<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_1342246</id>
	<title>Bing Gains 10\% Marketshare</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1258552200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>samzbest writes <i>"According to ComScore's qSearch, Microsoft's retaliation against Google search, Bing, <a href="http://thetechnologycafe.com/bing-gains-10-marketshare-reaching-towards-google/">has gained significant market share</a>, now facilitating close to 10\% of US searches. That's a gain of two large points in five months."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>samzbest writes " According to ComScore 's qSearch , Microsoft 's retaliation against Google search , Bing , has gained significant market share , now facilitating close to 10 \ % of US searches .
That 's a gain of two large points in five months .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>samzbest writes "According to ComScore's qSearch, Microsoft's retaliation against Google search, Bing, has gained significant market share, now facilitating close to 10\% of US searches.
That's a gain of two large points in five months.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142934</id>
	<title>Re:why i stuck with google</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1257088560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bing is just a shiny object."</p><p>No, that would be bling. Bing is just.. bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bing is just a shiny object .
" No , that would be bling .
Bing is just.. bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bing is just a shiny object.
"No, that would be bling.
Bing is just.. bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144432</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1257094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is worse than that. Let us say that you want Google as the default for said address bar search feature of IE8, and you go to the Microsoft tool for adding said capability and you look for Google, it is no where to be found. WHAT???? They have search tools I have barely heard of listed, but no GOOGLE????</p><p>Oh wait, it is on page two. Never mind. No, Microsoft isn't trying to hide it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... NOOOOOO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worse than that .
Let us say that you want Google as the default for said address bar search feature of IE8 , and you go to the Microsoft tool for adding said capability and you look for Google , it is no where to be found .
WHAT ? ? ? ? They have search tools I have barely heard of listed , but no GOOGLE ? ? ?
? Oh wait , it is on page two .
Never mind .
No , Microsoft is n't trying to hide it ... NOOOOOO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worse than that.
Let us say that you want Google as the default for said address bar search feature of IE8, and you go to the Microsoft tool for adding said capability and you look for Google, it is no where to be found.
WHAT???? They have search tools I have barely heard of listed, but no GOOGLE???
?Oh wait, it is on page two.
Never mind.
No, Microsoft isn't trying to hide it ... NOOOOOO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146022</id>
	<title>Bing In UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing is now properly indexing the UK - need to try to get the ranking of my site up, as it is way lower than google for most terms for some reason. Site is at <a href="http://www.synergyconnections.co.uk/" title="synergyconnections.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.synergyconnections.co.uk/</a> [synergyconnections.co.uk] if you have any suggestions!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is now properly indexing the UK - need to try to get the ranking of my site up , as it is way lower than google for most terms for some reason .
Site is at http : //www.synergyconnections.co.uk/ [ synergyconnections.co.uk ] if you have any suggestions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is now properly indexing the UK - need to try to get the ranking of my site up, as it is way lower than google for most terms for some reason.
Site is at http://www.synergyconnections.co.uk/ [synergyconnections.co.uk] if you have any suggestions!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144788</id>
	<title>Not Impressed</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1257095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I've been using the online sphere since 110 baud modems.  Yeah there was a bit more before me but not by much.  I've since then been on the cutting edge for most of it since then and have seen the rise and fall of various search engines.  Webcraweler (AoL), Yahoo, and then Google.</p><p>Google got it right and has now <i>market dominance</i> which if you don't know capitalism means that they are entrenched and not going anywhere.  The idea that MS can somehow break that is folly at best.</p><p>I could go on with a thesis level dissertation about why Google is not about to be displaced by MS but honestly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is not the place for it.  And to boot I'd have to deal with the trolls that come with it.  Suffice to say that yay for MS getting a bit of the share.  They had the war chest to make it so.  But Google is still the 1000lb monkey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I 've been using the online sphere since 110 baud modems .
Yeah there was a bit more before me but not by much .
I 've since then been on the cutting edge for most of it since then and have seen the rise and fall of various search engines .
Webcraweler ( AoL ) , Yahoo , and then Google.Google got it right and has now market dominance which if you do n't know capitalism means that they are entrenched and not going anywhere .
The idea that MS can somehow break that is folly at best.I could go on with a thesis level dissertation about why Google is not about to be displaced by MS but honestly / .
is not the place for it .
And to boot I 'd have to deal with the trolls that come with it .
Suffice to say that yay for MS getting a bit of the share .
They had the war chest to make it so .
But Google is still the 1000lb monkey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I've been using the online sphere since 110 baud modems.
Yeah there was a bit more before me but not by much.
I've since then been on the cutting edge for most of it since then and have seen the rise and fall of various search engines.
Webcraweler (AoL), Yahoo, and then Google.Google got it right and has now market dominance which if you don't know capitalism means that they are entrenched and not going anywhere.
The idea that MS can somehow break that is folly at best.I could go on with a thesis level dissertation about why Google is not about to be displaced by MS but honestly /.
is not the place for it.
And to boot I'd have to deal with the trolls that come with it.
Suffice to say that yay for MS getting a bit of the share.
They had the war chest to make it so.
But Google is still the 1000lb monkey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143442</id>
	<title>They took marketshare from Yahoo, not Google...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bing-naehert-sich-in-den-USA-der-10-Prozent-Marke-861407.html" title="heise.de">heise.de</a> [heise.de] reported the same thing yesterday, pointing out that Yahoo lost more marketshare, than bing won (and google won marketshare, too). So given Microsofts collaboration with yahoo, this should rather read "Google takes marketshare from Microsoft+Yahoo!"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>heise.de [ heise.de ] reported the same thing yesterday , pointing out that Yahoo lost more marketshare , than bing won ( and google won marketshare , too ) .
So given Microsofts collaboration with yahoo , this should rather read " Google takes marketshare from Microsoft + Yahoo !
" .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heise.de [heise.de] reported the same thing yesterday, pointing out that Yahoo lost more marketshare, than bing won (and google won marketshare, too).
So given Microsofts collaboration with yahoo, this should rather read "Google takes marketshare from Microsoft+Yahoo!
"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144580</id>
	<title>Depends who you ask...</title>
	<author>caffeinejolt</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to <a href="http://www.statowl.com/" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">StatOwl.com</a> [statowl.com], <a href="http://www.statowl.com/search\_engine\_market\_share.php" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">Bing has around 4\% market share</a> [statowl.com].  However, it should be noted that they measure traffic driven to actual sites as a result of using search engines for their metrics.  So if we assume both ComScore and StatOwl are correct in their reported data.  Then around 6\% of the new Bing traffic can't seem to find what they are looking for with Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to StatOwl.com [ statowl.com ] , Bing has around 4 \ % market share [ statowl.com ] .
However , it should be noted that they measure traffic driven to actual sites as a result of using search engines for their metrics .
So if we assume both ComScore and StatOwl are correct in their reported data .
Then around 6 \ % of the new Bing traffic ca n't seem to find what they are looking for with Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to StatOwl.com [statowl.com], Bing has around 4\% market share [statowl.com].
However, it should be noted that they measure traffic driven to actual sites as a result of using search engines for their metrics.
So if we assume both ComScore and StatOwl are correct in their reported data.
Then around 6\% of the new Bing traffic can't seem to find what they are looking for with Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143124</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1257089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but last time I used it in front of my mom, I got slapped!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but last time I used it in front of my mom , I got slapped !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but last time I used it in front of my mom, I got slapped!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149950</id>
	<title>Bing Cash Back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about other people but I actively use bing.... There has been a lot of great deals with microsoft picking up anywhere from 3 to 30\% of the bill for buying stuff with bing cash back. Guess what? I have to use bing to search for those deals. Granted I don't buy *that* much and it's probably accounts for less than 3\% of my browsing but I wouldn't be surprised if people got it as high as 10\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about other people but I actively use bing.... There has been a lot of great deals with microsoft picking up anywhere from 3 to 30 \ % of the bill for buying stuff with bing cash back .
Guess what ?
I have to use bing to search for those deals .
Granted I do n't buy * that * much and it 's probably accounts for less than 3 \ % of my browsing but I would n't be surprised if people got it as high as 10 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about other people but I actively use bing.... There has been a lot of great deals with microsoft picking up anywhere from 3 to 30\% of the bill for buying stuff with bing cash back.
Guess what?
I have to use bing to search for those deals.
Granted I don't buy *that* much and it's probably accounts for less than 3\% of my browsing but I wouldn't be surprised if people got it as high as 10\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145220</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically what this means is IE8 has, mostly as a result of automatic updates, reached about 10\% market share among people who think the browser's location bar is a search box and haven't bothered to express an opinion about what search engine it should use. IE8 ships with "Live Search", alias Bing, as the default; IE6 and IE7 used MSN Search as their default, so what we're seeing here is mostly new-version uptake.</p></div><p>As theories go, this one is flawed in its fundamental premise. See, MSN Search redirects to Bing now, so a default IE6/7 install will actually use Bing as well.</p><p>Also, IE8 does <em>not</em> ship with Bing as the default. It will ask what you want during installation, and Bing is not the default option there (there is none, in fact; you have to choose explicitly).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically what this means is IE8 has , mostly as a result of automatic updates , reached about 10 \ % market share among people who think the browser 's location bar is a search box and have n't bothered to express an opinion about what search engine it should use .
IE8 ships with " Live Search " , alias Bing , as the default ; IE6 and IE7 used MSN Search as their default , so what we 're seeing here is mostly new-version uptake.As theories go , this one is flawed in its fundamental premise .
See , MSN Search redirects to Bing now , so a default IE6/7 install will actually use Bing as well.Also , IE8 does not ship with Bing as the default .
It will ask what you want during installation , and Bing is not the default option there ( there is none , in fact ; you have to choose explicitly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically what this means is IE8 has, mostly as a result of automatic updates, reached about 10\% market share among people who think the browser's location bar is a search box and haven't bothered to express an opinion about what search engine it should use.
IE8 ships with "Live Search", alias Bing, as the default; IE6 and IE7 used MSN Search as their default, so what we're seeing here is mostly new-version uptake.As theories go, this one is flawed in its fundamental premise.
See, MSN Search redirects to Bing now, so a default IE6/7 install will actually use Bing as well.Also, IE8 does not ship with Bing as the default.
It will ask what you want during installation, and Bing is not the default option there (there is none, in fact; you have to choose explicitly).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144974</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>StormyWeather</author>
	<datestamp>1257096480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the same boat.  I use Fatwallet cash back, but lately bing has been pumping a TON of money into their shopping and cash back. Heck I think even Newegg was 6 percent there for a while.  Before I hit checkout on a cart I always look on Fatwallet, SlickDeals, Google Shopping, and Bing Shopping.  I love getting those random hundred dollar checks in the mail for crap I was going to buy at a given price anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the same boat .
I use Fatwallet cash back , but lately bing has been pumping a TON of money into their shopping and cash back .
Heck I think even Newegg was 6 percent there for a while .
Before I hit checkout on a cart I always look on Fatwallet , SlickDeals , Google Shopping , and Bing Shopping .
I love getting those random hundred dollar checks in the mail for crap I was going to buy at a given price anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the same boat.
I use Fatwallet cash back, but lately bing has been pumping a TON of money into their shopping and cash back.
Heck I think even Newegg was 6 percent there for a while.
Before I hit checkout on a cart I always look on Fatwallet, SlickDeals, Google Shopping, and Bing Shopping.
I love getting those random hundred dollar checks in the mail for crap I was going to buy at a given price anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149352</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing what money will buy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <br>However, they did this same strategy with domainNames to get IIS up in rankings in late 2007 through early 2008. How are they doing now?</p></div><p>Netcraft confirms it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , they did this same strategy with domainNames to get IIS up in rankings in late 2007 through early 2008 .
How are they doing now ? Netcraft confirms it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> However, they did this same strategy with domainNames to get IIS up in rankings in late 2007 through early 2008.
How are they doing now?Netcraft confirms it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144238</id>
	<title>Cheating?</title>
	<author>FrostedWheat</author>
	<datestamp>1257093660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My own site stats showed a big spike in Bing referrals a few months ago - I thought it odd so I looked at the logs, and it turns out the vast majority of that traffic was coming from Microsoft's own IP addresses. Still haven't found an explanation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My own site stats showed a big spike in Bing referrals a few months ago - I thought it odd so I looked at the logs , and it turns out the vast majority of that traffic was coming from Microsoft 's own IP addresses .
Still have n't found an explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My own site stats showed a big spike in Bing referrals a few months ago - I thought it odd so I looked at the logs, and it turns out the vast majority of that traffic was coming from Microsoft's own IP addresses.
Still haven't found an explanation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148426</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmella\_Bing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">better.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even better .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even better.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146780</id>
	<title>who cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the USofA market now accounts for 13\% of the worldwide Internet access... and decreasing (with China, India, Brazil raising...)</p><p>come back when you'll have a more complete picture on Bing providing services friendly to a non-US audience, and we'll talk again</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the USofA market now accounts for 13 \ % of the worldwide Internet access... and decreasing ( with China , India , Brazil raising... ) come back when you 'll have a more complete picture on Bing providing services friendly to a non-US audience , and we 'll talk again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the USofA market now accounts for 13\% of the worldwide Internet access... and decreasing (with China, India, Brazil raising...)come back when you'll have a more complete picture on Bing providing services friendly to a non-US audience, and we'll talk again</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708</id>
	<title>Bigger marketshare than desktop Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If 10\% Bing is "shit", then what does that make 1\% Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If 10 \ % Bing is " shit " , then what does that make 1 \ % Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 10\% Bing is "shit", then what does that make 1\% Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143584</id>
	<title>Ugly</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1257091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To bad the website is still ugly.  I want fast loads and simple design/colors not large pictures of a moose.  I say good day to you M$.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To bad the website is still ugly .
I want fast loads and simple design/colors not large pictures of a moose .
I say good day to you M $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To bad the website is still ugly.
I want fast loads and simple design/colors not large pictures of a moose.
I say good day to you M$.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152904</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, lets try:</p><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a/</a> [google.com] </p><p>Now the other way:</p><p> <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE/" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE/</a> [bing.com] </p><p>Does anyone actually trust Bing?</p></div><p>I'm not sure I see your point.</p><p>When you serach on Bing for Google, it not only highlights google.com, shows you the stock price, and then <i> provides a entry form to perform a search on Google</i>.  Hard to image something less biased than that.  Bing turns out to be way more useful than Google in this instance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , lets try : http : //www.google.com/search ? q = bing&amp;ie = utf-8&amp;oe = utf-8&amp;aq = t&amp;rls = org.mozilla : en-US : official&amp;client = firefox-a/ [ google.com ] Now the other way : http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = google&amp;go = &amp;form = QBRE/ [ bing.com ] Does anyone actually trust Bing ? I 'm not sure I see your point.When you serach on Bing for Google , it not only highlights google.com , shows you the stock price , and then provides a entry form to perform a search on Google .
Hard to image something less biased than that .
Bing turns out to be way more useful than Google in this instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, lets try: http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a/ [google.com] Now the other way: http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE/ [bing.com] Does anyone actually trust Bing?I'm not sure I see your point.When you serach on Bing for Google, it not only highlights google.com, shows you the stock price, and then  provides a entry form to perform a search on Google.
Hard to image something less biased than that.
Bing turns out to be way more useful than Google in this instance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143662</id>
	<title>Can say now: I binged your mom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, really:<br>http://www.bing.com/search?q=your+mom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really : http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = your + mom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really:http://www.bing.com/search?q=your+mom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147566</id>
	<title>Re:Well...it's my homepage anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, that's a shallow reason.</i></p><p>You're a mac user, we know the above already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's a shallow reason.You 're a mac user , we know the above already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that's a shallow reason.You're a mac user, we know the above already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152396</id>
	<title>It's all about porn</title>
	<author>fretlessjazz</author>
	<datestamp>1257090000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing is hands-down the best porn search engine ever created.  If you build it, they will come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is hands-down the best porn search engine ever created .
If you build it , they will come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is hands-down the best porn search engine ever created.
If you build it, they will come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143946</id>
	<title>what do you guys think</title>
	<author>dontPanik</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I've used Bing the experience has been substandard to google. The results I want are always buried lower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I 've used Bing the experience has been substandard to google .
The results I want are always buried lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I've used Bing the experience has been substandard to google.
The results I want are always buried lower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146560</id>
	<title>urge to go on the desktop...</title>
	<author>GNUPublicLicense</author>
	<datestamp>1257102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, if google does not hurry to go on the desktop, MS will phase them out by defaulting to bing IE on pre-installed personnal computers (let be remind you the disaster of MSN which was by default assaulting you to subscribe with any newly bought personnal computer)
They do not have the choice. It's too dangerous to delay the entry on the personnal computer market since it will take hard work to make hardware manufacturers pre-install their OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , if google does not hurry to go on the desktop , MS will phase them out by defaulting to bing IE on pre-installed personnal computers ( let be remind you the disaster of MSN which was by default assaulting you to subscribe with any newly bought personnal computer ) They do not have the choice .
It 's too dangerous to delay the entry on the personnal computer market since it will take hard work to make hardware manufacturers pre-install their OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, if google does not hurry to go on the desktop, MS will phase them out by defaulting to bing IE on pre-installed personnal computers (let be remind you the disaster of MSN which was by default assaulting you to subscribe with any newly bought personnal computer)
They do not have the choice.
It's too dangerous to delay the entry on the personnal computer market since it will take hard work to make hardware manufacturers pre-install their OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142876</id>
	<title>Amazing what money will buy</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/11/10/november\_2009\_web\_server\_survey.html" title="netcraft.com">
However, they did this same strategy with domainNames to get IIS up in rankings in late 2007 through early 2008.</a> [netcraft.com] How are they doing now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , they did this same strategy with domainNames to get IIS up in rankings in late 2007 through early 2008 .
[ netcraft.com ] How are they doing now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
However, they did this same strategy with domainNames to get IIS up in rankings in late 2007 through early 2008.
[netcraft.com] How are they doing now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145964</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1257100500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, you got bing cashback at Amazon? (And as to where the money is coming from, MS has the cash to spend billions on an advertising campaign. Probably a better use than naming a stadium or buying Yahoo, and it's more typical of MS to buy or bribe its way to success.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you got bing cashback at Amazon ?
( And as to where the money is coming from , MS has the cash to spend billions on an advertising campaign .
Probably a better use than naming a stadium or buying Yahoo , and it 's more typical of MS to buy or bribe its way to success .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you got bing cashback at Amazon?
(And as to where the money is coming from, MS has the cash to spend billions on an advertising campaign.
Probably a better use than naming a stadium or buying Yahoo, and it's more typical of MS to buy or bribe its way to success.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</id>
	<title>I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1257089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, lets try:</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a/" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a/</a> [google.com]</p><p>Now the other way:</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE/" title="bing.com">http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE/</a> [bing.com]</p><p>Does anyone actually trust Bing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , lets try : http : //www.google.com/search ? q = bing&amp;ie = utf-8&amp;oe = utf-8&amp;aq = t&amp;rls = org.mozilla : en-US : official&amp;client = firefox-a/ [ google.com ] Now the other way : http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = google&amp;go = &amp;form = QBRE/ [ bing.com ] Does anyone actually trust Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, lets try:http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a/ [google.com]Now the other way:http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE/ [bing.com]Does anyone actually trust Bing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148860</id>
	<title>Big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big whoop, wanna fight about it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big whoop , wan na fight about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big whoop, wanna fight about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143000</id>
	<title>Anti-Google vs Anti-Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is always going to be a segment of the userbase that hates a "top dog" and will switch if they think one particular company or product is getting too powerful. The differences between searches in Google and Bing are minor, so being that is the case why would 10\% switch? For no reason other than because there is satisfaction in not doing what everybody else is doing.</p><p>Just my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is always going to be a segment of the userbase that hates a " top dog " and will switch if they think one particular company or product is getting too powerful .
The differences between searches in Google and Bing are minor , so being that is the case why would 10 \ % switch ?
For no reason other than because there is satisfaction in not doing what everybody else is doing.Just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is always going to be a segment of the userbase that hates a "top dog" and will switch if they think one particular company or product is getting too powerful.
The differences between searches in Google and Bing are minor, so being that is the case why would 10\% switch?
For no reason other than because there is satisfaction in not doing what everybody else is doing.Just my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143160</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Lillebo</author>
	<datestamp>1257089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent should get a higher meta score than 1?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent should get a higher meta score than 1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent should get a higher meta score than 1?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142926</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>as if msn or live were so hard to remember</htmltext>
