<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_0224250</id>
	<title>Google May Limit Free News Access</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259749260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>You know how, if you want to read a paywalled newspaper article, you can just paste its title into Google News and get a free pass? <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8389896.stm">Those days may be coming to an end</a>. Reader Captian Spazzz writes: "It looks like Google may be bowing to pressure from folks like News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch. What I don't understand is what prevents the websites themselves from enforcing some limit. Why make Google do it?" (Danny Sullivan explains <a href="http://searchengineland.com/head-to-head-acap-versus-robots-txt-for-controlling-search-engines-30816?utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed:+searchengineland+(Search+Engine+Land)">how they could do that</a>.) <i>"Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced. The concession follows claims from some media companies that the search engine is profiting from online news pages. Publishers will join a First Click Free programme that will prevent web surfers from having unrestricted access. Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know how , if you want to read a paywalled newspaper article , you can just paste its title into Google News and get a free pass ?
Those days may be coming to an end .
Reader Captian Spazzz writes : " It looks like Google may be bowing to pressure from folks like News Corp. 's Rupert Murdoch .
What I do n't understand is what prevents the websites themselves from enforcing some limit .
Why make Google do it ?
" ( Danny Sullivan explains how they could do that .
) " Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google , the company has announced .
The concession follows claims from some media companies that the search engine is profiting from online news pages .
Publishers will join a First Click Free programme that will prevent web surfers from having unrestricted access .
Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know how, if you want to read a paywalled newspaper article, you can just paste its title into Google News and get a free pass?
Those days may be coming to an end.
Reader Captian Spazzz writes: "It looks like Google may be bowing to pressure from folks like News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch.
What I don't understand is what prevents the websites themselves from enforcing some limit.
Why make Google do it?
" (Danny Sullivan explains how they could do that.
) "Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced.
The concession follows claims from some media companies that the search engine is profiting from online news pages.
Publishers will join a First Click Free programme that will prevent web surfers from having unrestricted access.
Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300838</id>
	<title>Does anyone really want to read fox news?</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1259612940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean really?</p><p>WSJ is going to get more opinionated over the next couple years as the editorial staff shifts more and more into Murdocs back pocket.  My local newspaper has better articles, that actually matter to me, not the Rush Limbaugh of the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really ? WSJ is going to get more opinionated over the next couple years as the editorial staff shifts more and more into Murdocs back pocket .
My local newspaper has better articles , that actually matter to me , not the Rush Limbaugh of the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really?WSJ is going to get more opinionated over the next couple years as the editorial staff shifts more and more into Murdocs back pocket.
My local newspaper has better articles, that actually matter to me, not the Rush Limbaugh of the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296718</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) get Firefox<br>2) get User Agent Switcher extension<br>3) Set you user agent to googlebot's UA<br>4) See what google sees</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) get Firefox2 ) get User Agent Switcher extension3 ) Set you user agent to googlebot 's UA4 ) See what google sees</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) get Firefox2) get User Agent Switcher extension3) Set you user agent to googlebot's UA4) See what google sees</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297422</id>
	<title>This has been around since 2007</title>
	<author>awwaiid</author>
	<datestamp>1259597280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I googled the "new" First Click Free program and see <a href="http://googlenewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/first-click-free.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">references to it from 2007</a> [blogspot.com]! (probably before that). So that part has been around a long time. So what is actually new? Well since the BBC doesn't post their sources because they are old-media, here is the <a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/changes-in-first-click-free.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">5 per day feature in the First Click Free program announcement</a> [blogspot.com].

So the loophole that they are closing is being able to do the first-click over and over all day (defeatable the same way other tracking mechanisms are defeatable, i.e. not logging in, disabling cookies, etc). I didn't find that to be clear from the summary or TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I googled the " new " First Click Free program and see references to it from 2007 [ blogspot.com ] !
( probably before that ) .
So that part has been around a long time .
So what is actually new ?
Well since the BBC does n't post their sources because they are old-media , here is the 5 per day feature in the First Click Free program announcement [ blogspot.com ] .
So the loophole that they are closing is being able to do the first-click over and over all day ( defeatable the same way other tracking mechanisms are defeatable , i.e .
not logging in , disabling cookies , etc ) .
I did n't find that to be clear from the summary or TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I googled the "new" First Click Free program and see references to it from 2007 [blogspot.com]!
(probably before that).
So that part has been around a long time.
So what is actually new?
Well since the BBC doesn't post their sources because they are old-media, here is the 5 per day feature in the First Click Free program announcement [blogspot.com].
So the loophole that they are closing is being able to do the first-click over and over all day (defeatable the same way other tracking mechanisms are defeatable, i.e.
not logging in, disabling cookies, etc).
I didn't find that to be clear from the summary or TFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456</id>
	<title>This is...</title>
	<author>muckracer</author>
	<datestamp>1259581140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the final nail in the coffin of the 'traditional' news dissemination business model. One that relied on having to purchase a physical (print) medium and that has not been able to adapt to the Internet-era. This is also a consciousness-switch of the traditional users: information wants to be free and they want it accordingly. To try to force people to actually pay for content they can have for free (regardless of what Google, Murdoch etc. do), is almost laughable in terms of failing to accept the inevitable. In fact, it will accelerate it.<br>However, I do wonder about the journalists and writers...what is the way for them to make money if news and stories are only accepted for free? There is a large effort needed to write quality stories...a lot of calling people, driving around interviewing, checking documents etc.pp. So far the newspapers/-agencies were, for a writer, the customers and they paid based on length etc. If they falter, what will happen? Suggestions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the final nail in the coffin of the 'traditional ' news dissemination business model .
One that relied on having to purchase a physical ( print ) medium and that has not been able to adapt to the Internet-era .
This is also a consciousness-switch of the traditional users : information wants to be free and they want it accordingly .
To try to force people to actually pay for content they can have for free ( regardless of what Google , Murdoch etc .
do ) , is almost laughable in terms of failing to accept the inevitable .
In fact , it will accelerate it.However , I do wonder about the journalists and writers...what is the way for them to make money if news and stories are only accepted for free ?
There is a large effort needed to write quality stories...a lot of calling people , driving around interviewing , checking documents etc.pp .
So far the newspapers/-agencies were , for a writer , the customers and they paid based on length etc .
If they falter , what will happen ?
Suggestions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the final nail in the coffin of the 'traditional' news dissemination business model.
One that relied on having to purchase a physical (print) medium and that has not been able to adapt to the Internet-era.
This is also a consciousness-switch of the traditional users: information wants to be free and they want it accordingly.
To try to force people to actually pay for content they can have for free (regardless of what Google, Murdoch etc.
do), is almost laughable in terms of failing to accept the inevitable.
In fact, it will accelerate it.However, I do wonder about the journalists and writers...what is the way for them to make money if news and stories are only accepted for free?
