fap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to bing.com and click on video search .
Then type in " naked women " and hit enter .
Hover your mouse over each thumbnail .
Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing , they are already destroying them where it counts , as a porn search engine.Perhaps they should have called it Fap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to bing.com and click on video search.
Then type in "naked women" and hit enter.
Hover your mouse over each thumbnail.
Now you should understand why google is scared shitless of bing, they are already destroying them where it counts, as a porn search engine.Perhaps they should have called it Fap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335015</id>
	<title>Why not multitask?</title>
	<author>BForrester</author>
	<datestamp>1245080040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google her for a while, then Bing her until she Yahoo!s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google her for a while , then Bing her until she Yahoo ! s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google her for a while, then Bing her until she Yahoo!s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333643</id>
	<title>easy-to-navigate anonymous rumors ..</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1245069900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'<i>co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service</i>'<br> <br>

What did Sergey Brin say when he was contacted by the NY Post. Did he confirm that he was 'rattled'? Did he deny he has 'assembled a team of top engineers' in response to Bing? Where and when exactly did this meeting take place. Who exactly attended?<br> <br>

'<i>While Bing is presented differently from Google -- with a colorful home page and easy-to-navigate search categories compared with Google's stark white page and search box -- there is little difference between the two when it comes to searching for simple terms</i>'<br> <br>

I can't for the life of me see how he describes Google as lacking easy-to-navigate search categories and Bing not having a search box. Across the top of <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/" title="google.co.uk">Google.com</a> [google.co.uk] I see <strong>Web</strong>, <strong>Images</strong>, <strong>Video</strong>, <strong>Maps</strong>, <strong>News</strong>, <strong>Shopping</strong>, <strong>Mail</strong> and <strong>more</strong>.<br> <br>

As compared to <a href="http://www.bing.com/" title="bing.com">BING</a> [bing.com]s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. <strong>Web</strong>, <strong>Images</strong>, <strong>Videos</strong>, <strong>Shopping</strong>, <strong>News</strong>, <strong>Maps</strong> and <strong>More</strong>. Apart from the layout, I can see little difference. What must have happened is that Sergey invented time travel and went forward in time and stole Bings innovation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>
--<br>
<i>slashdot, you have disgraced yourselves yet again</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>'co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft 's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service ' What did Sergey Brin say when he was contacted by the NY Post .
Did he confirm that he was 'rattled ' ?
Did he deny he has 'assembled a team of top engineers ' in response to Bing ?
Where and when exactly did this meeting take place .
Who exactly attended ?
'While Bing is presented differently from Google -- with a colorful home page and easy-to-navigate search categories compared with Google 's stark white page and search box -- there is little difference between the two when it comes to searching for simple terms ' I ca n't for the life of me see how he describes Google as lacking easy-to-navigate search categories and Bing not having a search box .
Across the top of Google.com [ google.co.uk ] I see Web , Images , Video , Maps , News , Shopping , Mail and more .
As compared to BING [ bing.com ] s .. Web , Images , Videos , Shopping , News , Maps and More .
Apart from the layout , I can see little difference .
What must have happened is that Sergey invented time travel and went forward in time and stole Bings innovation .. : ) -- slashdot , you have disgraced yourselves yet again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service' 

What did Sergey Brin say when he was contacted by the NY Post.
Did he confirm that he was 'rattled'?
Did he deny he has 'assembled a team of top engineers' in response to Bing?
Where and when exactly did this meeting take place.
Who exactly attended?
'While Bing is presented differently from Google -- with a colorful home page and easy-to-navigate search categories compared with Google's stark white page and search box -- there is little difference between the two when it comes to searching for simple terms' 