<tokenext>as if msn or live were so hard to remember</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as if msn or live were so hard to remember</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143786</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, I did a Bing search myself just the other day. I was using IE for the one thing at work that requires it, and I didn't know that Bing was the default in IE.</p><p>It only took me about 15 seconds to change it, though.</p><p>Seriously, though, other than the fact that it's the Evil Empire's search, I think this is mostly good. Competition breeds better products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , I did a Bing search myself just the other day .
I was using IE for the one thing at work that requires it , and I did n't know that Bing was the default in IE.It only took me about 15 seconds to change it , though.Seriously , though , other than the fact that it 's the Evil Empire 's search , I think this is mostly good .
Competition breeds better products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, I did a Bing search myself just the other day.
I was using IE for the one thing at work that requires it, and I didn't know that Bing was the default in IE.It only took me about 15 seconds to change it, though.Seriously, though, other than the fact that it's the Evil Empire's search, I think this is mostly good.
Competition breeds better products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142692</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially since <a href="http://www.bingcarburetor.com/" title="bingcarburetor.com">Bing</a> [bingcarburetor.com] are mostly known for small engine carburetors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since Bing [ bingcarburetor.com ] are mostly known for small engine carburetors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since Bing [bingcarburetor.com] are mostly known for small engine carburetors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147898</id>
	<title>Bing Bang</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing bang, the witch (google) is dead.  Oh wait, it's only 10\%.  BFD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing bang , the witch ( google ) is dead .
Oh wait , it 's only 10 \ % .
BFD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing bang, the witch (google) is dead.
Oh wait, it's only 10\%.
BFD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145902</id>
	<title>Re:I use it</title>
	<author>Inverted Intellect</author>
	<datestamp>1257100320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You just scroll down and more results are loaded. It's worth using Bing for that feature alone.</i></p><p>I use the Firefox plugin AutoPager for much the same purpose. It has the added benefit that it also does this for almost every single site I routinely visit, and a lot of the ones I just randomly stumble upon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just scroll down and more results are loaded .
It 's worth using Bing for that feature alone.I use the Firefox plugin AutoPager for much the same purpose .
It has the added benefit that it also does this for almost every single site I routinely visit , and a lot of the ones I just randomly stumble upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just scroll down and more results are loaded.
It's worth using Bing for that feature alone.I use the Firefox plugin AutoPager for much the same purpose.
It has the added benefit that it also does this for almost every single site I routinely visit, and a lot of the ones I just randomly stumble upon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google search is embedded into a hojillion websites as well as having browser plugins / toolbars for pretty much every browser. If "embedded searches" are counted it'll probably be to Google's advantage.</p><p>(I'm not saying that the study isn't trickery. I wouldn't know either way.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google search is embedded into a hojillion websites as well as having browser plugins / toolbars for pretty much every browser .
If " embedded searches " are counted it 'll probably be to Google 's advantage .
( I 'm not saying that the study is n't trickery .
I would n't know either way .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google search is embedded into a hojillion websites as well as having browser plugins / toolbars for pretty much every browser.
If "embedded searches" are counted it'll probably be to Google's advantage.
(I'm not saying that the study isn't trickery.
I wouldn't know either way.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149692</id>
	<title>I wonder if they counted my search...</title>
	<author>kainewynd2</author>
	<datestamp>1257074940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>"How the fuck do I get Bing to crawl my goddamn site?!"</b> </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me shrugs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How the fuck do I get Bing to crawl my goddamn site ? !
" /me shrugs</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "How the fuck do I get Bing to crawl my goddamn site?!
"  /me shrugs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710</id>
	<title>I use it</title>
	<author>the-matt-mobile</author>
	<datestamp>1257091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find myself using Bing quite a bit.  The reason - if I'm logged into gmail or Blogger, then Google shows me as logged in when I search in another tab.  I can't log out of Google search while staying logged in to gmail or blogger, so I use Bing.  Why do I want to log out?  I don't really know - it's not like Google can't still identify me, but it just feels icky to have them blatantly flaunt that they track my searches.</p><p>A couple of other items of note - for C# programmers, Bing is nicer in that it allows the sharp sign in a search, as opposed to google which doesn't (even though it does a mightly fine job of returning relavent results anyway).  And, probably the best feature of Bing is that it's image search is really nice.  You just scroll down and more results are loaded.  It's worth using Bing for that feature alone.</p><p>However, the trouble with numbers like the ones in the article are that very few people will ever use only Bing.  Google is still the de facto search engine, and Bing is an alternative for those times when you want something google doesn't do the way you want it to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find myself using Bing quite a bit .
The reason - if I 'm logged into gmail or Blogger , then Google shows me as logged in when I search in another tab .
I ca n't log out of Google search while staying logged in to gmail or blogger , so I use Bing .
Why do I want to log out ?
I do n't really know - it 's not like Google ca n't still identify me , but it just feels icky to have them blatantly flaunt that they track my searches.A couple of other items of note - for C # programmers , Bing is nicer in that it allows the sharp sign in a search , as opposed to google which does n't ( even though it does a mightly fine job of returning relavent results anyway ) .
And , probably the best feature of Bing is that it 's image search is really nice .
You just scroll down and more results are loaded .
It 's worth using Bing for that feature alone.However , the trouble with numbers like the ones in the article are that very few people will ever use only Bing .
Google is still the de facto search engine , and Bing is an alternative for those times when you want something google does n't do the way you want it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find myself using Bing quite a bit.
The reason - if I'm logged into gmail or Blogger, then Google shows me as logged in when I search in another tab.
I can't log out of Google search while staying logged in to gmail or blogger, so I use Bing.
Why do I want to log out?
I don't really know - it's not like Google can't still identify me, but it just feels icky to have them blatantly flaunt that they track my searches.A couple of other items of note - for C# programmers, Bing is nicer in that it allows the sharp sign in a search, as opposed to google which doesn't (even though it does a mightly fine job of returning relavent results anyway).
And, probably the best feature of Bing is that it's image search is really nice.
You just scroll down and more results are loaded.
It's worth using Bing for that feature alone.However, the trouble with numbers like the ones in the article are that very few people will ever use only Bing.
Google is still the de facto search engine, and Bing is an alternative for those times when you want something google doesn't do the way you want it to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143036</id>
	<title>Mod parent up or I curse thee</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1257089160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These increases are very likely to correlate (causally, no less!) to Infection Explorer 8 being pushed hard, leveraging the majority number of computers that have M-Windows installed.</p><p>Capitalism is about having or obtaining a large quantity of something at price P, "talking it up" through Marketing or other bovine excrement until people want it, and then setting new price NP &gt; P when they come asking for it.</p><p>Or, in clearer Slashdot format:</p><p>1) Have a large install base.<br>2) Push your browser hard onto the install base and set the default page to Bing (just as Google arranged with Mozilla).<br>3) ???? (bovine excrement)<br>4) PROFIT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These increases are very likely to correlate ( causally , no less !
) to Infection Explorer 8 being pushed hard , leveraging the majority number of computers that have M-Windows installed.Capitalism is about having or obtaining a large quantity of something at price P , " talking it up " through Marketing or other bovine excrement until people want it , and then setting new price NP &gt; P when they come asking for it.Or , in clearer Slashdot format : 1 ) Have a large install base.2 ) Push your browser hard onto the install base and set the default page to Bing ( just as Google arranged with Mozilla ) .3 ) ? ? ? ?
( bovine excrement ) 4 ) PROFIT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These increases are very likely to correlate (causally, no less!
) to Infection Explorer 8 being pushed hard, leveraging the majority number of computers that have M-Windows installed.Capitalism is about having or obtaining a large quantity of something at price P, "talking it up" through Marketing or other bovine excrement until people want it, and then setting new price NP &gt; P when they come asking for it.Or, in clearer Slashdot format:1) Have a large install base.2) Push your browser hard onto the install base and set the default page to Bing (just as Google arranged with Mozilla).3) ????
(bovine excrement)4) PROFIT!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142814</id>
	<title>Duh.</title>
	<author>headhot</author>
	<datestamp>1257088020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this has to do with Window 7. Its the default search, and they bury the hell out of google to replace it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this has to do with Window 7 .
Its the default search , and they bury the hell out of google to replace it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this has to do with Window 7.
Its the default search, and they bury the hell out of google to replace it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143350</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1257090360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I fail to see the problem. Perhaps they've changed something, but when I google bing I get bing.com as the first result then a bunch of other stuff. And when I put google in to ping I get only one result, google.com, along with links for images, videos, maps, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I fail to see the problem .
Perhaps they 've changed something , but when I google bing I get bing.com as the first result then a bunch of other stuff .
And when I put google in to ping I get only one result , google.com , along with links for images , videos , maps , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I fail to see the problem.
Perhaps they've changed something, but when I google bing I get bing.com as the first result then a bunch of other stuff.
And when I put google in to ping I get only one result, google.com, along with links for images, videos, maps, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152878</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>GregNorc</author>
	<datestamp>1257095340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't even understand the concept of a browser, let alone a search provider.</p><p>This is solely because IE8 has bing included.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't even understand the concept of a browser , let alone a search provider.This is solely because IE8 has bing included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't even understand the concept of a browser, let alone a search provider.This is solely because IE8 has bing included.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950</id>
	<title>What the...seriously?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?  I don't personally know anyone that uses Bing, and I even know a few people that aren't even aware of its existence.</p><p>I know that who I kow is a very small slice of "everyone", but still...where are these legions of people using Bing?  Could the fact that many Windows Mobile phones use Bing as their default search engine be contributing to this number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
I do n't personally know anyone that uses Bing , and I even know a few people that are n't even aware of its existence.I know that who I kow is a very small slice of " everyone " , but still...where are these legions of people using Bing ?
Could the fact that many Windows Mobile phones use Bing as their default search engine be contributing to this number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
I don't personally know anyone that uses Bing, and I even know a few people that aren't even aware of its existence.I know that who I kow is a very small slice of "everyone", but still...where are these legions of people using Bing?
Could the fact that many Windows Mobile phones use Bing as their default search engine be contributing to this number?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144774</id>
	<title>zero sum</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1257095700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since every point increase for bing'le must be a consequent "loss" for google, any "down" for google over the last 2 months could easily be explained by (1) der bing'le being default on all of the new W7 installs/machines, and (2) all microserfs being flagellated into using it exclusively and as often as cpu-ably possible.</p><p>Massaged user stats aside, if google==Al Gore, then bing'le==Dan Quayle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since every point increase for bing'le must be a consequent " loss " for google , any " down " for google over the last 2 months could easily be explained by ( 1 ) der bing'le being default on all of the new W7 installs/machines , and ( 2 ) all microserfs being flagellated into using it exclusively and as often as cpu-ably possible.Massaged user stats aside , if google = = Al Gore , then bing'le = = Dan Quayle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since every point increase for bing'le must be a consequent "loss" for google, any "down" for google over the last 2 months could easily be explained by (1) der bing'le being default on all of the new W7 installs/machines, and (2) all microserfs being flagellated into using it exclusively and as often as cpu-ably possible.Massaged user stats aside, if google==Al Gore, then bing'le==Dan Quayle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152616</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know Google does that the one and only one result thing too. I've stumbled across that more than once, can't think of a query that will cause it right now though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know Google does that the one and only one result thing too .
I 've stumbled across that more than once , ca n't think of a query that will cause it right now though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know Google does that the one and only one result thing too.
I've stumbled across that more than once, can't think of a query that will cause it right now though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143046</id>
	<title>Must be all that Cashback.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1257089220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got mine from the laptop I purchased a while back. That's a pretty nice incentive...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got mine from the laptop I purchased a while back .
That 's a pretty nice incentive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got mine from the laptop I purchased a while back.
That's a pretty nice incentive...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144318</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know people are claiming that MS is using <i>their</i> offered rebates as a way to temporarily win mindshare, but if they run rebates like any old manufacturer does then they are a permanent addition to Bing.  I would have summarized how it works, but I didn't sleep much.  So here is <a href="http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=money&amp;Number=245607" title="howwhatwhy.com" rel="nofollow">someone elses summary</a> [howwhatwhy.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>1) You spend $500 on something with a $100 mail in rebate. Cost to you? $500! Two months later you get $100 from nowhere.<br>2) Assume 10,000 other people do the same thing.<br>3) Let's say 5,000 of those people actually bother mailing in the rebate the exact day of the purchase.<br>(ex: my wife just let the deadline pass on a cell phone rebate....arghhhh)</p><p>Therefore:<br>- 5,000 people just lost $100 each to the corporation while thinking they got a good deal<br>- Corporation just got $500,000 free they never intended to charge for in the first place<br>- Do you know why it takes 6-8 weeks to get your rebate check? It's NOT because they get so many or they're "hard" to process. It's because they SIT ON THE MONEY and earn interest for a whole month.</p><p>Here's the thing. Mail-In Rebates are EXACTLY the same as the corporation saying "Hey, in addition to the money we're already charging you for this product at a fair price, we're going to ramp up the price and give you the difference back in a few months. We're going to borrow your money, and the money of every other person who buys this product, put it in a high-interest account, and then send it back to you and keep the interest!"</p><p>Wherein you would've only made a few cents on your money in an account, the corporation sits on hundreds of thousands of dollars (CELL PHONES!) and makes heaps of money for doing nothing.</p><p>It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't getting a good deal on your product, but the reasoning behind it is NOT that the corporations love you. It's that they want the interest your over-charge gets them while they sit on it. It suckers people in who think they're getting a great deal (ie; sells more product) while earning money for doing nothing.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know people are claiming that MS is using their offered rebates as a way to temporarily win mindshare , but if they run rebates like any old manufacturer does then they are a permanent addition to Bing .
I would have summarized how it works , but I did n't sleep much .
So here is someone elses summary [ howwhatwhy.com ] : 1 ) You spend $ 500 on something with a $ 100 mail in rebate .
Cost to you ?
$ 500 ! Two months later you get $ 100 from nowhere.2 ) Assume 10,000 other people do the same thing.3 ) Let 's say 5,000 of those people actually bother mailing in the rebate the exact day of the purchase .
( ex : my wife just let the deadline pass on a cell phone rebate....arghhhh ) Therefore : - 5,000 people just lost $ 100 each to the corporation while thinking they got a good deal- Corporation just got $ 500,000 free they never intended to charge for in the first place- Do you know why it takes 6-8 weeks to get your rebate check ?
It 's NOT because they get so many or they 're " hard " to process .
It 's because they SIT ON THE MONEY and earn interest for a whole month.Here 's the thing .
Mail-In Rebates are EXACTLY the same as the corporation saying " Hey , in addition to the money we 're already charging you for this product at a fair price , we 're going to ramp up the price and give you the difference back in a few months .
We 're going to borrow your money , and the money of every other person who buys this product , put it in a high-interest account , and then send it back to you and keep the interest !
" Wherein you would 've only made a few cents on your money in an account , the corporation sits on hundreds of thousands of dollars ( CELL PHONES !
) and makes heaps of money for doing nothing.It does n't necessarily mean you are n't getting a good deal on your product , but the reasoning behind it is NOT that the corporations love you .
It 's that they want the interest your over-charge gets them while they sit on it .
It suckers people in who think they 're getting a great deal ( ie ; sells more product ) while earning money for doing nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know people are claiming that MS is using their offered rebates as a way to temporarily win mindshare, but if they run rebates like any old manufacturer does then they are a permanent addition to Bing.
I would have summarized how it works, but I didn't sleep much.
So here is someone elses summary [howwhatwhy.com]:1) You spend $500 on something with a $100 mail in rebate.
Cost to you?
$500! Two months later you get $100 from nowhere.2) Assume 10,000 other people do the same thing.3) Let's say 5,000 of those people actually bother mailing in the rebate the exact day of the purchase.
(ex: my wife just let the deadline pass on a cell phone rebate....arghhhh)Therefore:- 5,000 people just lost $100 each to the corporation while thinking they got a good deal- Corporation just got $500,000 free they never intended to charge for in the first place- Do you know why it takes 6-8 weeks to get your rebate check?
It's NOT because they get so many or they're "hard" to process.
It's because they SIT ON THE MONEY and earn interest for a whole month.Here's the thing.
Mail-In Rebates are EXACTLY the same as the corporation saying "Hey, in addition to the money we're already charging you for this product at a fair price, we're going to ramp up the price and give you the difference back in a few months.
We're going to borrow your money, and the money of every other person who buys this product, put it in a high-interest account, and then send it back to you and keep the interest!
"Wherein you would've only made a few cents on your money in an account, the corporation sits on hundreds of thousands of dollars (CELL PHONES!
) and makes heaps of money for doing nothing.It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't getting a good deal on your product, but the reasoning behind it is NOT that the corporations love you.
It's that they want the interest your over-charge gets them while they sit on it.
It suckers people in who think they're getting a great deal (ie; sells more product) while earning money for doing nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142912</id>
	<title>BING stands for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing Is Not Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Is Not Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Is Not Google</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30150528</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are also a few geeks using it on purpose to try it out</p></div><p>Well, I'm deliberately not using it on purpose, does that count for statistics?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also a few geeks using it on purpose to try it outWell , I 'm deliberately not using it on purpose , does that count for statistics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also a few geeks using it on purpose to try it outWell, I'm deliberately not using it on purpose, does that count for statistics?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143314</id>
	<title>But but but.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft sucks at anything they do!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft sucks at anything they do ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft sucks at anything they do!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145670</id>
	<title>Bing is an ad server.</title>
	<author>kcdoodle</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, then again so is Google.<br> <br>When I want a scientific answer, not a bunch of ads. I go to SCIRUS. <br> <br>http://www.scirus.com/srsapp <br> <br>Try any search engine to find out why a third walkie talkie gets feedback when two walkie talkie's "talk" keys are pressed. EVERY site will try to sell you walkie talkies. SCIRUS has the answer. (But it is so scientific I cannot figure out what the answer means.)<br> <br>I bet it has something to do with destructive interference in the electromagnetic waves, and synchronizing the two walkie talkies would allow the third to hear both voices.(?) Maybe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then again so is Google .
When I want a scientific answer , not a bunch of ads .
I go to SCIRUS .
http : //www.scirus.com/srsapp Try any search engine to find out why a third walkie talkie gets feedback when two walkie talkie 's " talk " keys are pressed .
EVERY site will try to sell you walkie talkies .
SCIRUS has the answer .
( But it is so scientific I can not figure out what the answer means .
) I bet it has something to do with destructive interference in the electromagnetic waves , and synchronizing the two walkie talkies would allow the third to hear both voices. ( ?
) Maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then again so is Google.
When I want a scientific answer, not a bunch of ads.
I go to SCIRUS.
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp  Try any search engine to find out why a third walkie talkie gets feedback when two walkie talkie's "talk" keys are pressed.
EVERY site will try to sell you walkie talkies.
SCIRUS has the answer.
(But it is so scientific I cannot figure out what the answer means.
) I bet it has something to do with destructive interference in the electromagnetic waves, and synchronizing the two walkie talkies would allow the third to hear both voices.(?
) Maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30157416</id>
	<title>Most Annoying Spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is now the most annoying spam I have to deal with on the internet. An awful lot of sites have those awful green underlines on random words, and up pops Microsoft Bing.</p><p>I will avoid using it just because of the annoyance it is causing. It's probably counting a couple of hundred 'searches' from me. I use Google for any real searches I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is now the most annoying spam I have to deal with on the internet .
An awful lot of sites have those awful green underlines on random words , and up pops Microsoft Bing.I will avoid using it just because of the annoyance it is causing .
It 's probably counting a couple of hundred 'searches ' from me .
I use Google for any real searches I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is now the most annoying spam I have to deal with on the internet.
An awful lot of sites have those awful green underlines on random words, and up pops Microsoft Bing.I will avoid using it just because of the annoyance it is causing.
It's probably counting a couple of hundred 'searches' from me.
I use Google for any real searches I do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146248</id>
	<title>Re:why i stuck with google</title>
	<author>cmdr\_klarg</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing<br>Is<br>Not<br>Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BingIsNotGoogle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BingIsNotGoogle</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144568</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny story on this one.  I was talking to someone about Bing Cashback and so he went to bing and tried to navigate the site and find information about the cashback program.  However, he couldn't find anything.  We tried using the search and the site navigation, and it was nowhere.  I knew I had seen the main cashback page, and simply said to just Google it instead.  So, yes that's right, he had to Google Bing (and it was the very first result).  I think that is an indication of a search engine failing when you have to use another search to even find it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny story on this one .
I was talking to someone about Bing Cashback and so he went to bing and tried to navigate the site and find information about the cashback program .
However , he could n't find anything .
We tried using the search and the site navigation , and it was nowhere .
I knew I had seen the main cashback page , and simply said to just Google it instead .
So , yes that 's right , he had to Google Bing ( and it was the very first result ) .
I think that is an indication of a search engine failing when you have to use another search to even find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny story on this one.
I was talking to someone about Bing Cashback and so he went to bing and tried to navigate the site and find information about the cashback program.
However, he couldn't find anything.
We tried using the search and the site navigation, and it was nowhere.
I knew I had seen the main cashback page, and simply said to just Google it instead.
So, yes that's right, he had to Google Bing (and it was the very first result).
I think that is an indication of a search engine failing when you have to use another search to even find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153590</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>lappy512</author>
	<datestamp>1257104940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually talked to one of the Bing developers about it and it's a pretty slick deal.