There is a large effort needed to write quality stories...a lot of calling people, driving around interviewing, checking documents etc.pp.
So far the newspapers/-agencies were, for a writer, the customers and they paid based on length etc.
If they falter, what will happen?
Suggestions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30303112</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296708</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> A fee is NOT a tax and misusing words ala 1984 just makes your arguments less credible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fee is NOT a tax and misusing words ala 1984 just makes your arguments less credible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A fee is NOT a tax and misusing words ala 1984 just makes your arguments less credible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298628</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Google crawler has access to it but I do not.</i> <br>
<br>
And that right there should have given you your answer.<br>
<br>
Think about what you've written for a minute... Google's crawler doesn't have actual accounts at every paysite on
the web - Those sites have access rules to <i>allow</i> search engines (but not you) to retrieve for-pay content.<br>
<br>
Can you now think of a way you might use that information to your benefit, rather than complaining that Google
shows you more than you see in the abstract?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google crawler has access to it but I do not .
And that right there should have given you your answer .
Think about what you 've written for a minute... Google 's crawler does n't have actual accounts at every paysite on the web - Those sites have access rules to allow search engines ( but not you ) to retrieve for-pay content .
Can you now think of a way you might use that information to your benefit , rather than complaining that Google shows you more than you see in the abstract ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google crawler has access to it but I do not.
And that right there should have given you your answer.
Think about what you've written for a minute... Google's crawler doesn't have actual accounts at every paysite on
the web - Those sites have access rules to allow search engines (but not you) to retrieve for-pay content.
Can you now think of a way you might use that information to your benefit, rather than complaining that Google
shows you more than you see in the abstract?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So it sounds like (maybe?) the news sites have a policy that says that clickthroughs from Google don't have to be routed through their access control.  Why?  Is this something Google requires newspapers to do in order to do display links to them on Google News?</p></div><p>It's something Google requires any websites to do to be linked at all. If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it, you get kicked out of the Google index. So you have to choose between:</p><p>[a] Letting users see the story for free</p><p>[b] Showing Google the same login screen as everyone else</p><p>[c] Being kicked out of the Google index entirely</p><p>It sounds like Murdoch and co have threatened to take path [b], and Google have made concessions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it sounds like ( maybe ?
) the news sites have a policy that says that clickthroughs from Google do n't have to be routed through their access control .
Why ? Is this something Google requires newspapers to do in order to do display links to them on Google News ? It 's something Google requires any websites to do to be linked at all .
If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it , you get kicked out of the Google index .
So you have to choose between : [ a ] Letting users see the story for free [ b ] Showing Google the same login screen as everyone else [ c ] Being kicked out of the Google index entirelyIt sounds like Murdoch and co have threatened to take path [ b ] , and Google have made concessions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it sounds like (maybe?
) the news sites have a policy that says that clickthroughs from Google don't have to be routed through their access control.
Why?  Is this something Google requires newspapers to do in order to do display links to them on Google News?It's something Google requires any websites to do to be linked at all.
If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it, you get kicked out of the Google index.
So you have to choose between:[a] Letting users see the story for free[b] Showing Google the same login screen as everyone else[c] Being kicked out of the Google index entirelyIt sounds like Murdoch and co have threatened to take path [b], and Google have made concessions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30301022</id>
	<title>What about bing, yahoo, and ask?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1259613780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will other search engines have the same restrictions? Or is just google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will other search engines have the same restrictions ?
Or is just google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will other search engines have the same restrictions?
Or is just google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297782</id>
	<title>Re:May (Not) Work</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259599080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Doing something like this (showing different content by user-agent) is<br>&gt; against Google's terms-of-service and can cause your site to be removed<br>&gt; from the index.</p><p>But that is exactly what paywall outfits like IEEE do: show the full article to the googlebot and then send me their subscribe page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Doing something like this ( showing different content by user-agent ) is &gt; against Google 's terms-of-service and can cause your site to be removed &gt; from the index.But that is exactly what paywall outfits like IEEE do : show the full article to the googlebot and then send me their subscribe page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Doing something like this (showing different content by user-agent) is&gt; against Google's terms-of-service and can cause your site to be removed&gt; from the index.But that is exactly what paywall outfits like IEEE do: show the full article to the googlebot and then send me their subscribe page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295916</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>whencanistop</author>
	<datestamp>1259586840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole standfast up there is misleading.  From <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389896.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">the BBC article</a> [bbc.co.uk]:<p><div class="quote"><p>This will only affect websites that currently charge for content.</p></div><p> 

Currently some websites allow you to see articles that should be hidden behind a paywall barrier for free if you appear to come from Google.  It allows them to get their pages indexed in Google and get those users to those pages even though they are hidden to everyone else.  They can then try and persuade the users to sign up based on the fact that they can only see 5 pages.  It works for the organisations because they have get another marketing source and it works for Google because they get to add more into their index and give their users what they want.<br>
<br>
So overall nothing will be changing.  Previously if you'd visited five pages on the site and found a sixth through Google news, then you'd be thrown a page asking you to subscribe.  Now you get told on the Google News page that you are going to.  I, for one, am not that impressed because I don't go to those sites anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole standfast up there is misleading .
From the BBC article [ bbc.co.uk ] : This will only affect websites that currently charge for content .
Currently some websites allow you to see articles that should be hidden behind a paywall barrier for free if you appear to come from Google .
It allows them to get their pages indexed in Google and get those users to those pages even though they are hidden to everyone else .
They can then try and persuade the users to sign up based on the fact that they can only see 5 pages .
It works for the organisations because they have get another marketing source and it works for Google because they get to add more into their index and give their users what they want .
So overall nothing will be changing .
Previously if you 'd visited five pages on the site and found a sixth through Google news , then you 'd be thrown a page asking you to subscribe .
Now you get told on the Google News page that you are going to .
I , for one , am not that impressed because I do n't go to those sites anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole standfast up there is misleading.
From the BBC article [bbc.co.uk]:This will only affect websites that currently charge for content.
Currently some websites allow you to see articles that should be hidden behind a paywall barrier for free if you appear to come from Google.
It allows them to get their pages indexed in Google and get those users to those pages even though they are hidden to everyone else.
They can then try and persuade the users to sign up based on the fact that they can only see 5 pages.
It works for the organisations because they have get another marketing source and it works for Google because they get to add more into their index and give their users what they want.
So overall nothing will be changing.
Previously if you'd visited five pages on the site and found a sixth through Google news, then you'd be thrown a page asking you to subscribe.
Now you get told on the Google News page that you are going to.