I can't for the life of me see how he describes Google as lacking easy-to-navigate search categories and Bing not having a search box.
Across the top of Google.com [google.co.uk] I see Web, Images, Video, Maps, News, Shopping, Mail and more.
As compared to BING [bing.com]s .. Web, Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps and More.
Apart from the layout, I can see little difference.
What must have happened is that Sergey invented time travel and went forward in time and stole Bings innovation .. :) 
--
slashdot, you have disgraced yourselves yet again</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337203</id>
	<title>Probably a ripoff of pagerank concept</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you'll see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330695</id>
	<title>Re:Have any of you actually used bing?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244988300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless. with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's probably because Bing Is Not Google; give the useless link farms a little while and they'll ensure Bing looks like Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bing is n't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless .
with bing i do n't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information.That 's probably because Bing Is Not Google ; give the useless link farms a little while and they 'll ensure Bing looks like Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bing isn't infested with useless link agregators which have made google all but useless.
with bing i don't have to crawl through the results looking for actual sources of information.That's probably because Bing Is Not Google; give the useless link farms a little while and they'll ensure Bing looks like Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330969</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>BradyB</author>
	<datestamp>1244991300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  It seems just like their old Live Search with new curtains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It seems just like their old Live Search with new curtains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It seems just like their old Live Search with new curtains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330771</id>
	<title>Rumor started in the NY Post?</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1244989080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert Murdoch's NY rag (the WSJ being the other)?  Then it's scurrilous and almost certainly not true.  Google isn't worried about Bing.  The whole thing smells of astroturf and paid shills operating under cover of darkness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch 's NY rag ( the WSJ being the other ) ?
Then it 's scurrilous and almost certainly not true .
Google is n't worried about Bing .
The whole thing smells of astroturf and paid shills operating under cover of darkness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch's NY rag (the WSJ being the other)?
Then it's scurrilous and almost certainly not true.
Google isn't worried about Bing.
The whole thing smells of astroturf and paid shills operating under cover of darkness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333015</id>
	<title>hover box</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1245059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only thing I can see interesting on bing is the hover box which previews stuff on a page. other that, I don't notice anything unique except the brand. And the hover box info on the real search I did (rather than the test ones) didn't give me useful information. I can see it being useful with pictures. However, I'm sure there is already a google/firefox plugin that does such things better if I really wanted that feature.</p><p>I agree with the consensus here, this article is just marketing. (also, I just realised, because I can't spell worth sh*t, so I looked up "concensus", that bing isn't as good a spell check as google)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only thing I can see interesting on bing is the hover box which previews stuff on a page .
other that , I do n't notice anything unique except the brand .
And the hover box info on the real search I did ( rather than the test ones ) did n't give me useful information .
I can see it being useful with pictures .
However , I 'm sure there is already a google/firefox plugin that does such things better if I really wanted that feature.I agree with the consensus here , this article is just marketing .
( also , I just realised , because I ca n't spell worth sh * t , so I looked up " concensus " , that bing is n't as good a spell check as google )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only thing I can see interesting on bing is the hover box which previews stuff on a page.
other that, I don't notice anything unique except the brand.
And the hover box info on the real search I did (rather than the test ones) didn't give me useful information.
I can see it being useful with pictures.
However, I'm sure there is already a google/firefox plugin that does such things better if I really wanted that feature.I agree with the consensus here, this article is just marketing.
(also, I just realised, because I can't spell worth sh*t, so I looked up "concensus", that bing isn't as good a spell check as google)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331311</id>
	<title>Bing? What is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why am I not even compelled to try it out?</p><p>May be because the only Microsoft product line  I (ever) like(d) is the MS mice.<br>(I lied, I really  liked MS Word in 1988 after trying out Word Perfect, but stayed with LaTeX anyway)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I not even compelled to try it out ? May be because the only Microsoft product line I ( ever ) like ( d ) is the MS mice .
( I lied , I really liked MS Word in 1988 after trying out Word Perfect , but stayed with LaTeX anyway )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I not even compelled to try it out?May be because the only Microsoft product line  I (ever) like(d) is the MS mice.
(I lied, I really  liked MS Word in 1988 after trying out Word Perfect, but stayed with LaTeX anyway)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331403</id>
	<title>Was NY Post paid to do this article?</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1244995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at the comparison image the site made, one of the comparisons made is that Google's home page is "plain white" while Bing's has "cool photos". Wait, what? Yeah, go take a look. The article spends about 5 paragraphs talking about the "story" then rattles on about Microsoft for the rest of the page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the comparison image the site made , one of the comparisons made is that Google 's home page is " plain white " while Bing 's has " cool photos " .
Wait , what ?
Yeah , go take a look .
The article spends about 5 paragraphs talking about the " story " then rattles on about Microsoft for the rest of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the comparison image the site made, one of the comparisons made is that Google's home page is "plain white" while Bing's has "cool photos".
Wait, what?
Yeah, go take a look.
The article spends about 5 paragraphs talking about the "story" then rattles on about Microsoft for the rest of the page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331657</id>
	<title>Nice try... but nothing to scare Google</title>
	<author>HommeDeJava</author>
	<datestamp>1244998260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than trying to compete on general research against Google, Bing's strategy is to select the targeted queries as the search for goods and services (travel, shopping, health, local searches., etc).