The retailers give the discounts to the customer in exchange for ad credits on Microsoft's ad network.

Although this seems like Microsoft's just taking the hit (in terms of lost ad revenue), this is a pretty smart move, saying that:

1. Retailers would become accustomed to using Microsoft's ad network, and spend more $$ on it vs. Google.
2. Since the ads are on an "auction" model, the prices will be bidded up, resulting in more $$ for Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually talked to one of the Bing developers about it and it 's a pretty slick deal .
The retailers give the discounts to the customer in exchange for ad credits on Microsoft 's ad network .
Although this seems like Microsoft 's just taking the hit ( in terms of lost ad revenue ) , this is a pretty smart move , saying that : 1 .
Retailers would become accustomed to using Microsoft 's ad network , and spend more $ $ on it vs. Google . 2 .
Since the ads are on an " auction " model , the prices will be bidded up , resulting in more $ $ for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually talked to one of the Bing developers about it and it's a pretty slick deal.
The retailers give the discounts to the customer in exchange for ad credits on Microsoft's ad network.
Although this seems like Microsoft's just taking the hit (in terms of lost ad revenue), this is a pretty smart move, saying that:

1.
Retailers would become accustomed to using Microsoft's ad network, and spend more $$ on it vs. Google.
2.
Since the ads are on an "auction" model, the prices will be bidded up, resulting in more $$ for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149316</id>
	<title>Re:What the...seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of usage of Bing in China.  Probably because it is the default for IE.<br>Of course, in China, Baidu eclipses both Bing and Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of usage of Bing in China .
Probably because it is the default for IE.Of course , in China , Baidu eclipses both Bing and Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of usage of Bing in China.
Probably because it is the default for IE.Of course, in China, Baidu eclipses both Bing and Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148660</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-Google vs Anti-Microsoft</title>
	<author>immortalpob</author>
	<datestamp>1257069900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For instance: search both sites for "windows security flaws" and Google's top result is:
Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe' - washingtonpost.com

Microsoft's top result?
Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>So you think an article from 2005 is more relevant then one from 2009? Because the first Google result there is an article from 12/29/05.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance : search both sites for " windows security flaws " and Google 's top result is : Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe ' - washingtonpost.com Microsoft 's top result ?
Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws ...So you think an article from 2005 is more relevant then one from 2009 ?
Because the first Google result there is an article from 12/29/05 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance: search both sites for "windows security flaws" and Google's top result is:
Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe' - washingtonpost.com

Microsoft's top result?
Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws ...So you think an article from 2005 is more relevant then one from 2009?
Because the first Google result there is an article from 12/29/05.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143830</id>
	<title>More the merrier</title>
	<author>IgnoramusMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1257092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though I loathe Microsoft's entire mentality and their sociopathic business tricks, I think having more major search engines in the play is better than having yet another de-facto monopoly gaining unbreakable (for all practical purposes) grip on many aspects of our lives.
</p><p>The optimal for us, the consumers, solution is a set of at least 5 companies constantly at each other's throats but never actually able to gain upper hand. Google is already getting far too big for its own breaches and has become a power ultimately even more dangerous to the general public than Microsoft ever was (and don't get me even started at the laughable "don't be evil" corporate PR stunt).
</p><p>It is high time for some competitors to cut it down to size, before its too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I loathe Microsoft 's entire mentality and their sociopathic business tricks , I think having more major search engines in the play is better than having yet another de-facto monopoly gaining unbreakable ( for all practical purposes ) grip on many aspects of our lives .
The optimal for us , the consumers , solution is a set of at least 5 companies constantly at each other 's throats but never actually able to gain upper hand .
Google is already getting far too big for its own breaches and has become a power ultimately even more dangerous to the general public than Microsoft ever was ( and do n't get me even started at the laughable " do n't be evil " corporate PR stunt ) .
It is high time for some competitors to cut it down to size , before its too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I loathe Microsoft's entire mentality and their sociopathic business tricks, I think having more major search engines in the play is better than having yet another de-facto monopoly gaining unbreakable (for all practical purposes) grip on many aspects of our lives.
The optimal for us, the consumers, solution is a set of at least 5 companies constantly at each other's throats but never actually able to gain upper hand.
Google is already getting far too big for its own breaches and has become a power ultimately even more dangerous to the general public than Microsoft ever was (and don't get me even started at the laughable "don't be evil" corporate PR stunt).
It is high time for some competitors to cut it down to size, before its too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30177838</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1258713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is not as popular as you may think from this headline.  What most people don't know, including virtually every<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader is that the sheer number of bing users depends almost exclusively on the fact that Microsoft's IE browser is set with bing as the default search engine.  As most of you don't know or refuse to acknowledge is that most people have no idea how it was put there nor how to change it to their search engine of choice.  This is a fact.</p><p>When you install IE you are almost guaranteed to get bing as your default search engine--or Live Search--meaning that this is not the choice of the consumer, rather it is Microsoft counting on the fact that their monopoly can virtually guarantee that they get the initial attention of the users.  Add a little fluff such as pictures and you might keep those users.</p><p>It is hard for those of us in the know to take the time to undo the sheer number of these presets.  If you look at IE8, upon your first start, you are asked so many questions that the average consumer will just take the default.  If you fail to select custom and later decide to add a search engine such as Google you'll find it is buried under various web pages.  One viewing the default web page for choosing a different search engine is given so many other choices that they don't know enough and just choose a few off that first page, including Microsoft's bing.</p><p>So, in reality, it isn't that people are choosing bing, it is that it is being chosen for them.  They are encumbered by the prompts and lack of choices at the start of the IE8 that they just don't adjust to the preference they'd best be served by.</p><p>Add to that the number of times that you've had to go through IE installs (7 and then 8 and now the future 9) and you can guess that there's a chance of greater probability that you'll get bing set up as your default search engine.</p><p>Originally, the web page for selecting a different search engine had Google listed on the first page yet further down the page.  Now, it isn't even evident that Google is a choice for the average user even when reading the description.</p><p>You could probably get a different picture if you chose to check the number of Firefox (and/or other alternative browsers) users that use bing as their search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is not as popular as you may think from this headline .
What most people do n't know , including virtually every / .
reader is that the sheer number of bing users depends almost exclusively on the fact that Microsoft 's IE browser is set with bing as the default search engine .
As most of you do n't know or refuse to acknowledge is that most people have no idea how it was put there nor how to change it to their search engine of choice .
This is a fact.When you install IE you are almost guaranteed to get bing as your default search engine--or Live Search--meaning that this is not the choice of the consumer , rather it is Microsoft counting on the fact that their monopoly can virtually guarantee that they get the initial attention of the users .
Add a little fluff such as pictures and you might keep those users.It is hard for those of us in the know to take the time to undo the sheer number of these presets .
If you look at IE8 , upon your first start , you are asked so many questions that the average consumer will just take the default .
If you fail to select custom and later decide to add a search engine such as Google you 'll find it is buried under various web pages .
One viewing the default web page for choosing a different search engine is given so many other choices that they do n't know enough and just choose a few off that first page , including Microsoft 's bing.So , in reality , it is n't that people are choosing bing , it is that it is being chosen for them .
They are encumbered by the prompts and lack of choices at the start of the IE8 that they just do n't adjust to the preference they 'd best be served by.Add to that the number of times that you 've had to go through IE installs ( 7 and then 8 and now the future 9 ) and you can guess that there 's a chance of greater probability that you 'll get bing set up as your default search engine.Originally , the web page for selecting a different search engine had Google listed on the first page yet further down the page .
Now , it is n't even evident that Google is a choice for the average user even when reading the description.You could probably get a different picture if you chose to check the number of Firefox ( and/or other alternative browsers ) users that use bing as their search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is not as popular as you may think from this headline.
What most people don't know, including virtually every /.
reader is that the sheer number of bing users depends almost exclusively on the fact that Microsoft's IE browser is set with bing as the default search engine.
As most of you don't know or refuse to acknowledge is that most people have no idea how it was put there nor how to change it to their search engine of choice.
This is a fact.When you install IE you are almost guaranteed to get bing as your default search engine--or Live Search--meaning that this is not the choice of the consumer, rather it is Microsoft counting on the fact that their monopoly can virtually guarantee that they get the initial attention of the users.
Add a little fluff such as pictures and you might keep those users.It is hard for those of us in the know to take the time to undo the sheer number of these presets.
If you look at IE8, upon your first start, you are asked so many questions that the average consumer will just take the default.
If you fail to select custom and later decide to add a search engine such as Google you'll find it is buried under various web pages.
One viewing the default web page for choosing a different search engine is given so many other choices that they don't know enough and just choose a few off that first page, including Microsoft's bing.So, in reality, it isn't that people are choosing bing, it is that it is being chosen for them.
They are encumbered by the prompts and lack of choices at the start of the IE8 that they just don't adjust to the preference they'd best be served by.Add to that the number of times that you've had to go through IE installs (7 and then 8 and now the future 9) and you can guess that there's a chance of greater probability that you'll get bing set up as your default search engine.Originally, the web page for selecting a different search engine had Google listed on the first page yet further down the page.
Now, it isn't even evident that Google is a choice for the average user even when reading the description.You could probably get a different picture if you chose to check the number of Firefox (and/or other alternative browsers) users that use bing as their search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146518</id>
	<title>Re:Not Impressed</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1257102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, unlike MS, google has gotten (and stays) where it is, because it offers what people want, and doesn't subject them to things they don't want. *AND*, they have managed to do that, while being paid to serve advertising, and ensuring that those advertisements don't treat their users like eyeballs to be raped. There is no 'lock in' to using google. If another party came along, and truly did a better job, then people *would* notice, and they would have a fair shot at competing with google for traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , unlike MS , google has gotten ( and stays ) where it is , because it offers what people want , and does n't subject them to things they do n't want .
* AND * , they have managed to do that , while being paid to serve advertising , and ensuring that those advertisements do n't treat their users like eyeballs to be raped .
There is no 'lock in ' to using google .
If another party came along , and truly did a better job , then people * would * notice , and they would have a fair shot at competing with google for traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, unlike MS, google has gotten (and stays) where it is, because it offers what people want, and doesn't subject them to things they don't want.
*AND*, they have managed to do that, while being paid to serve advertising, and ensuring that those advertisements don't treat their users like eyeballs to be raped.
There is no 'lock in' to using google.
If another party came along, and truly did a better job, then people *would* notice, and they would have a fair shot at competing with google for traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145720</id>
	<title>I'm not sure Microsoft is even dogfooding Bing</title>
	<author>booyabazooka</author>
	<datestamp>1257099600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anecdote: Microsoft was pitching student-discounted Windows 7 on my uni campus a few days ago.  After waiting patiently through a demonstration of the silly window gestures, I asked a rep how I would go about opening an SSH terminal.  His recommendation was "go to Google and download something".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdote : Microsoft was pitching student-discounted Windows 7 on my uni campus a few days ago .
After waiting patiently through a demonstration of the silly window gestures , I asked a rep how I would go about opening an SSH terminal .
His recommendation was " go to Google and download something " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdote: Microsoft was pitching student-discounted Windows 7 on my uni campus a few days ago.
After waiting patiently through a demonstration of the silly window gestures, I asked a rep how I would go about opening an SSH terminal.
His recommendation was "go to Google and download something".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145114</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1257097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's different in that, Google has offered these things and people used them.  Most of the Bing stuff that I have seen have been trying to sneak it in the back door or ram it down my throat.  I will not Google for stuff on Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's different in that , Google has offered these things and people used them .
Most of the Bing stuff that I have seen have been trying to sneak it in the back door or ram it down my throat .
I will not Google for stuff on Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's different in that, Google has offered these things and people used them.
Most of the Bing stuff that I have seen have been trying to sneak it in the back door or ram it down my throat.
I will not Google for stuff on Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143490</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share Gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. It's called Java updates and it's why I don't allow users on my network to install java without supervision.<br>(shudders)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It 's called Java updates and it 's why I do n't allow users on my network to install java without supervision .
( shudders )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It's called Java updates and it's why I don't allow users on my network to install java without supervision.
(shudders)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146368</id>
	<title>will bing work for me?</title>
	<author>norser</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
i searched the name of the firm i work in combined with the city name of the main plant
and bing just doesn't work for me at this time.

First result from google: the google map with the address and the phone number.

First result from bing: a telecommunications group in my city univeristy;
yes, we partecipate to that group, but it's not the firm's website or anything useful to reach us.

First useful result from bing: not yet at page 5.

That's why i change the default search in every ie i deal with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i searched the name of the firm i work in combined with the city name of the main plant and bing just does n't work for me at this time .
First result from google : the google map with the address and the phone number .
First result from bing : a telecommunications group in my city univeristy ; yes , we partecipate to that group , but it 's not the firm 's website or anything useful to reach us .
First useful result from bing : not yet at page 5 .
That 's why i change the default search in every ie i deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
i searched the name of the firm i work in combined with the city name of the main plant
and bing just doesn't work for me at this time.
First result from google: the google map with the address and the phone number.
First result from bing: a telecommunications group in my city univeristy;
yes, we partecipate to that group, but it's not the firm's website or anything useful to reach us.
First useful result from bing: not yet at page 5.
That's why i change the default search in every ie i deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143956</id>
	<title>Bing Cashback</title>
	<author>gujjuguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think some of it is due to people like me who use it exclusively for Bing Cashback. A 25\% cashback offer on an HP laptop is hard to resist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think some of it is due to people like me who use it exclusively for Bing Cashback .
A 25 \ % cashback offer on an HP laptop is hard to resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think some of it is due to people like me who use it exclusively for Bing Cashback.
A 25\% cashback offer on an HP laptop is hard to resist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143434</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure your two links prove your point. As I age, I'm getting more critical of bad user interfaces.</p><p>If you are searching for Google, then you almost certainly want <a href="http://www.google.com./" title="www.google.com">http://www.google.com./</a> [www.google.com] Might as well show only that as sometimes less is more.</p><p>If that isn't what you wanted, click on the other results link just below and you can see lots of other stuff. But really, if you want anything other than the homepage, you are going to have to come up with a better query than "google".</p><p>Google got a lot of attention in the early days for its clean uncluttered interface. I applaud Bing for their clean uncluttered results page. At least for the example you pointed out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure your two links prove your point .
As I age , I 'm getting more critical of bad user interfaces.If you are searching for Google , then you almost certainly want http : //www.google.com./ [ www.google.com ] Might as well show only that as sometimes less is more.If that is n't what you wanted , click on the other results link just below and you can see lots of other stuff .
But really , if you want anything other than the homepage , you are going to have to come up with a better query than " google " .Google got a lot of attention in the early days for its clean uncluttered interface .
I applaud Bing for their clean uncluttered results page .
At least for the example you pointed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure your two links prove your point.
As I age, I'm getting more critical of bad user interfaces.If you are searching for Google, then you almost certainly want http://www.google.com./ [www.google.com] Might as well show only that as sometimes less is more.If that isn't what you wanted, click on the other results link just below and you can see lots of other stuff.
But really, if you want anything other than the homepage, you are going to have to come up with a better query than "google".Google got a lot of attention in the early days for its clean uncluttered interface.
I applaud Bing for their clean uncluttered results page.
At least for the example you pointed out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30159878</id>
	<title>I  just ain't feeling it.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258657140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, for once, I think Microsoft has a winner, and a loser at the same time.  I really had my doubts about BING, but after convincing myself to be "open minded" and not a Microsoft Jihadist, I started using it a bit, and more and more.  I really like it.</p><p>However, I think Bing has already reached it's peak.  I mean really, Google is a household word. How many times a day do you hear someone say "google it".</p><p>I think it was insane for Microsoft to even enter the market with Bing.  And I really don't expect it to stay there long.</p><p>Reason, like I said, google is imbedded in the mindset of millions and millions of people.  It's not going to go away.  Hell, it's even a word in the dictionary.</p><p>Second, the Microsoft Jihadists who wouldn't use a Microsoft product, if it were the best product available in the world.  They just won't.  I believe this, too, is imbedded in the mindset of millions of people also.</p><p>My prediction is this will be a money pit for MS, and they'll quietly ditch it sooner or later.</p><p>J.C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , for once , I think Microsoft has a winner , and a loser at the same time .
I really had my doubts about BING , but after convincing myself to be " open minded " and not a Microsoft Jihadist , I started using it a bit , and more and more .
I really like it.However , I think Bing has already reached it 's peak .
I mean really , Google is a household word .
How many times a day do you hear someone say " google it " .I think it was insane for Microsoft to even enter the market with Bing .
And I really do n't expect it to stay there long.Reason , like I said , google is imbedded in the mindset of millions and millions of people .
It 's not going to go away .
Hell , it 's even a word in the dictionary.Second , the Microsoft Jihadists who would n't use a Microsoft product , if it were the best product available in the world .
They just wo n't .
I believe this , too , is imbedded in the mindset of millions of people also.My prediction is this will be a money pit for MS , and they 'll quietly ditch it sooner or later.J.C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, for once, I think Microsoft has a winner, and a loser at the same time.
I really had my doubts about BING, but after convincing myself to be "open minded" and not a Microsoft Jihadist, I started using it a bit, and more and more.
I really like it.However, I think Bing has already reached it's peak.
I mean really, Google is a household word.
How many times a day do you hear someone say "google it".I think it was insane for Microsoft to even enter the market with Bing.
And I really don't expect it to stay there long.Reason, like I said, google is imbedded in the mindset of millions and millions of people.
It's not going to go away.
Hell, it's even a word in the dictionary.Second, the Microsoft Jihadists who wouldn't use a Microsoft product, if it were the best product available in the world.
They just won't.
I believe this, too, is imbedded in the mindset of millions of people also.My prediction is this will be a money pit for MS, and they'll quietly ditch it sooner or later.J.C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142748</id>
	<title>Will Birg pay for News next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though Murdoch and Wolfram be analytical opposites, their property behaviors seem similar.</p><p>Can Alpha parse FOX?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though Murdoch and Wolfram be analytical opposites , their property behaviors seem similar.Can Alpha parse FOX ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though Murdoch and Wolfram be analytical opposites, their property behaviors seem similar.Can Alpha parse FOX?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143610</id>
	<title>Re:They took marketshare from Yahoo, not Google...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in that context, the following line from TFA becomes hilarious...<blockquote><div><p>Clearly Microsoft must be doing something right.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in that context , the following line from TFA becomes hilarious...Clearly Microsoft must be doing something right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in that context, the following line from TFA becomes hilarious...Clearly Microsoft must be doing something right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146490</id>
	<title>Don't forget Bing cash back</title>
	<author>strstr</author>
	<datestamp>1257102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only thing I'm using it for at the moment is Bing cash back. If you're searching for something that you can buy, many websites have teamed up with Bing to offer discounts and money back if you found the link through Bing. The deals aren't really that great though when you do the research, many of these websites are offering the same promotions via coupon codes and back entrances on their websites, and when it is a bargain, that can be accounted for by the fact that you pay the money all upfront and receive the money back later, after they've managed to earn interest and been able to do other things with your money (ala mail-in rebates). It's also a great way for these websites to promote itself with tech savvy buyers that know the ins and outs of bargain hunting on the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only thing I 'm using it for at the moment is Bing cash back .
If you 're searching for something that you can buy , many websites have teamed up with Bing to offer discounts and money back if you found the link through Bing .
The deals are n't really that great though when you do the research , many of these websites are offering the same promotions via coupon codes and back entrances on their websites , and when it is a bargain , that can be accounted for by the fact that you pay the money all upfront and receive the money back later , after they 've managed to earn interest and been able to do other things with your money ( ala mail-in rebates ) .
It 's also a great way for these websites to promote itself with tech savvy buyers that know the ins and outs of bargain hunting on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only thing I'm using it for at the moment is Bing cash back.
If you're searching for something that you can buy, many websites have teamed up with Bing to offer discounts and money back if you found the link through Bing.
The deals aren't really that great though when you do the research, many of these websites are offering the same promotions via coupon codes and back entrances on their websites, and when it is a bargain, that can be accounted for by the fact that you pay the money all upfront and receive the money back later, after they've managed to earn interest and been able to do other things with your money (ala mail-in rebates).
It's also a great way for these websites to promote itself with tech savvy buyers that know the ins and outs of bargain hunting on the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146918</id>
	<title>Re:What the...seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Bing when I don't want anyone to know what I am searching for. When I need a Hello Kitty Vibrator, I just look it up on Bing, Google doesn't need to know that about me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Bing when I do n't want anyone to know what I am searching for .
When I need a Hello Kitty Vibrator , I just look it up on Bing , Google does n't need to know that about me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Bing when I don't want anyone to know what I am searching for.
When I need a Hello Kitty Vibrator, I just look it up on Bing, Google doesn't need to know that about me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656</id>
	<title>Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With such a retarded name I didn't expect Bing to reach such popularity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With such a retarded name I did n't expect Bing to reach such popularity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With such a retarded name I didn't expect Bing to reach such popularity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143204</id>
	<title>Warming to Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 'hands-on creative' (louche wastrel) who has to source a lot of random materials and knick-knacks from around the internet, I have to admit to turning to Bing more frequently.</p><p>Google seems to struggle with practical relevancy in its results - Bing seems to return pages of companies offering the things I'm looking for, in my country (UK).</p><p>Don't get me wrong - as an ex-web monkey, I've loathed Microsoft's online game for years, but if they can even begin to offer an alternative to THE GOOGLE, that's got to be a good thing.</p><p>That said - Bing still issn't looking likely to replace Google as my default search for a wee while yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 'hands-on creative ' ( louche wastrel ) who has to source a lot of random materials and knick-knacks from around the internet , I have to admit to turning to Bing more frequently.Google seems to struggle with practical relevancy in its results - Bing seems to return pages of companies offering the things I 'm looking for , in my country ( UK ) .Do n't get me wrong - as an ex-web monkey , I 've loathed Microsoft 's online game for years , but if they can even begin to offer an alternative to THE GOOGLE , that 's got to be a good thing.That said - Bing still iss n't looking likely to replace Google as my default search for a wee while yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 'hands-on creative' (louche wastrel) who has to source a lot of random materials and knick-knacks from around the internet, I have to admit to turning to Bing more frequently.Google seems to struggle with practical relevancy in its results - Bing seems to return pages of companies offering the things I'm looking for, in my country (UK).Don't get me wrong - as an ex-web monkey, I've loathed Microsoft's online game for years, but if they can even begin to offer an alternative to THE GOOGLE, that's got to be a good thing.That said - Bing still issn't looking likely to replace Google as my default search for a wee while yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145606</id>
	<title>RE: 10\% of market share != works 10\% of the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be massively more interesting if this "Bing" search engine returned accurate and unbiased results even 10\% of the time.  Rather that informing us that M$'s inept garbage has been sneaked into places in order to artificially inflate numbers, please just let us know if the thing ever works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be massively more interesting if this " Bing " search engine returned accurate and unbiased results even 10 \ % of the time .
Rather that informing us that M $ 's inept garbage has been sneaked into places in order to artificially inflate numbers , please just let us know if the thing ever works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be massively more interesting if this "Bing" search engine returned accurate and unbiased results even 10\% of the time.
Rather that informing us that M$'s inept garbage has been sneaked into places in order to artificially inflate numbers, please just let us know if the thing ever works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143274</id>
	<title>Article is slightly misleading...</title>
	<author>pdboddy</author>
	<datestamp>1257090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing doesn't have a 10\% share of total searches, according to the scores.  The total search \% for all Microsoft sites is 9.9\% however, which includes Bing and other search options from all the MS sites.  Just as the total search \% for Google includes all Google sites, not just the main Google Search engine.<br> <br>
If you look at the expanded search stats below the first blurb on ComScore's press release, and do the very simple math, Bing has 5.6\% of total search.  Just as the main Google search engine does not have 65.4\% of total searches, but 44.4\%.<br> <br>
I do wish folks would read and do the math before claiming Bing or Google has such and such a percentage.<br> <br>
Bing != All MS search queries</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing does n't have a 10 \ % share of total searches , according to the scores .
The total search \ % for all Microsoft sites is 9.9 \ % however , which includes Bing and other search options from all the MS sites .
Just as the total search \ % for Google includes all Google sites , not just the main Google Search engine .
If you look at the expanded search stats below the first blurb on ComScore 's press release , and do the very simple math , Bing has 5.6 \ % of total search .
Just as the main Google search engine does not have 65.4 \ % of total searches , but 44.4 \ % .
I do wish folks would read and do the math before claiming Bing or Google has such and such a percentage .
Bing ! = All MS search queries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing doesn't have a 10\% share of total searches, according to the scores.
The total search \% for all Microsoft sites is 9.9\% however, which includes Bing and other search options from all the MS sites.
Just as the total search \% for Google includes all Google sites, not just the main Google Search engine.
If you look at the expanded search stats below the first blurb on ComScore's press release, and do the very simple math, Bing has 5.6\% of total search.
Just as the main Google search engine does not have 65.4\% of total searches, but 44.4\%.
I do wish folks would read and do the math before claiming Bing or Google has such and such a percentage.
Bing != All MS search queries</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145596</id>
	<title>Re:I use it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find myself using Bing quite a bit.  The reason - if I'm logged into gmail or Blogger, then Google shows me as logged in when I search in another tab.  I can't log out of Google search while staying logged in to gmail or blogger, so I use Bing.  Why do I want to log out?  I don't really know - it's not like Google can't still identify me, but it just feels icky to have them blatantly flaunt that they track my searches.</p></div><p>WTF? Why is this moderated interesting? My too-lazy-to-register attitude may get revised<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. no, who am I kidding. Still too lazy.</p><p>BTW parent is full of crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find myself using Bing quite a bit .
The reason - if I 'm logged into gmail or Blogger , then Google shows me as logged in when I search in another tab .
I ca n't log out of Google search while staying logged in to gmail or blogger , so I use Bing .
Why do I want to log out ?
I do n't really know - it 's not like Google ca n't still identify me , but it just feels icky to have them blatantly flaunt that they track my searches.WTF ?
Why is this moderated interesting ?
My too-lazy-to-register attitude may get revised .. no , who am I kidding .
Still too lazy.BTW parent is full of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find myself using Bing quite a bit.
The reason - if I'm logged into gmail or Blogger, then Google shows me as logged in when I search in another tab.
I can't log out of Google search while staying logged in to gmail or blogger, so I use Bing.
Why do I want to log out?
I don't really know - it's not like Google can't still identify me, but it just feels icky to have them blatantly flaunt that they track my searches.WTF?
Why is this moderated interesting?
My too-lazy-to-register attitude may get revised .. no, who am I kidding.
Still too lazy.BTW parent is full of crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145302</id>
	<title>please change the accompanying pic</title>
	<author>pat sajak</author>
	<datestamp>1257097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>rather than the usual old billy borg, can we please use the following pic in the future for "bing" related stories?