I, for one, am not that impressed because I don't go to those sites anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295616</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30301540</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs Murdoch...</title>
	<author>ross.w</author>
	<datestamp>1259572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I especially liked the way Murdoch tried to associate himself with "good journalism". Unfortunately Rupert Murdoch and good journalism are polar opposites.</p><p>Cat's bum journalism (Shock! Horror!), biased articles supporting paying client/politician du jour and tits on page 3 are what you get from News LTD. Not good journalism.</p><p>I mean the Sun actually ADMITTED to their readership that they had supported the Labour party, but were now shifting th the conservatives. WHat business does a newspaper have supporting ANYONE? And how is that journalism.</p><p>Go ahead Mr Murdoch. You won't be missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I especially liked the way Murdoch tried to associate himself with " good journalism " .
Unfortunately Rupert Murdoch and good journalism are polar opposites.Cat 's bum journalism ( Shock !
Horror ! ) , biased articles supporting paying client/politician du jour and tits on page 3 are what you get from News LTD. Not good journalism.I mean the Sun actually ADMITTED to their readership that they had supported the Labour party , but were now shifting th the conservatives .
WHat business does a newspaper have supporting ANYONE ?
And how is that journalism.Go ahead Mr Murdoch .
You wo n't be missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I especially liked the way Murdoch tried to associate himself with "good journalism".
Unfortunately Rupert Murdoch and good journalism are polar opposites.Cat's bum journalism (Shock!
Horror!), biased articles supporting paying client/politician du jour and tits on page 3 are what you get from News LTD. Not good journalism.I mean the Sun actually ADMITTED to their readership that they had supported the Labour party, but were now shifting th the conservatives.
WHat business does a newspaper have supporting ANYONE?
And how is that journalism.Go ahead Mr Murdoch.
You won't be missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296760</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1259593620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys are really lazy and until they get serious, you will only need two firefox plugins:<br>1. a User Agent Switcher to turn your browser into googlebot<br>2. a cookie manager like CookieSafe that lets you block cookies on a per-site basis.</p><p>Maybe someday they'll upgrade to flash cookies, and use those to count the articles you've read,<br>but I don't see them ever spending the money on the hardware necessary to control access by IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys are really lazy and until they get serious , you will only need two firefox plugins : 1. a User Agent Switcher to turn your browser into googlebot2 .
a cookie manager like CookieSafe that lets you block cookies on a per-site basis.Maybe someday they 'll upgrade to flash cookies , and use those to count the articles you 've read,but I do n't see them ever spending the money on the hardware necessary to control access by IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys are really lazy and until they get serious, you will only need two firefox plugins:1. a User Agent Switcher to turn your browser into googlebot2.
a cookie manager like CookieSafe that lets you block cookies on a per-site basis.Maybe someday they'll upgrade to flash cookies, and use those to count the articles you've read,but I don't see them ever spending the money on the hardware necessary to control access by IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</id>
	<title>Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>darthflo</author>
	<datestamp>1259580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most 'papers like Google and the visitors Google sends them; so the Google Bot and hits with a google.com Referer tend to get a free pass. Use this to your advantage:</p><ul><li>Google the Article's URI, click the link and off you go (with a real Google referer).</li><li>If it's not indexed yet and you're using Opera: Go to any Google page, press Ctrl + U, change any one link's href to the article's URI, click "Save Changes", click the link and off you go (with a fake Google referer. This works for any fake referer, by the way).</li><li>If they're picky, they mightn't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages. Change your User-Agent accordingly. In Firefox, go to about:config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go (as Googlebot).</li><li>As a last resort, there's quite a few ad-blocking personal proxies out there. Most of them allow you to fake Referers or change User-Agents, for any browser.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most 'papers like Google and the visitors Google sends them ; so the Google Bot and hits with a google.com Referer tend to get a free pass .
Use this to your advantage : Google the Article 's URI , click the link and off you go ( with a real Google referer ) .If it 's not indexed yet and you 're using Opera : Go to any Google page , press Ctrl + U , change any one link 's href to the article 's URI , click " Save Changes " , click the link and off you go ( with a fake Google referer .
This works for any fake referer , by the way ) .If they 're picky , they might n't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages .
Change your User-Agent accordingly .
In Firefox , go to about : config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go ( as Googlebot ) .As a last resort , there 's quite a few ad-blocking personal proxies out there .
Most of them allow you to fake Referers or change User-Agents , for any browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most 'papers like Google and the visitors Google sends them; so the Google Bot and hits with a google.com Referer tend to get a free pass.
Use this to your advantage:Google the Article's URI, click the link and off you go (with a real Google referer).If it's not indexed yet and you're using Opera: Go to any Google page, press Ctrl + U, change any one link's href to the article's URI, click "Save Changes", click the link and off you go (with a fake Google referer.
This works for any fake referer, by the way).If they're picky, they mightn't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages.
Change your User-Agent accordingly.
In Firefox, go to about:config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go (as Googlebot).As a last resort, there's quite a few ad-blocking personal proxies out there.
Most of them allow you to fake Referers or change User-Agents, for any browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295406</id>
	<title>Murdoch set up a walled community</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or just go with the flow.<br>
If your papers have the value of a Vogue or economist economist, its fine.<br>
Making google change its practice world wide it fit in with your paper and ink world is rather silly.<br>
Value add, be faster and better, play a FOX game or sink.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or just go with the flow .
If your papers have the value of a Vogue or economist economist , its fine .
Making google change its practice world wide it fit in with your paper and ink world is rather silly .
Value add , be faster and better , play a FOX game or sink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or just go with the flow.
If your papers have the value of a Vogue or economist economist, its fine.
Making google change its practice world wide it fit in with your paper and ink world is rather silly.
Value add, be faster and better, play a FOX game or sink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30306722</id>
	<title>Newspapers just want to whine</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1259594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They see Google News (and Search) succeeding as a business model<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... AND doing it with their (the newspaper's) content.  They don't like it.  But they do seem to have an idea that if they just don't let Google's crawlers access the content, then they won't get the traffic they have been getting from Google.  The problem is, they just feel like they are not in control.  They want everyone to get all their news from one site (theirs).  They want to figure out how to get people to stay and not go back to Google News.  But they can't figure out how to do that, so they want to force Google to do it for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They see Google News ( and Search ) succeeding as a business model ... AND doing it with their ( the newspaper 's ) content .
They do n't like it .
But they do seem to have an idea that if they just do n't let Google 's crawlers access the content , then they wo n't get the traffic they have been getting from Google .
The problem is , they just feel like they are not in control .
They want everyone to get all their news from one site ( theirs ) .
They want to figure out how to get people to stay and not go back to Google News .
But they ca n't figure out how to do that , so they want to force Google to do it for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They see Google News (and Search) succeeding as a business model ... AND doing it with their (the newspaper's) content.
They don't like it.
But they do seem to have an idea that if they just don't let Google's crawlers access the content, then they won't get the traffic they have been getting from Google.
The problem is, they just feel like they are not in control.
They want everyone to get all their news from one site (theirs).