The idea is bright, especially since such queries are the most likely to bring the $ dollars from advertisers. However, the trick is good but I see nothing that Google cannot ultimately counter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than trying to compete on general research against Google , Bing 's strategy is to select the targeted queries as the search for goods and services ( travel , shopping , health , local searches. , etc ) .
The idea is bright , especially since such queries are the most likely to bring the $ dollars from advertisers .
However , the trick is good but I see nothing that Google can not ultimately counter .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than trying to compete on general research against Google, Bing's strategy is to select the targeted queries as the search for goods and services (travel, shopping, health, local searches., etc).
The idea is bright, especially since such queries are the most likely to bring the $ dollars from advertisers.
However, the trick is good but I see nothing that Google cannot ultimately counter ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332623</id>
	<title>Bing rocks....</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1245097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the evidence: <a href="http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1696/bing2.jpg" title="imageshack.us">http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1696/bing2.jpg</a> [imageshack.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the evidence : http : //img29.imageshack.us/img29/1696/bing2.jpg [ imageshack.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the evidence: http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1696/bing2.jpg [imageshack.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332219</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?</p><p>Try "LCD vs Plasma"  or "sugar vs corn syrup".</p><p>Big point in Bing's favor, it doesn't return wikipedia in the top 10 results of everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? Try " LCD vs Plasma " or " sugar vs corn syrup " .Big point in Bing 's favor , it does n't return wikipedia in the top 10 results of everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?Try "LCD vs Plasma"  or "sugar vs corn syrup".Big point in Bing's favor, it doesn't return wikipedia in the top 10 results of everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333493</id>
	<title>Maybe no google but..</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1245067800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like their image search, the vid thing is cool, and the travel wizard is quick and easy even if just for guestimate trips. I see it as another resource but not a Google search, email, or online doc replacement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like their image search , the vid thing is cool , and the travel wizard is quick and easy even if just for guestimate trips .
I see it as another resource but not a Google search , email , or online doc replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like their image search, the vid thing is cool, and the travel wizard is quick and easy even if just for guestimate trips.
I see it as another resource but not a Google search, email, or online doc replacement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332567</id>
	<title>Doesn't work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno if it's because I'm in Ireland, but I can't see any video search on Bing. Perhaps they've removed it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno if it 's because I 'm in Ireland , but I ca n't see any video search on Bing .
Perhaps they 've removed it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno if it's because I'm in Ireland, but I can't see any video search on Bing.
Perhaps they've removed it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335135</id>
	<title>Re:Google should be scared</title>
	<author>Full Metal Jackass</author>
	<datestamp>1245080640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmmm. "naked women" shows up images largely of just that but "naked japanese women" shows up pretty much everything but what you'd expect.
</p><p>
Bing also failed me in my quest for "naked italian women" but it did turn up a picture of someone underwater which could possibly have been a naked Italian woman under the Santa suit.
</p><p>
Either Microsoft feel that it's not appropriate for me to choose the ethnicity of my naked women or they've got some tuning left to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmmm .
" naked women " shows up images largely of just that but " naked japanese women " shows up pretty much everything but what you 'd expect .
Bing also failed me in my quest for " naked italian women " but it did turn up a picture of someone underwater which could possibly have been a naked Italian woman under the Santa suit .
Either Microsoft feel that it 's not appropriate for me to choose the ethnicity of my naked women or they 've got some tuning left to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmmm.
"naked women" shows up images largely of just that but "naked japanese women" shows up pretty much everything but what you'd expect.
Bing also failed me in my quest for "naked italian women" but it did turn up a picture of someone underwater which could possibly have been a naked Italian woman under the Santa suit.
Either Microsoft feel that it's not appropriate for me to choose the ethnicity of my naked women or they've got some tuning left to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330551</id>