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/\_c80VLgi6U98/Ry8F5zaAKdI/AAAAAAAAABs/sq8bd5DQRXE/s200/chandler.jpg" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/\_c80VLgi6U98/Ry8F5zaAKdI/AAAAAAAAABs/sq8bd5DQRXE/s200/chandler.jpg</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>rather than the usual old billy borg , can we please use the following pic in the future for " bing " related stories ?
http : //1.bp.blogspot.com/ \ _c80VLgi6U98/Ry8F5zaAKdI/AAAAAAAAABs/sq8bd5DQRXE/s200/chandler.jpg [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather than the usual old billy borg, can we please use the following pic in the future for "bing" related stories?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/\_c80VLgi6U98/Ry8F5zaAKdI/AAAAAAAAABs/sq8bd5DQRXE/s200/chandler.jpg [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145382</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share Gains</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257098220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been seeing a lot of machines lately with the Bing Toolbar installed, and the client having no idea how it got there. Automated updates on a Windows machine are nice, but sometimes you get the latest helpful tool bar offering along with it.</p></div><p>Do you mean Live Toolbar?</p><p>WU won't install that thing quietly behind your back. You <em>can</em> get "Windows Live Essentials" - which contains the toolbar - via WU, but it's an optional update, meaning it will never get installed automatically - you need to go into list of updates after the check, open the "Optional" tab there, and check the product. Even then it won't install silently - it will download and then run the normal installer, and that will ask which products you'd like to install (granted, it checks them all by default). So it's pretty hard to "have no idea" how it got there if you go that route.</p><p>Another option is - surprise - <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/nov08/11-10LiveJREMPR.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Java</a> [microsoft.com]. That has a single, "oh yes, install this BTW" checkbox tucked away in the middle of the wizard, and it's checked by default.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been seeing a lot of machines lately with the Bing Toolbar installed , and the client having no idea how it got there .
Automated updates on a Windows machine are nice , but sometimes you get the latest helpful tool bar offering along with it.Do you mean Live Toolbar ? WU wo n't install that thing quietly behind your back .
You can get " Windows Live Essentials " - which contains the toolbar - via WU , but it 's an optional update , meaning it will never get installed automatically - you need to go into list of updates after the check , open the " Optional " tab there , and check the product .
Even then it wo n't install silently - it will download and then run the normal installer , and that will ask which products you 'd like to install ( granted , it checks them all by default ) .
So it 's pretty hard to " have no idea " how it got there if you go that route.Another option is - surprise - Java [ microsoft.com ] .
That has a single , " oh yes , install this BTW " checkbox tucked away in the middle of the wizard , and it 's checked by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been seeing a lot of machines lately with the Bing Toolbar installed, and the client having no idea how it got there.
Automated updates on a Windows machine are nice, but sometimes you get the latest helpful tool bar offering along with it.Do you mean Live Toolbar?WU won't install that thing quietly behind your back.
You can get "Windows Live Essentials" - which contains the toolbar - via WU, but it's an optional update, meaning it will never get installed automatically - you need to go into list of updates after the check, open the "Optional" tab there, and check the product.
Even then it won't install silently - it will download and then run the normal installer, and that will ask which products you'd like to install (granted, it checks them all by default).
So it's pretty hard to "have no idea" how it got there if you go that route.Another option is - surprise - Java [microsoft.com].
That has a single, "oh yes, install this BTW" checkbox tucked away in the middle of the wizard, and it's checked by default.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153042</id>
	<title>Re:Mod parent up or I curse thee</title>
	<author>alvinrod</author>
	<datestamp>1257097440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess this means P != NP. I guess that salesman is out of luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess this means P ! = NP .
I guess that salesman is out of luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess this means P != NP.
I guess that salesman is out of luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30154200</id>
	<title>Re:Well...it's my homepage anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258627200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who uses a homepage these days anyway? Doesn't Safari support resuming your previous session?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who uses a homepage these days anyway ?
Does n't Safari support resuming your previous session ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who uses a homepage these days anyway?
Doesn't Safari support resuming your previous session?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144976</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>Hausenwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1257096480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not surprising considering three things:</p><p>1. They advertise it on TV (with misleading ads... why is Bing a "decision engine"?).<br>2. It's installed with some apps that used to install the Google toolbar.<br>3. Some websites that used to imbed direct links are now imbedding Bing searches instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising considering three things : 1 .
They advertise it on TV ( with misleading ads... why is Bing a " decision engine " ? ) .2 .
It 's installed with some apps that used to install the Google toolbar.3 .
Some websites that used to imbed direct links are now imbedding Bing searches instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising considering three things:1.
They advertise it on TV (with misleading ads... why is Bing a "decision engine"?).2.
It's installed with some apps that used to install the Google toolbar.3.
Some websites that used to imbed direct links are now imbedding Bing searches instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147344</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plus, it is a recursive acronym. BING: Bing Is Not Google.</p></div><p>Close, but I think it is really. BING: But It's Not Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , it is a recursive acronym .
BING : Bing Is Not Google.Close , but I think it is really .
BING : But It 's Not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, it is a recursive acronym.
BING: Bing Is Not Google.Close, but I think it is really.
BING: But It's Not Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1257088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Are they only counting the places where people go<br>&gt; to the page and do a search or are they counting<br>&gt; all the 'embedded' searches which are snuck into<br>&gt; other apps like IE and Windows Live to boost numbers?<br><br>Don't be an idiot.  This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo.  Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose?  Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.<br><br>Basically what this means is IE8 has, mostly as a result of automatic updates, reached about 10\% market share among people who think the browser's location bar is a search box and haven't bothered to express an opinion about what search engine it should use.  IE8 ships with "Live Search", alias Bing, as the default; IE6 and IE7 used MSN Search as their default, so what we're seeing here is mostly new-version uptake.<br><br>There are also a few geeks using it on purpose to try it out, but even if 100\% of the slashdot-reading population did that it wouldn't be anywhere near 1\% market share,  let alone 10\%.  And the single most popular search engine among the slashdot-reading geekdom is almost certainly still Google at this point.<br><br>No, the bulk of the 10\% we're talking about here consists of people using the IE8 UI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Are they only counting the places where people go &gt; to the page and do a search or are they counting &gt; all the 'embedded ' searches which are snuck into &gt; other apps like IE and Windows Live to boost numbers ? Do n't be an idiot .
This is Bing we 're talking about , not Yahoo .
Do you really think 10 \ % of people go to it on purpose ?
Outside of extreme geekdom , nobody 's even heard of it yet.Basically what this means is IE8 has , mostly as a result of automatic updates , reached about 10 \ % market share among people who think the browser 's location bar is a search box and have n't bothered to express an opinion about what search engine it should use .
IE8 ships with " Live Search " , alias Bing , as the default ; IE6 and IE7 used MSN Search as their default , so what we 're seeing here is mostly new-version uptake.There are also a few geeks using it on purpose to try it out , but even if 100 \ % of the slashdot-reading population did that it would n't be anywhere near 1 \ % market share , let alone 10 \ % .
And the single most popular search engine among the slashdot-reading geekdom is almost certainly still Google at this point.No , the bulk of the 10 \ % we 're talking about here consists of people using the IE8 UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Are they only counting the places where people go&gt; to the page and do a search or are they counting&gt; all the 'embedded' searches which are snuck into&gt; other apps like IE and Windows Live to boost numbers?Don't be an idiot.
This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo.
Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose?
Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.Basically what this means is IE8 has, mostly as a result of automatic updates, reached about 10\% market share among people who think the browser's location bar is a search box and haven't bothered to express an opinion about what search engine it should use.
IE8 ships with "Live Search", alias Bing, as the default; IE6 and IE7 used MSN Search as their default, so what we're seeing here is mostly new-version uptake.There are also a few geeks using it on purpose to try it out, but even if 100\% of the slashdot-reading population did that it wouldn't be anywhere near 1\% market share,  let alone 10\%.
And the single most popular search engine among the slashdot-reading geekdom is almost certainly still Google at this point.No, the bulk of the 10\% we're talking about here consists of people using the IE8 UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30151732</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What am I supposed to be seeing?  I am in Japan so the region specific results may be different, but I see:</p><p>Google Japan in a highlighted box, with site links.</p><p>Followed by the results:<br>Google<br>Google Maps<br>Google Analytics<br>Google News<br>Google Images<br>Google Groups<br>Google Video<br>Google Earth<br>Google Books</p><p>The following pages are all links to Google, except a link to wikipedia on the 3rd page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What am I supposed to be seeing ?
I am in Japan so the region specific results may be different , but I see : Google Japan in a highlighted box , with site links.Followed by the results : GoogleGoogle MapsGoogle AnalyticsGoogle NewsGoogle ImagesGoogle GroupsGoogle VideoGoogle EarthGoogle BooksThe following pages are all links to Google , except a link to wikipedia on the 3rd page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What am I supposed to be seeing?
I am in Japan so the region specific results may be different, but I see:Google Japan in a highlighted box, with site links.Followed by the results:GoogleGoogle MapsGoogle AnalyticsGoogle NewsGoogle ImagesGoogle GroupsGoogle VideoGoogle EarthGoogle BooksThe following pages are all links to Google, except a link to wikipedia on the 3rd page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820</id>
	<title>I'm not sure I believe those numbers</title>
	<author>CoffeePlease</author>
	<datestamp>1257088020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I look at AWstats for <a href="http://thedesignspace.net/" title="thedesignspace.net" rel="nofollow">my site:</a> [thedesignspace.net] <br>

Google 18020 pages (linked to from Google) <br>
Google (Images) 976 pages<br>
Bing 226 pages<br>

<br> <br>
And from Google Analytics:<br>
Top traffic sources:<br>
Google 26,738 visits 85.24\%<br>
Yahoo       676 visits  2.16\%<br>
Bing          346 visits 1.10\%<br>
Admittedly the site is not about shopping or entertainment - it's mainly about technical topics which maybe colors the results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I look at AWstats for my site : [ thedesignspace.net ] Google 18020 pages ( linked to from Google ) Google ( Images ) 976 pages Bing 226 pages And from Google Analytics : Top traffic sources : Google 26,738 visits 85.24 \ % Yahoo 676 visits 2.16 \ % Bing 346 visits 1.10 \ % Admittedly the site is not about shopping or entertainment - it 's mainly about technical topics which maybe colors the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I look at AWstats for my site: [thedesignspace.net] 

Google 18020 pages (linked to from Google) 
Google (Images) 976 pages
Bing 226 pages