They want to figure out how to get people to stay and not go back to Google News.
But they can't figure out how to do that, so they want to force Google to do it for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298550</id>
	<title>Re:I'll wait for the plugin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BugMeNot is intentionally going against the way someone wants to run their site. There are reasons people want/need to ask for logins.</p><p>BugMeNot is pretty appalling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BugMeNot is intentionally going against the way someone wants to run their site .
There are reasons people want/need to ask for logins.BugMeNot is pretty appalling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BugMeNot is intentionally going against the way someone wants to run their site.
There are reasons people want/need to ask for logins.BugMeNot is pretty appalling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30301772</id>
	<title>Just bookmark news sites you visit 5 times / DAY</title>
	<author>Maow</author>
	<datestamp>1259573400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced.</p><p>Under the First Click Free programme, publishers can now prevent unrestricted access to subscription websites.</p><p>Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.</p></div></blockquote><p>Seems unlikely that a lot of users end up on one news site via Google &gt; 5 times daily.  If it happens a lot, perhaps it will lead to users bookmarking those sites and visiting them regularly via bookmark instead of Google News.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/speculation</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google , the company has announced.Under the First Click Free programme , publishers can now prevent unrestricted access to subscription websites.Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.Seems unlikely that a lot of users end up on one news site via Google &gt; 5 times daily .
If it happens a lot , perhaps it will lead to users bookmarking those sites and visiting them regularly via bookmark instead of Google News .
/speculation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced.Under the First Click Free programme, publishers can now prevent unrestricted access to subscription websites.Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.Seems unlikely that a lot of users end up on one news site via Google &gt; 5 times daily.
If it happens a lot, perhaps it will lead to users bookmarking those sites and visiting them regularly via bookmark instead of Google News.
/speculation
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</id>
	<title>What is going one here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still utterly baffled by what's going on here, and neither article seems to answer my questions.  Since, in most cases, Google News only displays a snippet of the article (almost certainly fair use?) and then requires readers to click through to the actual web site of the news source to read the rest of the article, what is preventing those sites from implementing whatever access control scheme they feel like?  (This should have nothing at all to do with robots.txt or ACAP which is about whether the *Google spider* can see the content, not whether users linking from Google can.)  Am I missing some technical point?</p><p>TFA says<br>"Previously, each click from a user would be treated as free," Google senior business product manager Josh Cohen said in a blog post.</p><p>So it sounds like (maybe?) the news sites have a policy that says that clickthroughs from Google don't have to be routed through their access control.  Why?  Is this something Google requires newspapers to do in order to do display links to them on Google News?  This seems to be the best theory, but I didn't see anything anywhere that actually said that.</p><p>So, in sum, is this a technical or a social/legal/contractual issue, and what, exactly, is it that is preventing these news sites from using their normal access control?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still utterly baffled by what 's going on here , and neither article seems to answer my questions .
Since , in most cases , Google News only displays a snippet of the article ( almost certainly fair use ?
) and then requires readers to click through to the actual web site of the news source to read the rest of the article , what is preventing those sites from implementing whatever access control scheme they feel like ?
( This should have nothing at all to do with robots.txt or ACAP which is about whether the * Google spider * can see the content , not whether users linking from Google can .
) Am I missing some technical point ? TFA says " Previously , each click from a user would be treated as free , " Google senior business product manager Josh Cohen said in a blog post.So it sounds like ( maybe ?
) the news sites have a policy that says that clickthroughs from Google do n't have to be routed through their access control .
Why ? Is this something Google requires newspapers to do in order to do display links to them on Google News ?
This seems to be the best theory , but I did n't see anything anywhere that actually said that.So , in sum , is this a technical or a social/legal/contractual issue , and what , exactly , is it that is preventing these news sites from using their normal access control ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still utterly baffled by what's going on here, and neither article seems to answer my questions.
Since, in most cases, Google News only displays a snippet of the article (almost certainly fair use?
) and then requires readers to click through to the actual web site of the news source to read the rest of the article, what is preventing those sites from implementing whatever access control scheme they feel like?
(This should have nothing at all to do with robots.txt or ACAP which is about whether the *Google spider* can see the content, not whether users linking from Google can.
)  Am I missing some technical point?TFA says"Previously, each click from a user would be treated as free," Google senior business product manager Josh Cohen said in a blog post.So it sounds like (maybe?
) the news sites have a policy that says that clickthroughs from Google don't have to be routed through their access control.
Why?  Is this something Google requires newspapers to do in order to do display links to them on Google News?
This seems to be the best theory, but I didn't see anything anywhere that actually said that.So, in sum, is this a technical or a social/legal/contractual issue, and what, exactly, is it that is preventing these news sites from using their normal access control?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1259593260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have written to their support, posted on their forums -please Google - if you are listening - MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.</i></p><p>YES, please.  My god I hate this aspect of Google, which is an incredibly annoying time-suck.  It's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research, but only when I'm on campus, so when I'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.</p><p>This is by far the most hateful, stupid and annoying thing Google does, and in close to a decade of searches I have never once purchased article access from one of these pirates (academics don't get paid by journals for their manuscripts, and now that publishing costs have fallen to almost nothing due to Web delivery there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of rates academic publishers are charging.  Open access journals are the future, and the sooner Google gets on board with the future, the better).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have written to their support , posted on their forums -please Google - if you are listening - MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.YES , please .
My god I hate this aspect of Google , which is an incredibly annoying time-suck .
It 's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research , but only when I 'm on campus , so when I 'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.This is by far the most hateful , stupid and annoying thing Google does , and in close to a decade of searches I have never once purchased article access from one of these pirates ( academics do n't get paid by journals for their manuscripts , and now that publishing costs have fallen to almost nothing due to Web delivery there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of rates academic publishers are charging .
Open access journals are the future , and the sooner Google gets on board with the future , the better ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have written to their support, posted on their forums -please Google - if you are listening - MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.YES, please.
My god I hate this aspect of Google, which is an incredibly annoying time-suck.
It's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research, but only when I'm on campus, so when I'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.This is by far the most hateful, stupid and annoying thing Google does, and in close to a decade of searches I have never once purchased article access from one of these pirates (academics don't get paid by journals for their manuscripts, and now that publishing costs have fallen to almost nothing due to Web delivery there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of rates academic publishers are charging.