	<title>Well, I didn't think Americans would fall for. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1244987100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think a significant number of Americans would be stupid enough to fall for the whole 'Terrorists' thing, but holy smokes, I guess all the Fluoride and Big Macs played a number on their brains.</p><p>I guess the question is whether or not the world is stupid enough to fall for an extended Bing marketing campaign, because Americans certainly are.</p><p>--Granted, I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think "Google", but when I think, "Bing", I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.</p><p>I have no doubt that a significant number of retarded apes will do whatever the hell Microsoft tells them to do, and I betcha anything there have been tense talks over in Redmond about whether or not to release Windows 7 with an integrated Bing search bar built into the final version.  You KNOW that if they thought they could rape you and take your wallet and get away with it, they would.  MS is like the Blob from 50's sci-fi.  Hungry, smart and without ethics, only a half-assed legal system keeps those fuckers in check.  I would much rather have a company which at least attempts to make ethical behavior part of its mission statement.</p><p>But in the end, it doesn't matter to me; I know for a fact that I will NEVER knowingly give Microsoft an inch where I don't absolutely have to.</p><p>Speaking of which. . .  I wonder if the new game system MS is developing where it watches your body language is at all creepy?</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think a significant number of Americans would be stupid enough to fall for the whole 'Terrorists ' thing , but holy smokes , I guess all the Fluoride and Big Macs played a number on their brains.I guess the question is whether or not the world is stupid enough to fall for an extended Bing marketing campaign , because Americans certainly are.--Granted , I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think " Google " , but when I think , " Bing " , I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.I have no doubt that a significant number of retarded apes will do whatever the hell Microsoft tells them to do , and I betcha anything there have been tense talks over in Redmond about whether or not to release Windows 7 with an integrated Bing search bar built into the final version .
You KNOW that if they thought they could rape you and take your wallet and get away with it , they would .
MS is like the Blob from 50 's sci-fi .
Hungry , smart and without ethics , only a half-assed legal system keeps those fuckers in check .
I would much rather have a company which at least attempts to make ethical behavior part of its mission statement.But in the end , it does n't matter to me ; I know for a fact that I will NEVER knowingly give Microsoft an inch where I do n't absolutely have to.Speaking of which .
. .
I wonder if the new game system MS is developing where it watches your body language is at all creepy ? -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think a significant number of Americans would be stupid enough to fall for the whole 'Terrorists' thing, but holy smokes, I guess all the Fluoride and Big Macs played a number on their brains.I guess the question is whether or not the world is stupid enough to fall for an extended Bing marketing campaign, because Americans certainly are.--Granted, I do feel uneasy deep down inside when I think "Google", but when I think, "Bing", I feel a burning horror very close to the surface.I have no doubt that a significant number of retarded apes will do whatever the hell Microsoft tells them to do, and I betcha anything there have been tense talks over in Redmond about whether or not to release Windows 7 with an integrated Bing search bar built into the final version.
You KNOW that if they thought they could rape you and take your wallet and get away with it, they would.
MS is like the Blob from 50's sci-fi.
Hungry, smart and without ethics, only a half-assed legal system keeps those fuckers in check.
I would much rather have a company which at least attempts to make ethical behavior part of its mission statement.But in the end, it doesn't matter to me; I know for a fact that I will NEVER knowingly give Microsoft an inch where I don't absolutely have to.Speaking of which.
. .
I wonder if the new game system MS is developing where it watches your body language is at all creepy?-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333135</id>
	<title>Re:parent is lying</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1245061260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you got wood from a google search?<br> <br>

Only on slashdot...</htmltext>
<tokenext>you got wood from a google search ?
Only on slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you got wood from a google search?
Only on slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332429</id>
	<title>Re:Compare them yourself, without branding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This search tells you everything you wanted to know...</p><p>http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=best+search+engine&amp;type=web</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This search tells you everything you wanted to know...http : //blindsearch.fejus.com/ ? q = best + search + engine&amp;type = web</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This search tells you everything you wanted to know...http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=best+search+engine&amp;type=web</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28340251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28338687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28357287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28338259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2040209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28338687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28357287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28337539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28332801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28340251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28338259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28333645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28334553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28336035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28335015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2040209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28330697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2040209.28331475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