 
And from Google Analytics:
Top traffic sources:
Google 26,738 visits 85.24\%
Yahoo       676 visits  2.16\%
Bing          346 visits 1.10\%
Admittedly the site is not about shopping or entertainment - it's mainly about technical topics which maybe colors the results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143836</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1257092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, don't forget that when Windows 7 came to mass market, Microsoft still didn't allow you to change the default search engine from Bing to Google in IE8. I tried several times and MS only allowed you to download 'something' Google-related (some plug-in) from their site that wasn't Google Search for the toolbar. It's only just recently they 'fixed' this.</p><p>Anyone who snagged Windows 7 early and was using IE8 (poor deluded souls) would possibly be contributing to this 10\%. Since they fixed the 'glitch' maybe we can see this 10\% go down from now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , do n't forget that when Windows 7 came to mass market , Microsoft still did n't allow you to change the default search engine from Bing to Google in IE8 .
I tried several times and MS only allowed you to download 'something ' Google-related ( some plug-in ) from their site that was n't Google Search for the toolbar .
It 's only just recently they 'fixed ' this.Anyone who snagged Windows 7 early and was using IE8 ( poor deluded souls ) would possibly be contributing to this 10 \ % .
Since they fixed the 'glitch ' maybe we can see this 10 \ % go down from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, don't forget that when Windows 7 came to mass market, Microsoft still didn't allow you to change the default search engine from Bing to Google in IE8.
I tried several times and MS only allowed you to download 'something' Google-related (some plug-in) from their site that wasn't Google Search for the toolbar.
It's only just recently they 'fixed' this.Anyone who snagged Windows 7 early and was using IE8 (poor deluded souls) would possibly be contributing to this 10\%.
Since they fixed the 'glitch' maybe we can see this 10\% go down from now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142848</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1257088140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why is this modded troll? This is by far one of the most insightful comment here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why is this modded troll ?
This is by far one of the most insightful comment here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why is this modded troll?
This is by far one of the most insightful comment here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052</id>
	<title>Well...it's my homepage anyway</title>
	<author>mccalli</author>
	<datestamp>1257089220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone is speaking of trickery to get the users. I switched my homepage over by choice - and I'm a Mac Safari user.
<br> <br>
Reason? Much against my expectation, I found I liked the daily pictures rather than the blank of Google. I fully expected to prefer the clean look of Google (after all, it was that rather than quality of results which made me move from Alta Vista to Google many years ago.) but instead I found it was time for a change and I like the different appearance and the tagging they do I find interesting.
<br> <br>
Search quality results - variable. Some good, some not so. It's no effort to just click the search box top-right and start using Google instead however, so effectively by having Bing as the homepage with a quickly accessible Google search I've got quick access to two potential sets of results.
<br> <br>
So yes, I switched over for the pretty pictures. Yes, that's a shallow reason. It's doing no harm however, and I like it.
<br> <br>
Cheers,<br>
Ian</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is speaking of trickery to get the users .
I switched my homepage over by choice - and I 'm a Mac Safari user .
Reason ? Much against my expectation , I found I liked the daily pictures rather than the blank of Google .
I fully expected to prefer the clean look of Google ( after all , it was that rather than quality of results which made me move from Alta Vista to Google many years ago .
) but instead I found it was time for a change and I like the different appearance and the tagging they do I find interesting .
Search quality results - variable .
Some good , some not so .
It 's no effort to just click the search box top-right and start using Google instead however , so effectively by having Bing as the homepage with a quickly accessible Google search I 've got quick access to two potential sets of results .
So yes , I switched over for the pretty pictures .
Yes , that 's a shallow reason .
It 's doing no harm however , and I like it .
Cheers , Ian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is speaking of trickery to get the users.
I switched my homepage over by choice - and I'm a Mac Safari user.
Reason? Much against my expectation, I found I liked the daily pictures rather than the blank of Google.
I fully expected to prefer the clean look of Google (after all, it was that rather than quality of results which made me move from Alta Vista to Google many years ago.
) but instead I found it was time for a change and I like the different appearance and the tagging they do I find interesting.
Search quality results - variable.
Some good, some not so.
It's no effort to just click the search box top-right and start using Google instead however, so effectively by having Bing as the homepage with a quickly accessible Google search I've got quick access to two potential sets of results.
So yes, I switched over for the pretty pictures.
Yes, that's a shallow reason.
It's doing no harm however, and I like it.
Cheers,
Ian</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142830</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger marketshare than desktop Linux</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1257088020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If 10\% Bing is "shit", then what does that make 1\% Linux?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Invisible to writers of malware?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If 10 \ % Bing is " shit " , then what does that make 1 \ % Linux ?
Invisible to writers of malware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 10\% Bing is "shit", then what does that make 1\% Linux?
Invisible to writers of malware?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145850</id>
	<title>Bing rocks</title>
	<author>samzbest</author>
	<datestamp>1257100140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love bing being a technology enthusiast,
i wrote this original article based on comscore data if you can leave the comments on the main site i would appreciate it thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love bing being a technology enthusiast , i wrote this original article based on comscore data if you can leave the comments on the main site i would appreciate it thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love bing being a technology enthusiast,
i wrote this original article based on comscore data if you can leave the comments on the main site i would appreciate it thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143664</id>
	<title>Re:why i stuck with google</title>
	<author>shadowmas</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like flashy stylish objects as proved by Apple product line.</p><p>The problem with Bing is it's a flash useless object.</p><p>If they make it flashy and give excellent search results then people will start using it.</p><p>I didn't start using google because it was "cool". I started using it because it actually let you find what you were looking for. If another search engine comes along which give better results than google i'd start using that instead. But Bing so far atleast is not it.</p><p>Google created a great search engine. Matching those features is not enough you need to surpass it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like flashy stylish objects as proved by Apple product line.The problem with Bing is it 's a flash useless object.If they make it flashy and give excellent search results then people will start using it.I did n't start using google because it was " cool " .
I started using it because it actually let you find what you were looking for .
If another search engine comes along which give better results than google i 'd start using that instead .
But Bing so far atleast is not it.Google created a great search engine .
Matching those features is not enough you need to surpass it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like flashy stylish objects as proved by Apple product line.The problem with Bing is it's a flash useless object.If they make it flashy and give excellent search results then people will start using it.I didn't start using google because it was "cool".
I started using it because it actually let you find what you were looking for.
If another search engine comes along which give better results than google i'd start using that instead.
But Bing so far atleast is not it.Google created a great search engine.
Matching those features is not enough you need to surpass it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144462</id>
	<title>the vast majority</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1257094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say the vast majority are being generated by mouse over ads. Now the real question is who is actually<br>using it, nobody that I know of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the vast majority are being generated by mouse over ads .
Now the real question is who is actuallyusing it , nobody that I know of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the vast majority are being generated by mouse over ads.
Now the real question is who is actuallyusing it, nobody that I know of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153692</id>
	<title>Re:why i stuck with google</title>
	<author>craagz</author>
	<datestamp>1258661760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They might as well have named it "Bring" - as in bringing information to you. Who the hell thought "Bing" was good. I am sure they wanted to use an other worldly word like Google, but this is as creative as they could get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They might as well have named it " Bring " - as in bringing information to you .
Who the hell thought " Bing " was good .
I am sure they wanted to use an other worldly word like Google , but this is as creative as they could get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might as well have named it "Bring" - as in bringing information to you.
Who the hell thought "Bing" was good.
I am sure they wanted to use an other worldly word like Google, but this is as creative as they could get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143076</id>
	<title>and the #1 searched for phrase on Bing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>White Christmas</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>White Christmas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>White Christmas</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30166446</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1258636800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Go ahead, you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me. I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade... </i></p><p>I think I've read enough, and agree with your first assessment.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me .
I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade... I think I 've read enough , and agree with your first assessment .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me.
I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade... I think I've read enough, and agree with your first assessment.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145610</id>
	<title>As far as market share goes . .</title>
	<author>chasd</author>
	<datestamp>1257099000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . Microsoft is the beleaguered Macintosh of search engines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
Microsoft is the beleaguered Macintosh of search engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
Microsoft is the beleaguered Macintosh of search engines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148100</id>
	<title>Don't be naive - it's all about PORN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes... it's all about porn... The cause of, and solution to all of man's problems. Well, that and beer.
The superior ability of Bing to bring back hardcore video thumbnails puts Google to shame.
I full expect their market share to expand until Google incorporates this feature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... it 's all about porn... The cause of , and solution to all of man 's problems .
Well , that and beer .
The superior ability of Bing to bring back hardcore video thumbnails puts Google to shame .
I full expect their market share to expand until Google incorporates this feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes... it's all about porn... The cause of, and solution to all of man's problems.
Well, that and beer.
The superior ability of Bing to bring back hardcore video thumbnails puts Google to shame.
I full expect their market share to expand until Google incorporates this feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684</id>
	<title>Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they only counting the places where people go to the page and do a search or are they counting all the 'embedded' searches which are snuck into other apps like IE and Windows Live to boost numbers?</p><p>Thought so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they only counting the places where people go to the page and do a search or are they counting all the 'embedded ' searches which are snuck into other apps like IE and Windows Live to boost numbers ? Thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they only counting the places where people go to the page and do a search or are they counting all the 'embedded' searches which are snuck into other apps like IE and Windows Live to boost numbers?Thought so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143002</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"two big percentage points"? No, all points are the same. Please don't try and editorialize or sensationalize.</p><p>And also, these stats put another way say that Google et al have 90\% marketshare. Windows also has a 90\% marketshare and we refer to that as a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" two big percentage points " ?
No , all points are the same .
Please do n't try and editorialize or sensationalize.And also , these stats put another way say that Google et al have 90 \ % marketshare .
Windows also has a 90 \ % marketshare and we refer to that as a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"two big percentage points"?
No, all points are the same.
Please don't try and editorialize or sensationalize.And also, these stats put another way say that Google et al have 90\% marketshare.
Windows also has a 90\% marketshare and we refer to that as a monopoly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145620</id>
	<title>and Microsoft can pay more to use and gain another</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1257099000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and Microsoft can pay more people to use it and gain another 10\%, but that won't make it any better.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>and Microsoft can pay more people to use it and gain another 10 \ % , but that wo n't make it any better.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Microsoft can pay more people to use it and gain another 10\%, but that won't make it any better.LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143176</id>
	<title>10\% over what?</title>
	<author>MMC Monster</author>
	<datestamp>1257089820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this 10 percent greater than the combination of MSN and Windows Live Search?  Is it a statistical bump (has the combination of MSN and Windows Live occasionally bump like that)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this 10 percent greater than the combination of MSN and Windows Live Search ?
Is it a statistical bump ( has the combination of MSN and Windows Live occasionally bump like that ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this 10 percent greater than the combination of MSN and Windows Live Search?
Is it a statistical bump (has the combination of MSN and Windows Live occasionally bump like that)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148886</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>joetomato</author>
	<datestamp>1257071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a new install of Windows XP (IE6) the default page (At least in Canada) is MSN/Sympatico, which has Bing search at the top. The search bar in IE7 and 8 both by default still point to Live search, which automatically redirects to Bing. So that 10\% includes anyone using the default search for IE6 or 7 too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a new install of Windows XP ( IE6 ) the default page ( At least in Canada ) is MSN/Sympatico , which has Bing search at the top .
The search bar in IE7 and 8 both by default still point to Live search , which automatically redirects to Bing .
So that 10 \ % includes anyone using the default search for IE6 or 7 too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a new install of Windows XP (IE6) the default page (At least in Canada) is MSN/Sympatico, which has Bing search at the top.
The search bar in IE7 and 8 both by default still point to Live search, which automatically redirects to Bing.
So that 10\% includes anyone using the default search for IE6 or 7 too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770</id>
	<title>Market Share Gains</title>
	<author>TheFlannelAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257087720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been seeing a lot of machines lately with the Bing Toolbar installed, and the client having no idea how it got there. Automated updates on a Windows machine are nice, but sometimes you get the latest helpful tool bar offering along with it. Sun Java, Adobe Flash, etc. often offer tool bars and other goodies that although are not harmful, might be unwanted. I'm not sure how much this would skew actual results, but it has to count for a few points of market share and larger reported install base of tool bars and hence search engine use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been seeing a lot of machines lately with the Bing Toolbar installed , and the client having no idea how it got there .
Automated updates on a Windows machine are nice , but sometimes you get the latest helpful tool bar offering along with it .
Sun Java , Adobe Flash , etc .
often offer tool bars and other goodies that although are not harmful , might be unwanted .
I 'm not sure how much this would skew actual results , but it has to count for a few points of market share and larger reported install base of tool bars and hence search engine use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been seeing a lot of machines lately with the Bing Toolbar installed, and the client having no idea how it got there.
Automated updates on a Windows machine are nice, but sometimes you get the latest helpful tool bar offering along with it.
Sun Java, Adobe Flash, etc.
often offer tool bars and other goodies that although are not harmful, might be unwanted.
I'm not sure how much this would skew actual results, but it has to count for a few points of market share and larger reported install base of tool bars and hence search engine use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144240</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Bing is a brand of <a href="http://www.heladosbing.com.mx/" title="heladosbing.com.mx" rel="nofollow">Icecream makers </a> [heladosbing.com.mx] in Mexico.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Bing is a brand of Icecream makers [ heladosbing.com.mx ] in Mexico .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Bing is a brand of Icecream makers  [heladosbing.com.mx] in Mexico.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147192</id>
	<title>Re:I use it</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1257105840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A couple of other items of note - for C# programmers, Bing is nicer in that it allows the sharp sign in a search, as opposed to google which doesn't</p></div><p>Forget about Bing for C#, try Google Codesearch:<br><a href="http://google.com/codesearch" title="google.com">http://google.com/codesearch</a> [google.com]</p><p>About finding the pictures, I'm now frequently searching for better image sources with the reverse image engine:<br><a href="http://www.tineye.com/" title="tineye.com">http://www.tineye.com/</a> [tineye.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>You just scroll down and more results are loaded.</p></div><p>What a crappy feature !<br>IE8 is already slow, increasing the size of the page just makes it slower.</p><p>It's also on slashdot, on your messages page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of other items of note - for C # programmers , Bing is nicer in that it allows the sharp sign in a search , as opposed to google which doesn'tForget about Bing for C # , try Google Codesearch : http : //google.com/codesearch [ google.com ] About finding the pictures , I 'm now frequently searching for better image sources with the reverse image engine : http : //www.tineye.com/ [ tineye.com ] You just scroll down and more results are loaded.What a crappy feature ! IE8 is already slow , increasing the size of the page just makes it slower.It 's also on slashdot , on your messages page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of other items of note - for C# programmers, Bing is nicer in that it allows the sharp sign in a search, as opposed to google which doesn'tForget about Bing for C#, try Google Codesearch:http://google.com/codesearch [google.com]About finding the pictures, I'm now frequently searching for better image sources with the reverse image engine:http://www.tineye.com/ [tineye.com] You just scroll down and more results are loaded.What a crappy feature !IE8 is already slow, increasing the size of the page just makes it slower.It's also on slashdot, on your messages page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145378</id>
	<title>Gained 10\%?</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1257098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing Gains 10\% Marketshare<br> [...]now facilitating close to 10\% of US searches.[...]<br> <br>So, it had 0\% before or is the summary incorrectly using "stronger words" to get attention?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing Gains 10 \ % Marketshare [ ... ] now facilitating close to 10 \ % of US searches. [ .. .
] So , it had 0 \ % before or is the summary incorrectly using " stronger words " to get attention ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing Gains 10\% Marketshare [...]now facilitating close to 10\% of US searches.[...
] So, it had 0\% before or is the summary incorrectly using "stronger words" to get attention?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142714</id>
	<title>Shocked</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm shocked - *SHOCKED* - I tell ya. I find it hard to believe that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805\_3-10299678-75.html" title="cnet.com">ComScore</a> [cnet.com] would report such a thing.<br> <br>
Yes, I know the numbers may be valid but when a company is reporting on another company, with whom they are partnered, I find it hard to invest any credibility in the report.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm shocked - * SHOCKED * - I tell ya .
I find it hard to believe that ComScore [ cnet.com ] would report such a thing .
Yes , I know the numbers may be valid but when a company is reporting on another company , with whom they are partnered , I find it hard to invest any credibility in the report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm shocked - *SHOCKED* - I tell ya.
I find it hard to believe that ComScore [cnet.com] would report such a thing.
Yes, I know the numbers may be valid but when a company is reporting on another company, with whom they are partnered, I find it hard to invest any credibility in the report.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143038</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1257089160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not offtopic.</p><p>Btw Ned, can you take the day off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not offtopic.Btw Ned , can you take the day off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not offtopic.Btw Ned, can you take the day off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145318</id>
	<title>Re:why i stuck with google</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was one of those cases when rebranding makes perfect sense, because 1) old product was crap and everyone knew that, and 2) new product was rewritten pretty much from scratch, and actually works. The way market works, however, if you keep the same name, good luck explaining people that because of #2 they have to disregard #1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was one of those cases when rebranding makes perfect sense , because 1 ) old product was crap and everyone knew that , and 2 ) new product was rewritten pretty much from scratch , and actually works .
The way market works , however , if you keep the same name , good luck explaining people that because of # 2 they have to disregard # 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was one of those cases when rebranding makes perfect sense, because 1) old product was crap and everyone knew that, and 2) new product was rewritten pretty much from scratch, and actually works.
The way market works, however, if you keep the same name, good luck explaining people that because of #2 they have to disregard #1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153192</id>
	<title>Bottom of the barrel</title>
	<author>j1ggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257099180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This 10\% is what... the idiots who inadvertently installed the Bing toolbar, set their homepage to Bing.com and don't know how to change it back? I've already reverted my Grandmother's homepage back to Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This 10 \ % is what... the idiots who inadvertently installed the Bing toolbar , set their homepage to Bing.com and do n't know how to change it back ?
I 've already reverted my Grandmother 's homepage back to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This 10\% is what... the idiots who inadvertently installed the Bing toolbar, set their homepage to Bing.com and don't know how to change it back?
I've already reverted my Grandmother's homepage back to Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142720</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore? Well? <br> <br>
Phil: Ned Ryerson? <br> <br>
Ned: Bing! <br> <br>
Phil: Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ned : Ned... Ryerson. " Needlenose Ned " ?
" Ned the Head " ?
C'mon , buddy .
Case Western High .
Ned Ryerson : I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show ?
Bing ! Ned Ryerson : got the shingles real bad senior year , almost did n't graduate ?
Bing , again .
Ned Ryerson : I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore ?
Well ? Phil : Ned Ryerson ?
Ned : Bing !
Phil : Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"?
"Ned the Head"?
C'mon, buddy.
Case Western High.
Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show?
Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate?
Bing, again.
Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore?
Well?  
Phil: Ned Ryerson?
Ned: Bing!
Phil: Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146682</id>
	<title>nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing has some nice features, and it looks pretty.  Too bad they've already tipped their hand and you can't trust their search results.</p><p>http://www.pcworld.com/article/169750/bing\_search\_reveals\_promicrosoft\_results.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing has some nice features , and it looks pretty .
Too bad they 've already tipped their hand and you ca n't trust their search results.http : //www.pcworld.com/article/169750/bing \ _search \ _reveals \ _promicrosoft \ _results.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing has some nice features, and it looks pretty.
Too bad they've already tipped their hand and you can't trust their search results.http://www.pcworld.com/article/169750/bing\_search\_reveals\_promicrosoft\_results.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146020</id>
	<title>With IE8, they make it a serious chore to change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is default, and if you don't initially select an alternative, it takes some searching of Microsoft's 'search engine' chooser to find Google.<br>The terminology used is also confusing, so that the first items that appear for a search for Google are actually not for the search box at the top RHS of the window.<br>Microsoft are using obvious dirty tricks to steal market share, as they usually do. Time for another complaint to the EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is default , and if you do n't initially select an alternative , it takes some searching of Microsoft 's 'search engine ' chooser to find Google.The terminology used is also confusing , so that the first items that appear for a search for Google are actually not for the search box at the top RHS of the window.Microsoft are using obvious dirty tricks to steal market share , as they usually do .
Time for another complaint to the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is default, and if you don't initially select an alternative, it takes some searching of Microsoft's 'search engine' chooser to find Google.The terminology used is also confusing, so that the first items that appear for a search for Google are actually not for the search box at the top RHS of the window.Microsoft are using obvious dirty tricks to steal market share, as they usually do.
Time for another complaint to the EU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145168</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure how this was orchestrated. I mean, I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so what happened and who is giving me the money back?</p></div><p>It's out-and-out bribery by Microsoft. The search market is worth billions in ad revenue alone, plus the bonus of controlling public perception: If you search for "server" on Google, the first page of results contains "Ubuntu Server" and "Mac OS X Server" and the Bing results don't. And on Bing the first on the list of "related searches" is "Windows Home Server." Getting you to use Bing in the long-term is worth more to them than paying you $10 every once in a while -- think about it, if you buy a single Windows Server license instead of installing Ubuntu Server, they've already made back their money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how this was orchestrated .
I mean , I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online ... so what happened and who is giving me the money back ? It 's out-and-out bribery by Microsoft .
The search market is worth billions in ad revenue alone , plus the bonus of controlling public perception : If you search for " server " on Google , the first page of results contains " Ubuntu Server " and " Mac OS X Server " and the Bing results do n't .
And on Bing the first on the list of " related searches " is " Windows Home Server .
" Getting you to use Bing in the long-term is worth more to them than paying you $ 10 every once in a while -- think about it , if you buy a single Windows Server license instead of installing Ubuntu Server , they 've already made back their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how this was orchestrated.
I mean, I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online ... so what happened and who is giving me the money back?It's out-and-out bribery by Microsoft.
The search market is worth billions in ad revenue alone, plus the bonus of controlling public perception: If you search for "server" on Google, the first page of results contains "Ubuntu Server" and "Mac OS X Server" and the Bing results don't.
And on Bing the first on the list of "related searches" is "Windows Home Server.
" Getting you to use Bing in the long-term is worth more to them than paying you $10 every once in a while -- think about it, if you buy a single Windows Server license instead of installing Ubuntu Server, they've already made back their money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145154</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share Gains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"often offer tool bars and other goodies that although are not harmful, might be unwanted."</p><p>If unwanted, as most of them are, then they are harmful because they use disk space (no big deal), CPU (== battery on a laptop), and RAM (== more swapping == slower and more battery use on a laptop).  This is one of the reasons why so many Windows machines take minutes to boot when taken out of the box -- there's so much of this stuff preinstalled.  And it only gets worse as things are automatically installed along with whatever software the user actually wanted.  A friend of mine has a Vista laptop that, besides the usual problems with not enough memory, loads up 15 or so tray icons -- and those are just the background programs you can see!  Most of them he doesn't want, need, or even understand.  The machine takes 2 or 3 minutes to boot.</p><p>Even if not used and not specifically malicious, they are sucking away power and speed for no good reason.  It's therefore parasitic leechware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" often offer tool bars and other goodies that although are not harmful , might be unwanted .
" If unwanted , as most of them are , then they are harmful because they use disk space ( no big deal ) , CPU ( = = battery on a laptop ) , and RAM ( = = more swapping = = slower and more battery use on a laptop ) .
This is one of the reasons why so many Windows machines take minutes to boot when taken out of the box -- there 's so much of this stuff preinstalled .
And it only gets worse as things are automatically installed along with whatever software the user actually wanted .
A friend of mine has a Vista laptop that , besides the usual problems with not enough memory , loads up 15 or so tray icons -- and those are just the background programs you can see !
Most of them he does n't want , need , or even understand .
The machine takes 2 or 3 minutes to boot.Even if not used and not specifically malicious , they are sucking away power and speed for no good reason .
It 's therefore parasitic leechware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"often offer tool bars and other goodies that although are not harmful, might be unwanted.
"If unwanted, as most of them are, then they are harmful because they use disk space (no big deal), CPU (== battery on a laptop), and RAM (== more swapping == slower and more battery use on a laptop).
This is one of the reasons why so many Windows machines take minutes to boot when taken out of the box -- there's so much of this stuff preinstalled.
And it only gets worse as things are automatically installed along with whatever software the user actually wanted.
A friend of mine has a Vista laptop that, besides the usual problems with not enough memory, loads up 15 or so tray icons -- and those are just the background programs you can see!
Most of them he doesn't want, need, or even understand.
The machine takes 2 or 3 minutes to boot.Even if not used and not specifically malicious, they are sucking away power and speed for no good reason.
It's therefore parasitic leechware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146466</id>
	<title>Real reasons for this</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1257102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Its the default search in the default IE browser in MS Vista (aka 'seven'). The same drones that buy new PC's with whatever OS comes on them are the same drones that just type what they are looking for in a URL bar, and have absolutely no concept of 'choosing, and using, a specific search site'. As their new machines start to get slow, they will call their more intelligent friend to 'help', who will rip out MSIE and bing, and install FireFox and google, and the drones probably won't even notice the difference. (other than reduced malware and obnoxious ads) [But bing traffic will drop]</p><p>2. There seem to be a lot of 'tech sites' that have javascript-driven mini-pop-uplets, which are triggered when the pointer moves over targeted keywords, and which cause a (unrequested, and usually undesired) bing search to be run for that keyword. These seem to be hosted by something to do with  intellitxt.com - I strongly suggest that you block that domain everywhere you can. (Adblock, noscript, privoxy,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts, DNS servers, etc). Hopefully I'm not the only one thats noticed it, and as it gets added to the various "domains that crap comes from" lists, [bing traffic will drop]</p><p>3. Of course there is always the 1\% thats due to the absolutely delusional MS kool-aid drinkers who'd gladly drink cyanide if it came in a pretty MS package or they had to pay an MS licensing fee to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Its the default search in the default IE browser in MS Vista ( aka 'seven ' ) .
The same drones that buy new PC 's with whatever OS comes on them are the same drones that just type what they are looking for in a URL bar , and have absolutely no concept of 'choosing , and using , a specific search site' .
As their new machines start to get slow , they will call their more intelligent friend to 'help ' , who will rip out MSIE and bing , and install FireFox and google , and the drones probably wo n't even notice the difference .
( other than reduced malware and obnoxious ads ) [ But bing traffic will drop ] 2 .
There seem to be a lot of 'tech sites ' that have javascript-driven mini-pop-uplets , which are triggered when the pointer moves over targeted keywords , and which cause a ( unrequested , and usually undesired ) bing search to be run for that keyword .
These seem to be hosted by something to do with intellitxt.com - I strongly suggest that you block that domain everywhere you can .
( Adblock , noscript , privoxy , /etc/hosts , DNS servers , etc ) .
Hopefully I 'm not the only one thats noticed it , and as it gets added to the various " domains that crap comes from " lists , [ bing traffic will drop ] 3 .
Of course there is always the 1 \ % thats due to the absolutely delusional MS kool-aid drinkers who 'd gladly drink cyanide if it came in a pretty MS package or they had to pay an MS licensing fee to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Its the default search in the default IE browser in MS Vista (aka 'seven').
The same drones that buy new PC's with whatever OS comes on them are the same drones that just type what they are looking for in a URL bar, and have absolutely no concept of 'choosing, and using, a specific search site'.
As their new machines start to get slow, they will call their more intelligent friend to 'help', who will rip out MSIE and bing, and install FireFox and google, and the drones probably won't even notice the difference.
(other than reduced malware and obnoxious ads) [But bing traffic will drop]2.
There seem to be a lot of 'tech sites' that have javascript-driven mini-pop-uplets, which are triggered when the pointer moves over targeted keywords, and which cause a (unrequested, and usually undesired) bing search to be run for that keyword.
These seem to be hosted by something to do with  intellitxt.com - I strongly suggest that you block that domain everywhere you can.
(Adblock, noscript, privoxy, /etc/hosts, DNS servers, etc).
Hopefully I'm not the only one thats noticed it, and as it gets added to the various "domains that crap comes from" lists, [bing traffic will drop]3.
Of course there is always the 1\% thats due to the absolutely delusional MS kool-aid drinkers who'd gladly drink cyanide if it came in a pretty MS package or they had to pay an MS licensing fee to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153592</id>
	<title>Re:Well...it's my homepage anyway</title>
	<author>lappy512</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do the same. Bing as homepage, Google as search bar. Works in great combination =]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do the same .
Bing as homepage , Google as search bar .
Works in great combination = ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do the same.
Bing as homepage, Google as search bar.
Works in great combination =]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146816</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We just need to start a "Bing is Gay!" rumor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We just need to start a " Bing is Gay !
" rumor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We just need to start a "Bing is Gay!
" rumor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142986</id>
	<title>Bing market share is ill-gotten</title>
	<author>rmcclelland</author>
	<datestamp>1257088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not surprising they have gained market share, but it is not because of the quality of the search engine, rather heavy handed forcing of the engine on unwitting customers.  Somehow, many of my friends and families computers started defaulting to the bing search engine in both IE and FireFox, perhaps after a windows update.  Microsoft changed the defaults of the browsers without giving the user an option and it was not trivial to return the default search engine to Google.  I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I didn't like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising they have gained market share , but it is not because of the quality of the search engine , rather heavy handed forcing of the engine on unwitting customers .
Somehow , many of my friends and families computers started defaulting to the bing search engine in both IE and FireFox , perhaps after a windows update .
Microsoft changed the defaults of the browsers without giving the user an option and it was not trivial to return the default search engine to Google .
I 'm not sure exactly what happened , but I did n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising they have gained market share, but it is not because of the quality of the search engine, rather heavy handed forcing of the engine on unwitting customers.
Somehow, many of my friends and families computers started defaulting to the bing search engine in both IE and FireFox, perhaps after a windows update.
Microsoft changed the defaults of the browsers without giving the user an option and it was not trivial to return the default search engine to Google.
I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I didn't like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30151072</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what your point is. I personally like the fact that Bing organized google stuff into categories: Google Services, Google Downloads, Google Investor Relations. ISearch results for "google" on its own page isn't appealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what your point is .
I personally like the fact that Bing organized google stuff into categories : Google Services , Google Downloads , Google Investor Relations .
ISearch results for " google " on its own page is n't appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what your point is.
I personally like the fact that Bing organized google stuff into categories: Google Services, Google Downloads, Google Investor Relations.
ISearch results for "google" on its own page isn't appealing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146140</id>
	<title>Re:Club Bing</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1257101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right.  Probably nothing similar out there doing buttloads of automated searches on Google.  Probably.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Probably nothing similar out there doing buttloads of automated searches on Google .
Probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Probably nothing similar out there doing buttloads of automated searches on Google.
Probably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30290378</id>
	<title>right on Bing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be like Google when you start to tracking people with your free stuffs and those pesky adsense shits.  fu/ck google with their dataming</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be like Google when you start to tracking people with your free stuffs and those pesky adsense shits .
fu/ck google with their dataming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be like Google when you start to tracking people with your free stuffs and those pesky adsense shits.
fu/ck google with their dataming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143980</id>
	<title>I wish these co's would stick to what they know</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1257092760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OS experience has hardly changed since Windows 3.0, and Google is still barely better than Yahoo! circa '97 in that I'm still entering abstract terms and searching through pages of mostly useless results.  I can search Wkipedia without Google.</p><p>
If these guys would take the money they make and pour it back into the only product they each have which really makes them money, then we would see huge increases in the utility of those products, instead of better battery life on my laptop I could get an OS that does things for me, or I could ask questions to the search engine and get answers, or who knows what else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OS experience has hardly changed since Windows 3.0 , and Google is still barely better than Yahoo !
circa '97 in that I 'm still entering abstract terms and searching through pages of mostly useless results .
I can search Wkipedia without Google .
If these guys would take the money they make and pour it back into the only product they each have which really makes them money , then we would see huge increases in the utility of those products , instead of better battery life on my laptop I could get an OS that does things for me , or I could ask questions to the search engine and get answers , or who knows what else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OS experience has hardly changed since Windows 3.0, and Google is still barely better than Yahoo!
circa '97 in that I'm still entering abstract terms and searching through pages of mostly useless results.
I can search Wkipedia without Google.
If these guys would take the money they make and pour it back into the only product they each have which really makes them money, then we would see huge increases in the utility of those products, instead of better battery life on my laptop I could get an OS that does things for me, or I could ask questions to the search engine and get answers, or who knows what else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142786</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may have to do with the fact that I.E. uses it automatically and many users don't think about switching. I don't think we'll see people Binging anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may have to do with the fact that I.E .
uses it automatically and many users do n't think about switching .
I do n't think we 'll see people Binging anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may have to do with the fact that I.E.
uses it automatically and many users don't think about switching.
I don't think we'll see people Binging anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143674</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1257091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see a lot of people on the slickdeals.net and other "hot deals" forums using bing to take advantage of it's cashback ads.<br>
(That is, you buy a product through a bing search, and you get a certain amount of money returned to you)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of people on the slickdeals.net and other " hot deals " forums using bing to take advantage of it 's cashback ads .
( That is , you buy a product through a bing search , and you get a certain amount of money returned to you )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of people on the slickdeals.net and other "hot deals" forums using bing to take advantage of it's cashback ads.
(That is, you buy a product through a bing search, and you get a certain amount of money returned to you)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146644</id>
	<title>Not due to merit</title>
	<author>bigdadro</author>
	<datestamp>1257103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason bing has grown in marketshare is 2 fold, and neither reason is due to it being any better than Google. Personally, I think it sucks. Based on my  biased, unscientific research Bing results seemed to weigh Microsoft related URL's higher.</p><p>1. It is the default search engine for Windows. It is not trivial to change it to something else (google) with a fresh copy of Windows 7 (in face it is a PITA). Most users have MSN as their home page not because they like it, but because it is the default home page on their windows machine and they don't know how to change it.</p><p>2. It is cannabilizing from other MS searches. The marketshare for Live Search, MSN, etc has decreased.</p><p>Microsoft tries to be too many things at once. They have corporate ADD and it shows. Bing is a fad and will be phased out in 24 months. It was developed ONLY to compete with google and lower market share, not bring anything new or innovative to the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason bing has grown in marketshare is 2 fold , and neither reason is due to it being any better than Google .
Personally , I think it sucks .
Based on my biased , unscientific research Bing results seemed to weigh Microsoft related URL 's higher.1 .
It is the default search engine for Windows .
It is not trivial to change it to something else ( google ) with a fresh copy of Windows 7 ( in face it is a PITA ) .
Most users have MSN as their home page not because they like it , but because it is the default home page on their windows machine and they do n't know how to change it.2 .
It is cannabilizing from other MS searches .
The marketshare for Live Search , MSN , etc has decreased.Microsoft tries to be too many things at once .
They have corporate ADD and it shows .
Bing is a fad and will be phased out in 24 months .
It was developed ONLY to compete with google and lower market share , not bring anything new or innovative to the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason bing has grown in marketshare is 2 fold, and neither reason is due to it being any better than Google.
Personally, I think it sucks.
Based on my  biased, unscientific research Bing results seemed to weigh Microsoft related URL's higher.1.
It is the default search engine for Windows.
It is not trivial to change it to something else (google) with a fresh copy of Windows 7 (in face it is a PITA).
Most users have MSN as their home page not because they like it, but because it is the default home page on their windows machine and they don't know how to change it.2.
It is cannabilizing from other MS searches.
The marketshare for Live Search, MSN, etc has decreased.Microsoft tries to be too many things at once.
They have corporate ADD and it shows.
Bing is a fad and will be phased out in 24 months.
It was developed ONLY to compete with google and lower market share, not bring anything new or innovative to the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143660</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Don't be an idiot. This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo. Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose? Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.</i> <br>
<br>
Your overly strong affiliation with geekdom-circles is showing. That HUGE marketing campaign that MS ran when Bing first showed up did have an effect. A number of people I work with who are as far from geeks as possible (mostly artist types) were talking about it shortly after that and saying that they liked the colorful pictures and presentation. Just because YOU don't know any non-geeks, don't discount the effect that MS marketing can have on "regular" people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be an idiot .
This is Bing we 're talking about , not Yahoo .
Do you really think 10 \ % of people go to it on purpose ?
Outside of extreme geekdom , nobody 's even heard of it yet .
Your overly strong affiliation with geekdom-circles is showing .
That HUGE marketing campaign that MS ran when Bing first showed up did have an effect .
A number of people I work with who are as far from geeks as possible ( mostly artist types ) were talking about it shortly after that and saying that they liked the colorful pictures and presentation .
Just because YOU do n't know any non-geeks , do n't discount the effect that MS marketing can have on " regular " people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be an idiot.
This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo.
Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose?
Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.
Your overly strong affiliation with geekdom-circles is showing.
That HUGE marketing campaign that MS ran when Bing first showed up did have an effect.
A number of people I work with who are as far from geeks as possible (mostly artist types) were talking about it shortly after that and saying that they liked the colorful pictures and presentation.
Just because YOU don't know any non-geeks, don't discount the effect that MS marketing can have on "regular" people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143482</id>
	<title>Who knew?</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chandler Bing has his own search engine.</p><p>Wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chandler Bing has his own search engine.Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chandler Bing has his own search engine.Wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143412</id>
	<title>Re: Not paying enough</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is very simple. You're not paying Bing to get trafic, so you get no trafic from Bing. I guess that anyway, all those visits are from their bot...
<br> <br>
The reason why I'm not using Bing is that everytime I used it, results were irrelevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very simple .
You 're not paying Bing to get trafic , so you get no trafic from Bing .
I guess that anyway , all those visits are from their bot.. . The reason why I 'm not using Bing is that everytime I used it , results were irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very simple.
You're not paying Bing to get trafic, so you get no trafic from Bing.
I guess that anyway, all those visits are from their bot...
 