Open access journals are the future, and the sooner Google gets on board with the future, the better).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296152</id>
	<title>Re:Meaningless concession</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1259589240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is to a large extent the result of AP and Reuters covering most stories "well enough". If AP or Reuters cover a story, thousands of papers, down to po-dunk local papers in the middle of nowhere, have sufficient coverage of the story for many people. So people rightfully don't care about the brand, because a large proportion of the content literally is the same across brands.</p><p>Sure, the BBC, NY Times, WSJ, Economist, and a few others have original content. But in most cases, AP/Reuters cover a story well enough, so the demand for additional unique content is not nearly as high as traditional demand for a newspaper was--- when it might have been the only way for every only-sort-of-plugged-in people to get the news. Now you really have to care enough to know why you want a particular paper's extra content, and <i>really</i> care to be willing to pay for it.</p><p>I'm not sure how dead the unique-content players are, though. <i>The Economist</i> is notably successful in selling its wares, and the WSJ hasn't been doing terribly either, despite Murdoch's whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is to a large extent the result of AP and Reuters covering most stories " well enough " .
If AP or Reuters cover a story , thousands of papers , down to po-dunk local papers in the middle of nowhere , have sufficient coverage of the story for many people .
So people rightfully do n't care about the brand , because a large proportion of the content literally is the same across brands.Sure , the BBC , NY Times , WSJ , Economist , and a few others have original content .
But in most cases , AP/Reuters cover a story well enough , so the demand for additional unique content is not nearly as high as traditional demand for a newspaper was--- when it might have been the only way for every only-sort-of-plugged-in people to get the news .
Now you really have to care enough to know why you want a particular paper 's extra content , and really care to be willing to pay for it.I 'm not sure how dead the unique-content players are , though .
The Economist is notably successful in selling its wares , and the WSJ has n't been doing terribly either , despite Murdoch 's whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is to a large extent the result of AP and Reuters covering most stories "well enough".
If AP or Reuters cover a story, thousands of papers, down to po-dunk local papers in the middle of nowhere, have sufficient coverage of the story for many people.
So people rightfully don't care about the brand, because a large proportion of the content literally is the same across brands.Sure, the BBC, NY Times, WSJ, Economist, and a few others have original content.
But in most cases, AP/Reuters cover a story well enough, so the demand for additional unique content is not nearly as high as traditional demand for a newspaper was--- when it might have been the only way for every only-sort-of-plugged-in people to get the news.
Now you really have to care enough to know why you want a particular paper's extra content, and really care to be willing to pay for it.I'm not sure how dead the unique-content players are, though.
The Economist is notably successful in selling its wares, and the WSJ hasn't been doing terribly either, despite Murdoch's whining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295970</id>
	<title>Impending failure</title>
	<author>UbuntuniX</author>
	<datestamp>1259587560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages</i>
<br> <br>
Users who click on more than five articles in day may be routed to another news site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages Users who click on more than five articles in day may be routed to another news site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages
 
Users who click on more than five articles in day may be routed to another news site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298100</id>
	<title>YESSSS PLEASE!!!</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1259600520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As sure as I'm sitting here, nothing will kill these annoying publishers deader than dead than google turning off access to news items on paywalled sites.  NOBODY wants to pay for news and nobody wants advertising on their news sites.  Get over it, already.</p><p>Good riddance, that Murdoch.  What an asswipe he was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As sure as I 'm sitting here , nothing will kill these annoying publishers deader than dead than google turning off access to news items on paywalled sites .
NOBODY wants to pay for news and nobody wants advertising on their news sites .
Get over it , already.Good riddance , that Murdoch .
What an asswipe he was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As sure as I'm sitting here, nothing will kill these annoying publishers deader than dead than google turning off access to news items on paywalled sites.
NOBODY wants to pay for news and nobody wants advertising on their news sites.
Get over it, already.Good riddance, that Murdoch.
What an asswipe he was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</id>
	<title>What really pisses me right off about paywalled...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259588940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google search, Google scholar etc always turns up paywalled articles outside of the news industry.  In particular, research articles. On clicking through your are greeted by a screen to pay for the article, and the keywords that were searched for are not in the summary/abstract presented or even available to see. In effect Google has given me a "hit" on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.</p><p>ieeecomputersociety.org, springerlink.com, sciencedirect.com (anything but direct)... the list goes on.</p><p> Ok, you might say that they hold all the serious research papers - you might even be right, in some cases. I even understand that maybe just maybe, if I am really desperate, then I might actually want to search for paywalled articles and am prepared to pay the <i>extra</i> information access <b>tax</b> of $20-$40 a for every article. However what google is now doing is wasting their bandwidth and more importantly to me, completely <b>wasting my time</b> by including paywalled articles in top positions of all my search requests. Furthermore, Google does it <b>by default</b>.</p><p> I have written to their support, posted on their forums -please Google - if you are listening - MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default. If you think about where it leads: the quality of the future of all our search requests is at stake. Now Google is planning to add News to this time wasting highly annoying practice - and I want to be <b>opted out by default</b>, I am begging you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google search , Google scholar etc always turns up paywalled articles outside of the news industry .
In particular , research articles .
On clicking through your are greeted by a screen to pay for the article , and the keywords that were searched for are not in the summary/abstract presented or even available to see .
In effect Google has given me a " hit " on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.ieeecomputersociety.org , springerlink.com , sciencedirect.com ( anything but direct ) ... the list goes on .
Ok , you might say that they hold all the serious research papers - you might even be right , in some cases .
I even understand that maybe just maybe , if I am really desperate , then I might actually want to search for paywalled articles and am prepared to pay the extra information access tax of $ 20- $ 40 a for every article .
However what google is now doing is wasting their bandwidth and more importantly to me , completely wasting my time by including paywalled articles in top positions of all my search requests .
Furthermore , Google does it by default .
I have written to their support , posted on their forums -please Google - if you are listening - MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default .
If you think about where it leads : the quality of the future of all our search requests is at stake .
Now Google is planning to add News to this time wasting highly annoying practice - and I want to be opted out by default , I am begging you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google search, Google scholar etc always turns up paywalled articles outside of the news industry.
In particular, research articles.
On clicking through your are greeted by a screen to pay for the article, and the keywords that were searched for are not in the summary/abstract presented or even available to see.
In effect Google has given me a "hit" on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.ieeecomputersociety.org, springerlink.com, sciencedirect.com (anything but direct)... the list goes on.
Ok, you might say that they hold all the serious research papers - you might even be right, in some cases.
I even understand that maybe just maybe, if I am really desperate, then I might actually want to search for paywalled articles and am prepared to pay the extra information access tax of $20-$40 a for every article.
However what google is now doing is wasting their bandwidth and more importantly to me, completely wasting my time by including paywalled articles in top positions of all my search requests.
Furthermore, Google does it by default.
I have written to their support, posted on their forums -please Google - if you are listening - MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.
If you think about where it leads: the quality of the future of all our search requests is at stake.
Now Google is planning to add News to this time wasting highly annoying practice - and I want to be opted out by default, I am begging you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295438</id>
	<title>Great News! Ban the Bad News !!!</title>
	<author>star3am</author>
	<datestamp>1259580900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally think this is such a great move, I'm so sick of newspapers, reporting all the negative stuff.