The reason why I'm not using Bing is that everytime I used it, results were irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143072</id>
	<title>No wonder.</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1257089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the Google top 1000 sites being theoretically offered <strong>massive cash handouts</strong> for abandoning Google it's obvious why consumers would switch to Bing. After all, regular consumers work just like the stock market and adjust their behavior based on any rumor, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Google top 1000 sites being theoretically offered massive cash handouts for abandoning Google it 's obvious why consumers would switch to Bing .
After all , regular consumers work just like the stock market and adjust their behavior based on any rumor , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Google top 1000 sites being theoretically offered massive cash handouts for abandoning Google it's obvious why consumers would switch to Bing.
After all, regular consumers work just like the stock market and adjust their behavior based on any rumor, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145250</id>
	<title>Competition is good</title>
	<author>KuNgFo0</author>
	<datestamp>1257097680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The jury is out on whether or not Microsoft can compete with Google, but man I would be glad if they could.
<p>
Back in the early haydays of the Internet, if you couldn't find something with your favorite search engine, there was always a dozen others you could try.  Yahoo, Hotbot, Infoseek, Netscape, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, Infoseek, AOL, Altavista, etc etc.  It was likely that you could find different results with each engine.
</p><p>
Everyone is correct that Google dominated the market because they got it right, but the problem that arises is the same that comes with any monopoly.  If I can't find something with Google then I'm pretty much SOL.  Even when I know for a fact what I'm looking for is out there somewhere, Google has failed me many times.  I truly look forward to competitors which take different approaches, because ultimately it gives users better options for searching the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The jury is out on whether or not Microsoft can compete with Google , but man I would be glad if they could .
Back in the early haydays of the Internet , if you could n't find something with your favorite search engine , there was always a dozen others you could try .
Yahoo , Hotbot , Infoseek , Netscape , Lycos , Ask Jeeves , Infoseek , AOL , Altavista , etc etc .
It was likely that you could find different results with each engine .
Everyone is correct that Google dominated the market because they got it right , but the problem that arises is the same that comes with any monopoly .
If I ca n't find something with Google then I 'm pretty much SOL .
Even when I know for a fact what I 'm looking for is out there somewhere , Google has failed me many times .
I truly look forward to competitors which take different approaches , because ultimately it gives users better options for searching the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jury is out on whether or not Microsoft can compete with Google, but man I would be glad if they could.
Back in the early haydays of the Internet, if you couldn't find something with your favorite search engine, there was always a dozen others you could try.
Yahoo, Hotbot, Infoseek, Netscape, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, Infoseek, AOL, Altavista, etc etc.
It was likely that you could find different results with each engine.
Everyone is correct that Google dominated the market because they got it right, but the problem that arises is the same that comes with any monopoly.
If I can't find something with Google then I'm pretty much SOL.
Even when I know for a fact what I'm looking for is out there somewhere, Google has failed me many times.
I truly look forward to competitors which take different approaches, because ultimately it gives users better options for searching the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146506</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1257102720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google search is embedded into billions of third party sites and tools... Google have no control over that.<br>MS search is pretty much only embedded into first party sites and tools.<br>The number of people using Chrome is very small compared to the number of people lumbered with IE...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google search is embedded into billions of third party sites and tools... Google have no control over that.MS search is pretty much only embedded into first party sites and tools.The number of people using Chrome is very small compared to the number of people lumbered with IE.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google search is embedded into billions of third party sites and tools... Google have no control over that.MS search is pretty much only embedded into first party sites and tools.The number of people using Chrome is very small compared to the number of people lumbered with IE...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146942</id>
	<title>I smell BS</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell the big M$ marketing BS coming on. I am sure this is just a quick tug at the marketing strings to try and promote the bing search engine, and maybe bring up their share value. I still only use google, and will indefinately, until someone proves that I get better results in bing then in google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell the big M $ marketing BS coming on .
I am sure this is just a quick tug at the marketing strings to try and promote the bing search engine , and maybe bring up their share value .
I still only use google , and will indefinately , until someone proves that I get better results in bing then in google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell the big M$ marketing BS coming on.
I am sure this is just a quick tug at the marketing strings to try and promote the bing search engine, and maybe bring up their share value.
I still only use google, and will indefinately, until someone proves that I get better results in bing then in google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142680</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>2.7182</author>
	<datestamp>1257087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah. They should have named it 10^1000.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
They should have named it 10 ^ 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
They should have named it 10^1000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144560</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth would you apologize for using a feature of a search engine over another? That would mean that Bing has a useful feature that you found valuable and as such, used it accordingly over the competition. Personally, I would gladly do all of my purchases through bing if it was getting me 10-20\% off and would be happy to bump Microsoft's numbers in the process since they are saving me 10\%-20\%.<br>And don't blame the parents for being "overly frugal," because if you aren't shopping for the cheapest price (especially when it is so easy to find...) then you really need to rethink your spending habits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth would you apologize for using a feature of a search engine over another ?
That would mean that Bing has a useful feature that you found valuable and as such , used it accordingly over the competition .
Personally , I would gladly do all of my purchases through bing if it was getting me 10-20 \ % off and would be happy to bump Microsoft 's numbers in the process since they are saving me 10 \ % -20 \ % .And do n't blame the parents for being " overly frugal , " because if you are n't shopping for the cheapest price ( especially when it is so easy to find... ) then you really need to rethink your spending habits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth would you apologize for using a feature of a search engine over another?
That would mean that Bing has a useful feature that you found valuable and as such, used it accordingly over the competition.
Personally, I would gladly do all of my purchases through bing if it was getting me 10-20\% off and would be happy to bump Microsoft's numbers in the process since they are saving me 10\%-20\%.And don't blame the parents for being "overly frugal," because if you aren't shopping for the cheapest price (especially when it is so easy to find...) then you really need to rethink your spending habits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152072</id>
	<title>WOW! another 2\%!</title>
	<author>smisle</author>
	<datestamp>1257087720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, seriously.  What is the big deal when MS gains 2\% over what they had a couple of months ago?  10\% to 80\% should not be called "significant market share".</p><p>For fun, let's compare last year's market share for October to this year's stats:</p><p>Search Engine = 2008 / 2009 ( change )</p><p>Google = 82\% / 78\% ( - 4\% )<br>
Yahoo = 11\% / 11\% ( 0 )<br>
Microsoft = 5\% / 7\% ( +2\% )</p><p>I gathered the data from <a href="http://www.enquisite.com/blog/" title="enquisite.com" rel="nofollow">enquisite.com</a> [enquisite.com], as it's less suspect to tweaking and skewing than <a href="http://www.comscore.com/Press\_Events/Press\_Releases/2008/11/US\_Search\_Engine\_Rankings" title="comscore.com" rel="nofollow">Com</a> [comscore.com] <a href="http://www.comscore.com/Press\_Events/Press\_Releases/2009/10/comScore\_Releases\_September\_2009\_U.S.\_Search\_Engine\_Rankings" title="comscore.com" rel="nofollow">Score</a> [comscore.com] (shown below)</p><p>Search Engine = 2008 / 2009 ( change )</p><p>Google = 63\% / 65\% ( +2 )<br>
Yahoo = 20\% / 19\% ( -1\% )<br>
Microsoft = 8\% / 9\% ( +1\% )</p><p>Either way, there is little difference between this year's share and last year's.  Nothing to even talk about.</p><p>Besides all of this, every web developer knows (or should know) that the market share is very different from site to site. On a few of the sites I run, Google's share varies from 80\% to 90\% (not tech sites, fyi, small town businesses)</p><p>I'm calling Troll on this whole article.  And, looking up at all the fan boys, it's worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , seriously .
What is the big deal when MS gains 2 \ % over what they had a couple of months ago ?
10 \ % to 80 \ % should not be called " significant market share " .For fun , let 's compare last year 's market share for October to this year 's stats : Search Engine = 2008 / 2009 ( change ) Google = 82 \ % / 78 \ % ( - 4 \ % ) Yahoo = 11 \ % / 11 \ % ( 0 ) Microsoft = 5 \ % / 7 \ % ( + 2 \ % ) I gathered the data from enquisite.com [ enquisite.com ] , as it 's less suspect to tweaking and skewing than Com [ comscore.com ] Score [ comscore.com ] ( shown below ) Search Engine = 2008 / 2009 ( change ) Google = 63 \ % / 65 \ % ( + 2 ) Yahoo = 20 \ % / 19 \ % ( -1 \ % ) Microsoft = 8 \ % / 9 \ % ( + 1 \ % ) Either way , there is little difference between this year 's share and last year 's .
Nothing to even talk about.Besides all of this , every web developer knows ( or should know ) that the market share is very different from site to site .
On a few of the sites I run , Google 's share varies from 80 \ % to 90 \ % ( not tech sites , fyi , small town businesses ) I 'm calling Troll on this whole article .
And , looking up at all the fan boys , it 's worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, seriously.
What is the big deal when MS gains 2\% over what they had a couple of months ago?
10\% to 80\% should not be called "significant market share".For fun, let's compare last year's market share for October to this year's stats:Search Engine = 2008 / 2009 ( change )Google = 82\% / 78\% ( - 4\% )
Yahoo = 11\% / 11\% ( 0 )
Microsoft = 5\% / 7\% ( +2\% )I gathered the data from enquisite.com [enquisite.com], as it's less suspect to tweaking and skewing than Com [comscore.com] Score [comscore.com] (shown below)Search Engine = 2008 / 2009 ( change )Google = 63\% / 65\% ( +2 )
Yahoo = 20\% / 19\% ( -1\% )
Microsoft = 8\% / 9\% ( +1\% )Either way, there is little difference between this year's share and last year's.
Nothing to even talk about.Besides all of this, every web developer knows (or should know) that the market share is very different from site to site.
On a few of the sites I run, Google's share varies from 80\% to 90\% (not tech sites, fyi, small town businesses)I'm calling Troll on this whole article.
And, looking up at all the fan boys, it's worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149580</id>
	<title>Lock in</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was at a customer of mine working on a Windows PC and I needed to search something. Well, Bing was the standard search engine and anything else just didn't configure. So I accessed Bing unwillingly and after two/three times I punched in the Google URL and I was fine. I expect that the dilettante user will just stick with Bing and that is why the 10\% is there. I absolutely loath the service. Even more so when I'm shotgunned into it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at a customer of mine working on a Windows PC and I needed to search something .
Well , Bing was the standard search engine and anything else just did n't configure .
So I accessed Bing unwillingly and after two/three times I punched in the Google URL and I was fine .
I expect that the dilettante user will just stick with Bing and that is why the 10 \ % is there .
I absolutely loath the service .
Even more so when I 'm shotgunned into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at a customer of mine working on a Windows PC and I needed to search something.
Well, Bing was the standard search engine and anything else just didn't configure.
So I accessed Bing unwillingly and after two/three times I punched in the Google URL and I was fine.
I expect that the dilettante user will just stick with Bing and that is why the 10\% is there.
I absolutely loath the service.
Even more so when I'm shotgunned into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145506</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it simple, stupid!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's page is simple and pure. There is one logo and a search bar.<br>Bing has decided to make their search page bloated with graphics that actually update.</p></div><p>1. Open Bing.<br>2. Click on "Help" (right underneath the background image, in right corner).<br>3. Click "Give me plain background".</p><p>I've no idea who came up with the brilliant design decision of putting it under "Help", and not under "Preferences" - but there you go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's page is simple and pure .
There is one logo and a search bar.Bing has decided to make their search page bloated with graphics that actually update.1 .
Open Bing.2 .
Click on " Help " ( right underneath the background image , in right corner ) .3 .
Click " Give me plain background " .I 've no idea who came up with the brilliant design decision of putting it under " Help " , and not under " Preferences " - but there you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's page is simple and pure.
There is one logo and a search bar.Bing has decided to make their search page bloated with graphics that actually update.1.
Open Bing.2.
Click on "Help" (right underneath the background image, in right corner).3.
Click "Give me plain background".I've no idea who came up with the brilliant design decision of putting it under "Help", and not under "Preferences" - but there you go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144196</id>
	<title>Bing isn't that bad...</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1257093480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's cool to bash M$ and all, but bing gives me good results.  A lot of time I need to go a fwe pages deep in google to find something(all my searches are boolean phrases) but bing gives a lot of my results on page 1.  not sure why, but bing seems "snappy" with all the css they have....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's cool to bash M $ and all , but bing gives me good results .
A lot of time I need to go a fwe pages deep in google to find something ( all my searches are boolean phrases ) but bing gives a lot of my results on page 1. not sure why , but bing seems " snappy " with all the css they have... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's cool to bash M$ and all, but bing gives me good results.
A lot of time I need to go a fwe pages deep in google to find something(all my searches are boolean phrases) but bing gives a lot of my results on page 1.  not sure why, but bing seems "snappy" with all the css they have....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147130</id>
	<title>Good news, everyone!</title>
	<author>BigSes</author>
	<datestamp>1257105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess Mark Cuban can save his millions now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Mark Cuban can save his millions now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Mark Cuban can save his millions now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146126</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I believe those numbers</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257101220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing has crap results for my magic keyword, too.  I know my website is the #1 site on the net for info about my topic (really) and I'm not even on the first 10 pages of Bing.  The wikipedia article with all the mistakes on it is still #1 though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing has crap results for my magic keyword , too .
I know my website is the # 1 site on the net for info about my topic ( really ) and I 'm not even on the first 10 pages of Bing .
The wikipedia article with all the mistakes on it is still # 1 though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing has crap results for my magic keyword, too.
I know my website is the #1 site on the net for info about my topic (really) and I'm not even on the first 10 pages of Bing.
The wikipedia article with all the mistakes on it is still #1 though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1257087840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is really easy name to remember. It's actually a great name from MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is really easy name to remember .
It 's actually a great name from MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is really easy name to remember.
It's actually a great name from MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145664</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but all those plugins and gadgets have to be installed at the user's request (even though many are piggybacking on some other application). Bing is the default search engine when you unwrap any recent Windows version and also becomes your default browser page when you installed this or that update to Windows.</p><p>I'd rather blame those 10\% on all the URL typos that didn't send you to some typosquatter page but were instead redirected to the default search engine, aka Bing if you're using IE. Try it. Open IE, type bull into the address bar and go for it. Where does it send you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but all those plugins and gadgets have to be installed at the user 's request ( even though many are piggybacking on some other application ) .
Bing is the default search engine when you unwrap any recent Windows version and also becomes your default browser page when you installed this or that update to Windows.I 'd rather blame those 10 \ % on all the URL typos that did n't send you to some typosquatter page but were instead redirected to the default search engine , aka Bing if you 're using IE .
Try it .
Open IE , type bull into the address bar and go for it .
Where does it send you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but all those plugins and gadgets have to be installed at the user's request (even though many are piggybacking on some other application).
Bing is the default search engine when you unwrap any recent Windows version and also becomes your default browser page when you installed this or that update to Windows.I'd rather blame those 10\% on all the URL typos that didn't send you to some typosquatter page but were instead redirected to the default search engine, aka Bing if you're using IE.
Try it.
Open IE, type bull into the address bar and go for it.
Where does it send you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145740</id>
	<title>My physics teacher however...</title>
	<author>el3mentary</author>
	<datestamp>1257099720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might be more representative of how people actually use Bing. On numerous occasions since it made itself the default search provider he has to the amusement of myself and others used it to Bing for Google, then Google for Wikipedia, finally he uses wikipedia search.</p><p>I honestly can't think of a more roundabout way of doing this but It's like he's programme to always run through Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be more representative of how people actually use Bing .
On numerous occasions since it made itself the default search provider he has to the amusement of myself and others used it to Bing for Google , then Google for Wikipedia , finally he uses wikipedia search.I honestly ca n't think of a more roundabout way of doing this but It 's like he 's programme to always run through Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be more representative of how people actually use Bing.
On numerous occasions since it made itself the default search provider he has to the amusement of myself and others used it to Bing for Google, then Google for Wikipedia, finally he uses wikipedia search.I honestly can't think of a more roundabout way of doing this but It's like he's programme to always run through Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143722</id>
	<title>Re:Keep it simple, stupid!</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257091800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's page is simple and pure. There is one logo and a search bar.</p> </div><p>It's so good, in fact, that they patented it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's page is simple and pure .
There is one logo and a search bar .
It 's so good , in fact , that they patented it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's page is simple and pure.
There is one logo and a search bar.
It's so good, in fact, that they patented it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152090</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't be an idiot.  This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo.  Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose?  Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.</p></div><p>You must not watch TV. "Bing -- the sound of found". It's advertised quite heavily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be an idiot .
This is Bing we 're talking about , not Yahoo .
Do you really think 10 \ % of people go to it on purpose ?
Outside of extreme geekdom , nobody 's even heard of it yet.You must not watch TV .
" Bing -- the sound of found " .
It 's advertised quite heavily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be an idiot.
This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo.
Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose?
Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.You must not watch TV.
"Bing -- the sound of found".
It's advertised quite heavily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145422</id>
	<title>Re:Well...it's my homepage anyway</title>
	<author>jimbobborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried Google Themes?  If you have a Google Mail account, you can get themes every time you open up google.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried Google Themes ?
If you have a Google Mail account , you can get themes every time you open up google.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried Google Themes?
If you have a Google Mail account, you can get themes every time you open up google.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152614</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>dfm3</author>
	<datestamp>1257092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I try your second link and just below the first link is a box that lets me do a Google search... from Bing! So just for kicks I used Bing to do a Google search for Bing. I'm still not sure whether using that search box is considered binging or googling, or maybe it's a googlebing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I try your second link and just below the first link is a box that lets me do a Google search... from Bing !
So just for kicks I used Bing to do a Google search for Bing .
I 'm still not sure whether using that search box is considered binging or googling , or maybe it 's a googlebing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I try your second link and just below the first link is a box that lets me do a Google search... from Bing!
So just for kicks I used Bing to do a Google search for Bing.
I'm still not sure whether using that search box is considered binging or googling, or maybe it's a googlebing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142836</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger marketshare than desktop Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...not backed by a global monopoly with 20+ years of entrenchment.</p><p>Just think of all of the captive Windows and IE users out there that can have MS-Whatever shoved down their throats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...not backed by a global monopoly with 20 + years of entrenchment.Just think of all of the captive Windows and IE users out there that can have MS-Whatever shoved down their throats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not backed by a global monopoly with 20+ years of entrenchment.Just think of all of the captive Windows and IE users out there that can have MS-Whatever shoved down their throats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145338</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I believe those numbers</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1257098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my work's website (health care site):</p><p>Google: 13,481 (68\%)<br>Bing: 3,148 (16\%)<br>Yahoo: 2,119 (11\%)</p><p>So even Bing, Yahoo and everyone else combined don't come close to Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my work 's website ( health care site ) : Google : 13,481 ( 68 \ % ) Bing : 3,148 ( 16 \ % ) Yahoo : 2,119 ( 11 \ % ) So even Bing , Yahoo and everyone else combined do n't come close to Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my work's website (health care site):Google: 13,481 (68\%)Bing: 3,148 (16\%)Yahoo: 2,119 (11\%)So even Bing, Yahoo and everyone else combined don't come close to Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146384</id>
	<title>M$</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can buy a lot of marketshare with as much cash as Microsoft has.  Paying Verizon, e.g. to use Bing as the default search engine on their smart phones gets a lot of market share without having to actually bring user choice into the mix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy a lot of marketshare with as much cash as Microsoft has .
Paying Verizon , e.g .
to use Bing as the default search engine on their smart phones gets a lot of market share without having to actually bring user choice into the mix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy a lot of marketshare with as much cash as Microsoft has.
Paying Verizon, e.g.
to use Bing as the default search engine on their smart phones gets a lot of market share without having to actually bring user choice into the mix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143054</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I believe those numbers</title>
	<author>cyrano.mac</author>
	<datestamp>1257089220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, it's not because it's about technical stuff. I run a number of sites about things as general as food and see exactly the same thing. Plus, I also see people arriving on pages with the wrong search terms. It's impossible to check if the visitors are on the right page and Bing just reports an erroneous search, or if the visitors were looking for something else. And when you check some of the incoming links from Bing, the site doesn't even appear on the list a couple of days later. Stuff like that happens to Google too, but only very seldom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , it 's not because it 's about technical stuff .
I run a number of sites about things as general as food and see exactly the same thing .
Plus , I also see people arriving on pages with the wrong search terms .
It 's impossible to check if the visitors are on the right page and Bing just reports an erroneous search , or if the visitors were looking for something else .
And when you check some of the incoming links from Bing , the site does n't even appear on the list a couple of days later .
Stuff like that happens to Google too , but only very seldom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, it's not because it's about technical stuff.
I run a number of sites about things as general as food and see exactly the same thing.
Plus, I also see people arriving on pages with the wrong search terms.
It's impossible to check if the visitors are on the right page and Bing just reports an erroneous search, or if the visitors were looking for something else.
And when you check some of the incoming links from Bing, the site doesn't even appear on the list a couple of days later.
Stuff like that happens to Google too, but only very seldom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740</id>
	<title>why i stuck with google</title>
	<author>uncanny</author>
	<datestamp>1257087600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually found them "re-branding" their search to be catchier insulting.  it's like pop music, they are just trying to be trendy to cater to people who are easily amused.  bing is just a shiny object.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually found them " re-branding " their search to be catchier insulting .
it 's like pop music , they are just trying to be trendy to cater to people who are easily amused .
bing is just a shiny object .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually found them "re-branding" their search to be catchier insulting.
it's like pop music, they are just trying to be trendy to cater to people who are easily amused.
bing is just a shiny object.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145704</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger marketshare than desktop Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If 10\% Bing is "shit", then what does that make 1\% Linux?</p></div><p>You've torpedoed your own argument. The company that has a monopoly on the desktop can't grab more than 10\% market share for search. The king of search is still Google, and Google runs on Linux. QED</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If 10 \ % Bing is " shit " , then what does that make 1 \ % Linux ? You 've torpedoed your own argument .
The company that has a monopoly on the desktop ca n't grab more than 10 \ % market share for search .
The king of search is still Google , and Google runs on Linux .
QED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 10\% Bing is "shit", then what does that make 1\% Linux?You've torpedoed your own argument.
The company that has a monopoly on the desktop can't grab more than 10\% market share for search.
The king of search is still Google, and Google runs on Linux.
QED
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149404</id>
	<title>call me when...</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1257073680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people start saying "just bing for foo and its in the first couple of pages".</p><p>I actually hear people saying "I Googled it but couldn't find..." when they used Bing to perform the search.</p><p>Google has the mindshare... even if Bing picks up marketshare, it will be a long time before anyone considers anything but Google to be the standard in internet search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people start saying " just bing for foo and its in the first couple of pages " .I actually hear people saying " I Googled it but could n't find... " when they used Bing to perform the search.Google has the mindshare... even if Bing picks up marketshare , it will be a long time before anyone considers anything but Google to be the standard in internet search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people start saying "just bing for foo and its in the first couple of pages".I actually hear people saying "I Googled it but couldn't find..." when they used Bing to perform the search.Google has the mindshare... even if Bing picks up marketshare, it will be a long time before anyone considers anything but Google to be the standard in internet search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146294</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1257101880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it stands for "BING Is Not Good"</p><p>But since Google's motto is "Don't be evil" and "BING Is Not Google"... all the opportunities remain open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it stands for " BING Is Not Good " But since Google 's motto is " Do n't be evil " and " BING Is Not Google " ... all the opportunities remain open : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it stands for "BING Is Not Good"But since Google's motto is "Don't be evil" and "BING Is Not Google"... all the opportunities remain open :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146544</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has had this site for a long time, however they don't seem to advertise it anymore (they prefer to push the toolbar, I guess).</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/google.reg" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/google.reg</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has had this site for a long time , however they do n't seem to advertise it anymore ( they prefer to push the toolbar , I guess ) .http : //www.google.com/google.reg [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has had this site for a long time, however they don't seem to advertise it anymore (they prefer to push the toolbar, I guess).http://www.google.com/google.reg [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144464</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I would expect that most people have heard of Bing already since Microsoft is advertising their asses off to get users to use Bing.  Hell, my father knew about Bing since some time early last year (I forget exactly when he mentioned it to me).  Even my mother-in-law, who can barely use a computer (she has to ask my wife how to reply to email!), knows about Bing.  She isn't going to use it, as I have taught her to use Google.</p><p>Nonetheless, 10\% appears a bit high, but it isn't terribly far off the mark.  Visitors using Bing to find my site make up a little over 7\% of my total traffic for the rolling month 10/18 to 11/17 (G=41.58\%, Y=10.73\%).  For the entire month of October, Bing marketshare of total visitors to my site was 7.95\% (G=38.91\%, Y=12.97\%).  If you look at traffic generated strictly by search engines, then Bing had a marketshare of 12.84\% for October, compared to Google at 62.83\% and Yahoo at 20.95\%.</p><p>So, the numbers aren't that far off, depending upon how you generate the statistics.  I've used Bing a little to check it out and also to check where my site ranks on Bing, but I dislike it intensely.  I dislike the fact that, on the first SERP, they give you results for your keyword and then variations of your keyword in blocks below that.  I prefer using Google because I am able to use sufficiently specific keywords to get results I am looking for.  However, I expect most people will probably prefer Bing because they aren't good at selecting keywords and so they will like the fact that they get search results for variations of their chosen keyword, since it will probably help them find what they are looking for faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I would expect that most people have heard of Bing already since Microsoft is advertising their asses off to get users to use Bing .
Hell , my father knew about Bing since some time early last year ( I forget exactly when he mentioned it to me ) .
Even my mother-in-law , who can barely use a computer ( she has to ask my wife how to reply to email !
) , knows about Bing .
She is n't going to use it , as I have taught her to use Google.Nonetheless , 10 \ % appears a bit high , but it is n't terribly far off the mark .
Visitors using Bing to find my site make up a little over 7 \ % of my total traffic for the rolling month 10/18 to 11/17 ( G = 41.58 \ % , Y = 10.73 \ % ) .
For the entire month of October , Bing marketshare of total visitors to my site was 7.95 \ % ( G = 38.91 \ % , Y = 12.97 \ % ) .
If you look at traffic generated strictly by search engines , then Bing had a marketshare of 12.84 \ % for October , compared to Google at 62.83 \ % and Yahoo at 20.95 \ % .So , the numbers are n't that far off , depending upon how you generate the statistics .
I 've used Bing a little to check it out and also to check where my site ranks on Bing , but I dislike it intensely .
I dislike the fact that , on the first SERP , they give you results for your keyword and then variations of your keyword in blocks below that .
I prefer using Google because I am able to use sufficiently specific keywords to get results I am looking for .
However , I expect most people will probably prefer Bing because they are n't good at selecting keywords and so they will like the fact that they get search results for variations of their chosen keyword , since it will probably help them find what they are looking for faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I would expect that most people have heard of Bing already since Microsoft is advertising their asses off to get users to use Bing.
Hell, my father knew about Bing since some time early last year (I forget exactly when he mentioned it to me).
Even my mother-in-law, who can barely use a computer (she has to ask my wife how to reply to email!
), knows about Bing.
She isn't going to use it, as I have taught her to use Google.Nonetheless, 10\% appears a bit high, but it isn't terribly far off the mark.
Visitors using Bing to find my site make up a little over 7\% of my total traffic for the rolling month 10/18 to 11/17 (G=41.58\%, Y=10.73\%).
For the entire month of October, Bing marketshare of total visitors to my site was 7.95\% (G=38.91\%, Y=12.97\%).
If you look at traffic generated strictly by search engines, then Bing had a marketshare of 12.84\% for October, compared to Google at 62.83\% and Yahoo at 20.95\%.So, the numbers aren't that far off, depending upon how you generate the statistics.
I've used Bing a little to check it out and also to check where my site ranks on Bing, but I dislike it intensely.
I dislike the fact that, on the first SERP, they give you results for your keyword and then variations of your keyword in blocks below that.
I prefer using Google because I am able to use sufficiently specific keywords to get results I am looking for.
However, I expect most people will probably prefer Bing because they aren't good at selecting keywords and so they will like the fact that they get search results for variations of their chosen keyword, since it will probably help them find what they are looking for faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144680</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-Google vs Anti-Microsoft</title>
	<author>blueZ3</author>
	<datestamp>1257095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. The differences between Bing and Google are anything but minor. From research that I've done (not extensive, but enough to know what's going on) it's clear that Microsoft is tweaking the results of bing searches to provide favorable (to Microsoft) results.</p><p>For instance: search both sites for "windows security flaws" and Google's top result is:<br>Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe' - washingtonpost.com</p><p>Microsoft's top result?<br>Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Or you could search for "windows antitrust" and Google provides:<br>United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p><p>Bing?<br>Competition law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The differences between Bing and Google are anything but minor .
From research that I 've done ( not extensive , but enough to know what 's going on ) it 's clear that Microsoft is tweaking the results of bing searches to provide favorable ( to Microsoft ) results.For instance : search both sites for " windows security flaws " and Google 's top result is : Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe ' - washingtonpost.comMicrosoft 's top result ? Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws ...Or you could search for " windows antitrust " and Google provides : United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia , the free encyclopediaBing ? Competition law - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The differences between Bing and Google are anything but minor.
From research that I've done (not extensive, but enough to know what's going on) it's clear that Microsoft is tweaking the results of bing searches to provide favorable (to Microsoft) results.For instance: search both sites for "windows security flaws" and Google's top result is:Windows Security Flaw Is 'Severe' - washingtonpost.comMicrosoft's top result?Security Fix - Microsoft Fixes 19 Windows Security Flaws ...Or you could search for "windows antitrust" and Google provides:United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBing?Competition law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, it is a recursive acronym. BING: Bing Is Not Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , it is a recursive acronym .
BING : Bing Is Not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, it is a recursive acronym.
BING: Bing Is Not Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146910</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not the retailers; I've seen retailers requesting that you go through Bing so you get cashback.  I suspect it is Microsoft, but I don't really know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the retailers ; I 've seen retailers requesting that you go through Bing so you get cashback .
I suspect it is Microsoft , but I do n't really know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the retailers; I've seen retailers requesting that you go through Bing so you get cashback.
I suspect it is Microsoft, but I don't really know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145930</id>
	<title>Feel proud Microsoft!</title>
	<author>Trizicus</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This company should feel proud monopolizing an OS with a monopolized browser with a monopolized search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This company should feel proud monopolizing an OS with a monopolized browser with a monopolized search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This company should feel proud monopolizing an OS with a monopolized browser with a monopolized search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147160</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257105660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet</p></div><p>Nonsense. They have had many prime-time TV ads, which have been very well done and very memorable. That's made them well known far outside extreme geekdom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of extreme geekdom , nobody 's even heard of it yetNonsense .
They have had many prime-time TV ads , which have been very well done and very memorable .
That 's made them well known far outside extreme geekdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yetNonsense.
They have had many prime-time TV ads, which have been very well done and very memorable.
That's made them well known far outside extreme geekdom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143142</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I, for one, welcome our new websearch overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I , for one , welcome our new websearch overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I, for one, welcome our new websearch overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144232</id>
	<title>That's not 10\% marketshare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's 10\% of the <strong>U.S.A.</strong> marketshare. On the world scale it's probably not even 2\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 10 \ % of the U.S.A. marketshare. On the world scale it 's probably not even 2 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 10\% of the U.S.A. marketshare. On the world scale it's probably not even 2\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143244</id>
	<title>Keep it simple, stupid!</title>
	<author>hexed\_2050</author>
	<datestamp>1257090000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google's page is simple and pure.  There is one logo and a search bar.
<br>
Bing has decided to make their search page bloated with graphics that actually update.
<br>
Do you know how painful it is to remote desktop or vnc to someone's computer that has yahoo, bing, or some other search engine besides google set as their homepage? grr!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's page is simple and pure .
There is one logo and a search bar .
Bing has decided to make their search page bloated with graphics that actually update .
Do you know how painful it is to remote desktop or vnc to someone 's computer that has yahoo , bing , or some other search engine besides google set as their homepage ?
grr !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's page is simple and pure.
There is one logo and a search bar.
Bing has decided to make their search page bloated with graphics that actually update.
Do you know how painful it is to remote desktop or vnc to someone's computer that has yahoo, bing, or some other search engine besides google set as their homepage?
grr!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142982</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It even works as verb: <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=keep+that+chicken" title="bing.com">Keep binging that chicken!</a> [bing.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It even works as verb : Keep binging that chicken !
[ bing.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It even works as verb: Keep binging that chicken!
[bing.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144506</id>
	<title>Club Bing</title>
	<author>altinos.com</author>
	<datestamp>1257094680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My mother in law spends a large amount of time on the Club Bing website, playing their stupid games in order to win points for prizes.  The word games there are silly, most centering on "how many words can you make out of these seven letters".  Every time you type in a word, it does a Bing search for that word.  Get enough people trying to win Bing points for free things, and it will skew the search results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My mother in law spends a large amount of time on the Club Bing website , playing their stupid games in order to win points for prizes .
The word games there are silly , most centering on " how many words can you make out of these seven letters " .
Every time you type in a word , it does a Bing search for that word .
Get enough people trying to win Bing points for free things , and it will skew the search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mother in law spends a large amount of time on the Club Bing website, playing their stupid games in order to win points for prizes.
The word games there are silly, most centering on "how many words can you make out of these seven letters".
Every time you type in a word, it does a Bing search for that word.
Get enough people trying to win Bing points for free things, and it will skew the search results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142716</id>
	<title>Fallout from Windows Live?</title>
	<author>auntieNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1257087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but how much of this market share comes from old Windows Live Search users? A quick Google search (haha, guess I'm not in that 10\%) reveals old statistics that placed Live at around 10\% also. Is this really news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but how much of this market share comes from old Windows Live Search users ?
A quick Google search ( haha , guess I 'm not in that 10 \ % ) reveals old statistics that placed Live at around 10 \ % also .
Is this really news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but how much of this market share comes from old Windows Live Search users?
A quick Google search (haha, guess I'm not in that 10\%) reveals old statistics that placed Live at around 10\% also.
Is this really news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144174</id>
	<title>Dear lord...</title>
	<author>Jinjuku</author>
	<datestamp>1257093360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's most likely due to it being default. Bing is one of the most requested features to be switched back to Google that I get from end users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's most likely due to it being default .
Bing is one of the most requested features to be switched back to Google that I get from end users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's most likely due to it being default.
Bing is one of the most requested features to be switched back to Google that I get from end users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145036</id>
	<title>Re:Who would've though?</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1257096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's recursive, but not well optimized. MS should have known better and used tail recursion instead. Something like "Totally Wasted Ansty Twat" -- the TWAT search engine!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's recursive , but not well optimized .
MS should have known better and used tail recursion instead .
Something like " Totally Wasted Ansty Twat " -- the TWAT search engine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's recursive, but not well optimized.
MS should have known better and used tail recursion instead.
Something like "Totally Wasted Ansty Twat" -- the TWAT search engine!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143852</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pics or it didn't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pics or it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pics or it didn't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148214</id>
	<title>Re:Well...it's my homepage anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can also use igoogle.com and customise it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can also use igoogle.com and customise it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can also use igoogle.com and customise it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147294</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what happens when you Google Bing</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257106320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By conducting your experiment I think I like bing more, since not only does it show me the top 5 results (About the amount most people look at on Google anyways) but it also has sections regarding Downloads, services, and jobs, right on the front page. Something I would have to type an extra Keyword to find with Google.</p><p>In conclusion, You fail at bashing Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By conducting your experiment I think I like bing more , since not only does it show me the top 5 results ( About the amount most people look at on Google anyways ) but it also has sections regarding Downloads , services , and jobs , right on the front page .
Something I would have to type an extra Keyword to find with Google.In conclusion , You fail at bashing Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By conducting your experiment I think I like bing more, since not only does it show me the top 5 results (About the amount most people look at on Google anyways) but it also has sections regarding Downloads, services, and jobs, right on the front page.
Something I would have to type an extra Keyword to find with Google.In conclusion, You fail at bashing Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142712</id>
	<title>Defaults....</title>
	<author>Dartz-IRL</author>
	<datestamp>1257087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if there's any relation between this, and the number of users who've upgraded too IE8 and just not bothered/realised that they can change the default in-browser search client?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if there 's any relation between this , and the number of users who 've upgraded too IE8 and just not bothered/realised that they can change the default in-browser search client ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if there's any relation between this, and the number of users who've upgraded too IE8 and just not bothered/realised that they can change the default in-browser search client?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145732</id>
	<title>Re:I use it</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1257099660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to use both Bing and Google when I'm trying to get work done.  Using both has helped me get results that the other search engine doesn't show or ranks differently.</p><p>I use Google as a default because I use their services and I actually like being logged into to Google when I search so I can customize my search results.  I sure as hell hope they are using my search behavior (and those of other users) to modify their results because it seems some really idiotic results have somehow bubbled their way to the top.  Just being able to filter out experts-exchange has been a bonus.</p><p>I'm not sure if I feel that Bing's image search is better or that either engine returns better results , but I do like how Bing search results are laid out, especially their image page.  The Bing default search page is pleasant as well.  The daily pictures with the mouse-over boxes to different search types is interesting.</p><p>Your last sentence rings very true to me.  Whenever I'm just doing a quick search I use Google.  If I'm curious about a movie and the cast or my son asks me a question about his math homework I can typically Google it and get what I want.  Why would I waste time following that up with a Bing or Yahoo! search?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to use both Bing and Google when I 'm trying to get work done .
Using both has helped me get results that the other search engine does n't show or ranks differently.I use Google as a default because I use their services and I actually like being logged into to Google when I search so I can customize my search results .
I sure as hell hope they are using my search behavior ( and those of other users ) to modify their results because it seems some really idiotic results have somehow bubbled their way to the top .
Just being able to filter out experts-exchange has been a bonus.I 'm not sure if I feel that Bing 's image search is better or that either engine returns better results , but I do like how Bing search results are laid out , especially their image page .
The Bing default search page is pleasant as well .
The daily pictures with the mouse-over boxes to different search types is interesting.Your last sentence rings very true to me .
Whenever I 'm just doing a quick search I use Google .
If I 'm curious about a movie and the cast or my son asks me a question about his math homework I can typically Google it and get what I want .
Why would I waste time following that up with a Bing or Yahoo !
search ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to use both Bing and Google when I'm trying to get work done.
Using both has helped me get results that the other search engine doesn't show or ranks differently.I use Google as a default because I use their services and I actually like being logged into to Google when I search so I can customize my search results.
I sure as hell hope they are using my search behavior (and those of other users) to modify their results because it seems some really idiotic results have somehow bubbled their way to the top.
Just being able to filter out experts-exchange has been a bonus.I'm not sure if I feel that Bing's image search is better or that either engine returns better results , but I do like how Bing search results are laid out, especially their image page.
The Bing default search page is pleasant as well.
The daily pictures with the mouse-over boxes to different search types is interesting.Your last sentence rings very true to me.
Whenever I'm just doing a quick search I use Google.
If I'm curious about a movie and the cast or my son asks me a question about his math homework I can typically Google it and get what I want.
Why would I waste time following that up with a Bing or Yahoo!
search?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143670</id>
	<title>Re:Bigger marketshare than desktop Linux</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can I get this analogy in a term I can understand?  Like perhaps Cars per Library of Congress?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can I get this analogy in a term I can understand ?
Like perhaps Cars per Library of Congress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can I get this analogy in a term I can understand?
Like perhaps Cars per Library of Congress?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145090</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess there's no accounting for taste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess there 's no accounting for taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess there's no accounting for taste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30154782</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I believe those numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258636920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: 26738/18020~=1.48 visits per page<br>Bing: 346/226~=1.53 visits per page</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : 26738/18020 ~ = 1.48 visits per pageBing : 346/226 ~ = 1.53 visits per page</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: 26738/18020~=1.48 visits per pageBing: 346/226~=1.53 visits per page</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143876</id>
	<title>Re:The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsibl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The savings that you received are subsidized. MS is literally paying for them. Bait to entice you over just long enough to win (or lose) the mindshare war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The savings that you received are subsidized .
MS is literally paying for them .
Bait to entice you over just long enough to win ( or lose ) the mindshare war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The savings that you received are subsidized.
MS is literally paying for them.
Bait to entice you over just long enough to win (or lose) the mindshare war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726</id>
	<title>The Deal Seekers Are Probably Partly Responsible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go ahead, you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me.  I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade (with intent to add a HDD on my own) and had found through slick deals mention that if you went to bing and searched for Dell and clicked on the cashback link you could get an XBox 360 Arcade for 15\%-30\% off depending on when you do it.  <br> <br>