I say Ban them all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Take the power back !</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think this is such a great move , I 'm so sick of newspapers , reporting all the negative stuff .
I say Ban them all : ) Take the power back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think this is such a great move, I'm so sick of newspapers, reporting all the negative stuff.
I say Ban them all :)
Take the power back !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296228</id>
	<title>ESL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure China will have English language papers online for free.  There are lots of people that want to push subsidized content.  So don't worry you won't have to pay for stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure China will have English language papers online for free .
There are lots of people that want to push subsidized content .
So do n't worry you wo n't have to pay for stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure China will have English language papers online for free.
There are lots of people that want to push subsidized content.
So don't worry you won't have to pay for stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296636</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>Mutant321</author>
	<datestamp>1259592900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, and I think in this case it makes a lot of sense. I formerly worked for a major newspaper, and due to various complicated contracts with different entities, option [c] had to be chosen. I.e. a lot of stuff we de-listed from google (which we didn't want to do), because we couldn't be seen to be (obviously) giving content away, while others were paying dearly for it.</p><p>This is distinctly different to the "Google should pay *us* for the privilege of listing our content", which is clearly insane.</p><p>Note, obviously there are always going to be ways around registration/subscription, especially if you have n clicks free, which is probably going to be cookie based... but these require a bit more technical know how, and could be seen as being on less stable ground legally, so are acceptable loop holes. But just going via google and getting anything free is a bigger deal. I don't see why news organisations shouldn't have the right to charge for the content they want to charge for. If that business model is flawed, then the market will sort that out, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , and I think in this case it makes a lot of sense .
I formerly worked for a major newspaper , and due to various complicated contracts with different entities , option [ c ] had to be chosen .
I.e. a lot of stuff we de-listed from google ( which we did n't want to do ) , because we could n't be seen to be ( obviously ) giving content away , while others were paying dearly for it.This is distinctly different to the " Google should pay * us * for the privilege of listing our content " , which is clearly insane.Note , obviously there are always going to be ways around registration/subscription , especially if you have n clicks free , which is probably going to be cookie based... but these require a bit more technical know how , and could be seen as being on less stable ground legally , so are acceptable loop holes .
But just going via google and getting anything free is a bigger deal .
I do n't see why news organisations should n't have the right to charge for the content they want to charge for .
If that business model is flawed , then the market will sort that out , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, and I think in this case it makes a lot of sense.
I formerly worked for a major newspaper, and due to various complicated contracts with different entities, option [c] had to be chosen.
I.e. a lot of stuff we de-listed from google (which we didn't want to do), because we couldn't be seen to be (obviously) giving content away, while others were paying dearly for it.This is distinctly different to the "Google should pay *us* for the privilege of listing our content", which is clearly insane.Note, obviously there are always going to be ways around registration/subscription, especially if you have n clicks free, which is probably going to be cookie based... but these require a bit more technical know how, and could be seen as being on less stable ground legally, so are acceptable loop holes.
But just going via google and getting anything free is a bigger deal.
I don't see why news organisations shouldn't have the right to charge for the content they want to charge for.
If that business model is flawed, then the market will sort that out, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295614</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your not First, and your not even right...  Changing Referrers won't change anything.</p><p>Current Situation:</p><p>- Google kicks you out of the index if you change the content a user sees, vs. the content the googlebot sees. for news-pages they added a program which allowed content owners to make that differentiation, as long as people with google-refferer still see the page as if they were to google bot</p><p>new situation:</p><p>- Content Owners are now allowed to change this behaviour, so visitors only see the page like the google bot the first 5 times a day. after that, google allowes them to be treated different (like, requiring a subscription, different landing page etc)</p><p>I doubt Google won't give content owners more sophisticated ways to identify google other than the user-agent... (they probably can already feed google news through an api or so)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your not First , and your not even right... Changing Referrers wo n't change anything.Current Situation : - Google kicks you out of the index if you change the content a user sees , vs. the content the googlebot sees .
for news-pages they added a program which allowed content owners to make that differentiation , as long as people with google-refferer still see the page as if they were to google botnew situation : - Content Owners are now allowed to change this behaviour , so visitors only see the page like the google bot the first 5 times a day .
after that , google allowes them to be treated different ( like , requiring a subscription , different landing page etc ) I doubt Google wo n't give content owners more sophisticated ways to identify google other than the user-agent... ( they probably can already feed google news through an api or so )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your not First, and your not even right...  Changing Referrers won't change anything.Current Situation:- Google kicks you out of the index if you change the content a user sees, vs. the content the googlebot sees.
for news-pages they added a program which allowed content owners to make that differentiation, as long as people with google-refferer still see the page as if they were to google botnew situation:- Content Owners are now allowed to change this behaviour, so visitors only see the page like the google bot the first 5 times a day.
after that, google allowes them to be treated different (like, requiring a subscription, different landing page etc)I doubt Google won't give content owners more sophisticated ways to identify google other than the user-agent... (they probably can already feed google news through an api or so)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30303596</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you're reading tabloid newspapers.</p><p>The newspapers I read (The Age, Financial Review, The Australian) all carry articles that have been well researched and are worth my time reading. If I were to read the tabloid papers (Sydney Morning Herald, The Sun) then I might agree - the content is not particularly deep.</p><p>But then each of the above 5 newspapers is written to target a specific audience. Not everyone wants in depth articles, some people just want big pictures (especially when there are bare breasts on page 3, like in the UK.)</p><p>So I need to pay a dollar or two to get this thing called a newspaper. So what? At least I don't get a screen flooded with popups or need to run (and keep updated) a host of addons to manage the offensive content the web wants to sling at me.</p><p>At least if I spill coffee on a newspaper at breakfast I haven't ruined my day/week like it would if that were a keyboard in my laptop.</p><p>The unfortunate fact is that I've seen many American newspapers and their content is not particularly deep. It's not clear if this is because there are too many papers (and thus the market for each is smaller) or something else. For example, how many daily newspapers cover the San Francisco Bay Area? Reduce that down to 2. Next, throw out the country wide tabloids like "USA Today." Even if the WSJ/NYT are kept, there should be enough talent and demand to make the 2 papers that cover SFBA to be of substantially higher quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you 're reading tabloid newspapers.The newspapers I read ( The Age , Financial Review , The Australian ) all carry articles that have been well researched and are worth my time reading .
If I were to read the tabloid papers ( Sydney Morning Herald , The Sun ) then I might agree - the content is not particularly deep.But then each of the above 5 newspapers is written to target a specific audience .
Not everyone wants in depth articles , some people just want big pictures ( especially when there are bare breasts on page 3 , like in the UK .
) So I need to pay a dollar or two to get this thing called a newspaper .
So what ?