Now, from what I read, your mileage may vary.  Meaning you got anywhere from $20 to $30 off the price but you still paid $200.  It was just recredited to your paypal account.  It happened/happens with other large retailers like Amazon so I found myself periodically using Bing to squeeze 10\% off a purchase here or there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or even just hitting it up every couple days to see what I could find.  Kept with Google on my other searches (Firefox and Chrome still put me through the same default search engine).  But for a while, my desire to save a couple bucks probably pushed up Bing's marketshare.  I can't help it, I blame my overly frugal parents.  <br> <br>

I'm not sure how this was orchestrated.  I mean, I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so what happened and who is giving me the money back?  Is it Microsoft putting ad dollars to hard work for Bing or the retailer giving up some more profit margin in exchange for moving product?  If anyone could shed light on how I was able to get better deals on -- sometimes any -- products on Amazon by first going through Bing, I'd appreciate it.  And this isn't like a few pennies click through ad revenue, this is like tens of dollars across several purchases.  Am I really that inept at how the world works to not figure this out?  <br> <br>

So in the end, I apologize for causing all that cancer.  You are correct to direct your slurs at me but I assure you that as soon as those deals dry up I will stop using Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me .
I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade ( with intent to add a HDD on my own ) and had found through slick deals mention that if you went to bing and searched for Dell and clicked on the cashback link you could get an XBox 360 Arcade for 15 \ % -30 \ % off depending on when you do it .
Now , from what I read , your mileage may vary .
Meaning you got anywhere from $ 20 to $ 30 off the price but you still paid $ 200 .
It was just recredited to your paypal account .
It happened/happens with other large retailers like Amazon so I found myself periodically using Bing to squeeze 10 \ % off a purchase here or there ... or even just hitting it up every couple days to see what I could find .
Kept with Google on my other searches ( Firefox and Chrome still put me through the same default search engine ) .
But for a while , my desire to save a couple bucks probably pushed up Bing 's marketshare .
I ca n't help it , I blame my overly frugal parents .
I 'm not sure how this was orchestrated .
I mean , I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online ... so what happened and who is giving me the money back ?
Is it Microsoft putting ad dollars to hard work for Bing or the retailer giving up some more profit margin in exchange for moving product ?
If anyone could shed light on how I was able to get better deals on -- sometimes any -- products on Amazon by first going through Bing , I 'd appreciate it .
And this is n't like a few pennies click through ad revenue , this is like tens of dollars across several purchases .
Am I really that inept at how the world works to not figure this out ?
So in the end , I apologize for causing all that cancer .
You are correct to direct your slurs at me but I assure you that as soon as those deals dry up I will stop using Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, you can probably blame some of this on me -- and people like me.
I was in the market for an XBox 360 Arcade (with intent to add a HDD on my own) and had found through slick deals mention that if you went to bing and searched for Dell and clicked on the cashback link you could get an XBox 360 Arcade for 15\%-30\% off depending on when you do it.
Now, from what I read, your mileage may vary.
Meaning you got anywhere from $20 to $30 off the price but you still paid $200.
It was just recredited to your paypal account.
It happened/happens with other large retailers like Amazon so I found myself periodically using Bing to squeeze 10\% off a purchase here or there ... or even just hitting it up every couple days to see what I could find.
Kept with Google on my other searches (Firefox and Chrome still put me through the same default search engine).
But for a while, my desire to save a couple bucks probably pushed up Bing's marketshare.
I can't help it, I blame my overly frugal parents.
I'm not sure how this was orchestrated.
I mean, I thought commodities like DVDs and CDs and XBoxes were already shaven down to the some of the lowest prices online ... so what happened and who is giving me the money back?
Is it Microsoft putting ad dollars to hard work for Bing or the retailer giving up some more profit margin in exchange for moving product?
If anyone could shed light on how I was able to get better deals on -- sometimes any -- products on Amazon by first going through Bing, I'd appreciate it.
And this isn't like a few pennies click through ad revenue, this is like tens of dollars across several purchases.
Am I really that inept at how the world works to not figure this out?
So in the end, I apologize for causing all that cancer.
You are correct to direct your slurs at me but I assure you that as soon as those deals dry up I will stop using Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144754</id>
	<title>igoogle changes = win for bing?</title>
	<author>BlueBadger</author>
	<datestamp>1257095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yesterday Google changed the layout of the igoogle page in Canada to match what it started around a year ago in the states. Over the past year many countries have suffered the same fate. There was however a work around that would let people use the main google.com page by going to <a href="http://www.google.com/ig?hl=all" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/ig?hl=all</a> [google.com] and this worked up until yesterday. It's very surprising that Google would force a significant and controversial change like this on its user base after over a year of people complaining and asking and googling for ways to change it back... I'd hope that they could at least figure out how much of the population that uses igoogle tried to get it to work with the established layout by talking to people on the appropriate team and using their own Google tools.
I&rsquo;m one of the many upset users who are now going to have to consider the value of my google branded homepage and if it is worth getting used to the new layout when the current people in charge over at Google don&rsquo;t seem to understand the significance of keeping an option for the old layout that is in many opinions a much better use of space.
I might or might not switch to bing, or yahoo, or any number of other sites but I&rsquo;m honestly strongly considering leaving the igoogle home page after many happy years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday Google changed the layout of the igoogle page in Canada to match what it started around a year ago in the states .
Over the past year many countries have suffered the same fate .
There was however a work around that would let people use the main google.com page by going to http : //www.google.com/ig ? hl = all [ google.com ] and this worked up until yesterday .
It 's very surprising that Google would force a significant and controversial change like this on its user base after over a year of people complaining and asking and googling for ways to change it back... I 'd hope that they could at least figure out how much of the population that uses igoogle tried to get it to work with the established layout by talking to people on the appropriate team and using their own Google tools .
I    m one of the many upset users who are now going to have to consider the value of my google branded homepage and if it is worth getting used to the new layout when the current people in charge over at Google don    t seem to understand the significance of keeping an option for the old layout that is in many opinions a much better use of space .
I might or might not switch to bing , or yahoo , or any number of other sites but I    m honestly strongly considering leaving the igoogle home page after many happy years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday Google changed the layout of the igoogle page in Canada to match what it started around a year ago in the states.
Over the past year many countries have suffered the same fate.
There was however a work around that would let people use the main google.com page by going to http://www.google.com/ig?hl=all [google.com] and this worked up until yesterday.
It's very surprising that Google would force a significant and controversial change like this on its user base after over a year of people complaining and asking and googling for ways to change it back... I'd hope that they could at least figure out how much of the population that uses igoogle tried to get it to work with the established layout by talking to people on the appropriate team and using their own Google tools.
I’m one of the many upset users who are now going to have to consider the value of my google branded homepage and if it is worth getting used to the new layout when the current people in charge over at Google don’t seem to understand the significance of keeping an option for the old layout that is in many opinions a much better use of space.
I might or might not switch to bing, or yahoo, or any number of other sites but I’m honestly strongly considering leaving the igoogle home page after many happy years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144740</id>
	<title>Re:Is it trickery?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't be an idiot. This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo. Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose? Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.</p><p>Basically what this means is IE8 has, mostly as a result of automatic updates, reached about 10\% market share among people who think the browser's location bar is a search box</p></div></blockquote><p>Ah yes...  It's just not <i>possible</i> that anyone could chose to use Bing.  It's <i>just not possible</i>.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Well, you're 100\% wrong.  I use Bing's map search frequently because the "Bird's Eye" view is so dang useful when figuring out the approach route for a Geocache<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>No, the bulk of the 10\% we're talking about here consists of people using the IE8 UI.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's an assumption, not a fact.  There is a difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be an idiot .
This is Bing we 're talking about , not Yahoo .
Do you really think 10 \ % of people go to it on purpose ?
Outside of extreme geekdom , nobody 's even heard of it yet.Basically what this means is IE8 has , mostly as a result of automatic updates , reached about 10 \ % market share among people who think the browser 's location bar is a search boxAh yes... It 's just not possible that anyone could chose to use Bing .
It 's just not possible .
  Well , you 're 100 \ % wrong .
I use Bing 's map search frequently because the " Bird 's Eye " view is so dang useful when figuring out the approach route for a Geocache   No , the bulk of the 10 \ % we 're talking about here consists of people using the IE8 UI.That 's an assumption , not a fact .
There is a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be an idiot.
This is Bing we're talking about, not Yahoo.
Do you really think 10\% of people go to it on purpose?
Outside of extreme geekdom, nobody's even heard of it yet.Basically what this means is IE8 has, mostly as a result of automatic updates, reached about 10\% market share among people who think the browser's location bar is a search boxAh yes...  It's just not possible that anyone could chose to use Bing.
It's just not possible.
  Well, you're 100\% wrong.
I use Bing's map search frequently because the "Bird's Eye" view is so dang useful when figuring out the approach route for a Geocache
  No, the bulk of the 10\% we're talking about here consists of people using the IE8 UI.That's an assumption, not a fact.
There is a difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143738</id>
	<title>Because bing is such an appropriate name.</title>
	<author>Proactive Synergy</author>
	<datestamp>1257091800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the OED: Bing: noun 1: A heap or pile, formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like.</p><p>( As quoted in "A changing world of words: studies in English historical lexicography" By Javier E. D&#237;az Vera, p 113, sometimes visible via Google Books.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the OED : Bing : noun 1 : A heap or pile , formerly of stones , earth , trees , dead bodies , as well as of corn , potatoes , and the like .
( As quoted in " A changing world of words : studies in English historical lexicography " By Javier E. D   az Vera , p 113 , sometimes visible via Google Books .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the OED: Bing: noun 1: A heap or pile, formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like.
( As quoted in "A changing world of words: studies in English historical lexicography" By Javier E. Díaz Vera, p 113, sometimes visible via Google Books.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143680</id>
	<title>Bing Image Search = better</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1257091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For whatever technical reasons, the Bing image search results return more relevant and quality imagery than google. I haven't actually switched over for text based searches yet though, but I might just out of laziness. Maybe that was the Bing guys' plan..make a really good image search (read: porn) engine in hopes that people will over look the relatively weak text search functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For whatever technical reasons , the Bing image search results return more relevant and quality imagery than google .
I have n't actually switched over for text based searches yet though , but I might just out of laziness .
Maybe that was the Bing guys ' plan..make a really good image search ( read : porn ) engine in hopes that people will over look the relatively weak text search functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For whatever technical reasons, the Bing image search results return more relevant and quality imagery than google.
I haven't actually switched over for text based searches yet though, but I might just out of laziness.
Maybe that was the Bing guys' plan..make a really good image search (read: porn) engine in hopes that people will over look the relatively weak text search functions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30165682</id>
	<title>Re:What the...seriously?</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1258633260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. There are quite a few people using Bing. <p>
How do I know? I just googled it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
There are quite a few people using Bing .
How do I know ?
I just googled it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
There are quite a few people using Bing.
How do I know?
I just googled it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30166446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30177838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30154200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30165682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30151732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30151072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30150528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30154782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_1342246_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30150528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30165682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30151732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30152904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30151072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30154200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30166446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30147344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30148426
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30177838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30149352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30153692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30154782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30142712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30145506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30143610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_1342246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30144788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_1342246.30146518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