At least I do n't get a screen flooded with popups or need to run ( and keep updated ) a host of addons to manage the offensive content the web wants to sling at me.At least if I spill coffee on a newspaper at breakfast I have n't ruined my day/week like it would if that were a keyboard in my laptop.The unfortunate fact is that I 've seen many American newspapers and their content is not particularly deep .
It 's not clear if this is because there are too many papers ( and thus the market for each is smaller ) or something else .
For example , how many daily newspapers cover the San Francisco Bay Area ?
Reduce that down to 2 .
Next , throw out the country wide tabloids like " USA Today .
" Even if the WSJ/NYT are kept , there should be enough talent and demand to make the 2 papers that cover SFBA to be of substantially higher quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you're reading tabloid newspapers.The newspapers I read (The Age, Financial Review, The Australian) all carry articles that have been well researched and are worth my time reading.
If I were to read the tabloid papers (Sydney Morning Herald, The Sun) then I might agree - the content is not particularly deep.But then each of the above 5 newspapers is written to target a specific audience.
Not everyone wants in depth articles, some people just want big pictures (especially when there are bare breasts on page 3, like in the UK.
)So I need to pay a dollar or two to get this thing called a newspaper.
So what?
At least I don't get a screen flooded with popups or need to run (and keep updated) a host of addons to manage the offensive content the web wants to sling at me.At least if I spill coffee on a newspaper at breakfast I haven't ruined my day/week like it would if that were a keyboard in my laptop.The unfortunate fact is that I've seen many American newspapers and their content is not particularly deep.
It's not clear if this is because there are too many papers (and thus the market for each is smaller) or something else.
For example, how many daily newspapers cover the San Francisco Bay Area?
Reduce that down to 2.
Next, throw out the country wide tabloids like "USA Today.
" Even if the WSJ/NYT are kept, there should be enough talent and demand to make the 2 papers that cover SFBA to be of substantially higher quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295604</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>dotwhynot</author>
	<datestamp>1259583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what is preventing those sites from implementing whatever access control scheme they feel like?  (This should have nothing at all to do with robots.txt or ACAP which is about whether the *Google spider* can see the content, not whether users linking from Google can.)  Am I missing some technical point?</p><p>TFA says
</p></div><p>well, users could easily change their useragent to Googlebot, and so be able to see anything the site want Google to see? (though I currently don't see the majority of web users doing that..)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is preventing those sites from implementing whatever access control scheme they feel like ?
( This should have nothing at all to do with robots.txt or ACAP which is about whether the * Google spider * can see the content , not whether users linking from Google can .
) Am I missing some technical point ? TFA says well , users could easily change their useragent to Googlebot , and so be able to see anything the site want Google to see ?
( though I currently do n't see the majority of web users doing that.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is preventing those sites from implementing whatever access control scheme they feel like?
(This should have nothing at all to do with robots.txt or ACAP which is about whether the *Google spider* can see the content, not whether users linking from Google can.
)  Am I missing some technical point?TFA says
well, users could easily change their useragent to Googlebot, and so be able to see anything the site want Google to see?
(though I currently don't see the majority of web users doing that..)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296812</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to the nearest convenience store and buy a newspaper.  Are there ads in it?  There's your answer.</p><p>If your newspaper didn't have any ads, it would cost a lot more than whatever you just paid for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to the nearest convenience store and buy a newspaper .
Are there ads in it ?
There 's your answer.If your newspaper did n't have any ads , it would cost a lot more than whatever you just paid for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to the nearest convenience store and buy a newspaper.
Are there ads in it?
There's your answer.If your newspaper didn't have any ads, it would cost a lot more than whatever you just paid for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297704</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.</p><p>I agree.  I don't want to see anything in my search results that I cannot see when I follow the link (abstracts with ads for paid access to the full article are fine).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.I agree .
I do n't want to see anything in my search results that I can not see when I follow the link ( abstracts with ads for paid access to the full article are fine ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; MAKE PAYWALLED SITES AN OPTION in my preferences and set it OFF by default.I agree.
I don't want to see anything in my search results that I cannot see when I follow the link (abstracts with ads for paid access to the full article are fine).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296674</id>
	<title>Levelling the Players</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1259593140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The value of Google to Rupert Murdoch (for example) is that he get's page views through them (he doesn't want to admit this in the tack he's taking 'cos he's just after cold hard cash). Google aren't the only source of links for people to find news and those links also influence Google's results.</p><p>Once a paywall goes up, people aren't generally going to bother clicking the link. Only subscribers will. In Google this is fine, the site will marked as subscription and people can make up their own mind, but these links will disappear from the results over time (effectively - they'll go further down the rankings) because no one will be linking to them - why would they? People link to news stories as part of a conversation.</p><p>The same applies to any newspaper which implements Google's new '5 Clicks &amp; You're Out' system. Once it becomes clear a site is using this, links to it will decrease, readers of link aggregator sites (like Digg) or intelligent and civil discussion boards (like Slashdot)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *cough*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... will meet links to these sites with complaint "I've already read 5 stories from Your-first-few-hits-R-free-news.com today, is there another link? Why keep linking to these crippled links? FFS!" and either the crippled sites will be routed around (ala bugmenot vs NYT) or become an increasing irrelevance as they cease to be linked to and free-er ccompetitors move in - which are also more easily found and propagated through Google as a result of being more linked.</p><p>Google has shifted the game away from itself to let the news sites duke it out but in a different arena. Instead of just competing on quality of stories and journalism, they're going to compete on free and open versus crippled also (paywalled sites are out of the game since they are not part of online conversations).</p><p>Valid theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The value of Google to Rupert Murdoch ( for example ) is that he get 's page views through them ( he does n't want to admit this in the tack he 's taking 'cos he 's just after cold hard cash ) .
Google are n't the only source of links for people to find news and those links also influence Google 's results.Once a paywall goes up , people are n't generally going to bother clicking the link .
Only subscribers will .
In Google this is fine , the site will marked as subscription and people can make up their own mind , but these links will disappear from the results over time ( effectively - they 'll go further down the rankings ) because no one will be linking to them - why would they ?
People link to news stories as part of a conversation.The same applies to any newspaper which implements Google 's new '5 Clicks &amp; You 're Out ' system .
Once it becomes clear a site is using this , links to it will decrease , readers of link aggregator sites ( like Digg ) or intelligent and civil discussion boards ( like Slashdot ) ... * cough * ... will meet links to these sites with complaint " I 've already read 5 stories from Your-first-few-hits-R-free-news.com today , is there another link ?
Why keep linking to these crippled links ?
FFS ! " and either the crippled sites will be routed around ( ala bugmenot vs NYT ) or become an increasing irrelevance as they cease to be linked to and free-er ccompetitors move in - which are also more easily found and propagated through Google as a result of being more linked.Google has shifted the game away from itself to let the news sites duke it out but in a different arena .
Instead of just competing on quality of stories and journalism , they 're going to compete on free and open versus crippled also ( paywalled sites are out of the game since they are not part of online conversations ) .Valid theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value of Google to Rupert Murdoch (for example) is that he get's page views through them (he doesn't want to admit this in the tack he's taking 'cos he's just after cold hard cash).
Google aren't the only source of links for people to find news and those links also influence Google's results.Once a paywall goes up, people aren't generally going to bother clicking the link.
Only subscribers will.
In Google this is fine, the site will marked as subscription and people can make up their own mind, but these links will disappear from the results over time (effectively - they'll go further down the rankings) because no one will be linking to them - why would they?
People link to news stories as part of a conversation.The same applies to any newspaper which implements Google's new '5 Clicks &amp; You're Out' system.
Once it becomes clear a site is using this, links to it will decrease, readers of link aggregator sites (like Digg) or intelligent and civil discussion boards (like Slashdot) ... *cough* ... will meet links to these sites with complaint "I've already read 5 stories from Your-first-few-hits-R-free-news.com today, is there another link?
Why keep linking to these crippled links?
FFS!" and either the crippled sites will be routed around (ala bugmenot vs NYT) or become an increasing irrelevance as they cease to be linked to and free-er ccompetitors move in - which are also more easily found and propagated through Google as a result of being more linked.Google has shifted the game away from itself to let the news sites duke it out but in a different arena.
Instead of just competing on quality of stories and journalism, they're going to compete on free and open versus crippled also (paywalled sites are out of the game since they are not part of online conversations).Valid theory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295452</id>
	<title>Who needs Murdoch...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... when we have public broadcasters, such as the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">BBC</a> [bbc.co.uk], <a href="http://www.abc.com.au/news" title="abc.com.au" rel="nofollow">ABC</a> [abc.com.au] and so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... when we have public broadcasters , such as the BBC [ bbc.co.uk ] , ABC [ abc.com.au ] and so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... when we have public broadcasters, such as the BBC [bbc.co.uk], ABC [abc.com.au] and so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295716</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1259584560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason it doesn't make sense is because their are multiple players operating from multiple vantage points.

</p><p>Murdoch talked up the idea of blocking google <em>eventually</em>, where he could easily have done such a thing immediately.  There was probably a variety of strategy behind the announcement, but one element may have been to get other news sources in line with the idea.  It is the sort of thing that has a high cost for the first adopter (the first guy is leaving a saturated market where people can seemlessly switch to the alternatives) and with no one making the first move, nothing ever happens, but with a touch of collusion it suddenly becomes possible to do.

</p><p>Google was evidently worried about being left out of the operation, so they rushed to offer an easy solution.  It's not that the companies couldn't do it on their own, it's just that amidst their machinations there was a bit of space for google to jump in and assert itself, hopefully keeping anyone from "delisting" from their search engine.  (And if they can have their technology involved in the purchasing of these news article, at a later date they may be able to demand a slice of the pie themselves.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it does n't make sense is because their are multiple players operating from multiple vantage points .
Murdoch talked up the idea of blocking google eventually , where he could easily have done such a thing immediately .
There was probably a variety of strategy behind the announcement , but one element may have been to get other news sources in line with the idea .
It is the sort of thing that has a high cost for the first adopter ( the first guy is leaving a saturated market where people can seemlessly switch to the alternatives ) and with no one making the first move , nothing ever happens , but with a touch of collusion it suddenly becomes possible to do .
Google was evidently worried about being left out of the operation , so they rushed to offer an easy solution .
It 's not that the companies could n't do it on their own , it 's just that amidst their machinations there was a bit of space for google to jump in and assert itself , hopefully keeping anyone from " delisting " from their search engine .
( And if they can have their technology involved in the purchasing of these news article , at a later date they may be able to demand a slice of the pie themselves .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it doesn't make sense is because their are multiple players operating from multiple vantage points.
Murdoch talked up the idea of blocking google eventually, where he could easily have done such a thing immediately.
There was probably a variety of strategy behind the announcement, but one element may have been to get other news sources in line with the idea.
It is the sort of thing that has a high cost for the first adopter (the first guy is leaving a saturated market where people can seemlessly switch to the alternatives) and with no one making the first move, nothing ever happens, but with a touch of collusion it suddenly becomes possible to do.
Google was evidently worried about being left out of the operation, so they rushed to offer an easy solution.
It's not that the companies couldn't do it on their own, it's just that amidst their machinations there was a bit of space for google to jump in and assert itself, hopefully keeping anyone from "delisting" from their search engine.
(And if they can have their technology involved in the purchasing of these news article, at a later date they may be able to demand a slice of the pie themselves.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300666</id>
	<title>How to make themselves even more irrelevant...</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1259612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The newscorps are dinosaurs struggling to get out of the tar pits-- but the harder they struggle, the faster they get sucked down.<br> <br>
I don't read print newspapers at all and while I visit google news periodically, I rarely click through anyway-- the headlines are enough to tell me what I want to know for the most part.  If they start blocking the click through, they'll lose the only chance they will have of subjecting my eyeballs to advertising.   I do consume newsradio or newsvideo now and then, but most of it is so horribly biased I'd never pay to get it from one source...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The newscorps are dinosaurs struggling to get out of the tar pits-- but the harder they struggle , the faster they get sucked down .
I do n't read print newspapers at all and while I visit google news periodically , I rarely click through anyway-- the headlines are enough to tell me what I want to know for the most part .
If they start blocking the click through , they 'll lose the only chance they will have of subjecting my eyeballs to advertising .
I do consume newsradio or newsvideo now and then , but most of it is so horribly biased I 'd never pay to get it from one source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newscorps are dinosaurs struggling to get out of the tar pits-- but the harder they struggle, the faster they get sucked down.
I don't read print newspapers at all and while I visit google news periodically, I rarely click through anyway-- the headlines are enough to tell me what I want to know for the most part.
If they start blocking the click through, they'll lose the only chance they will have of subjecting my eyeballs to advertising.
I do consume newsradio or newsvideo now and then, but most of it is so horribly biased I'd never pay to get it from one source...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295506</id>
	<title>I for one welcome this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything which reduces the readership of Murdoch's media is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything which reduces the readership of Murdoch 's media is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything which reduces the readership of Murdoch's media is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300878</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1259613120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me is seems like that articles are just sitting there on a server, and the only thing protecting them is that users don't know the fully qualified URL.  However, as publishers want google to search the headlines so as bring readers to article, Google does know the URL.  So if one can bring up the article in Google, then one can get to the article.  This is a dilemma for publishers, since they do get the ad revenue, but they have unregistered user, sometime viewing paid content.  Therefore the need to register is severely reduced.
<p>
I sympathize with this issue.  On way to deal with it would be to have headlines and a snippet of free text available for the search engines, while the full article would be dynamically generated only for registered users.  This type of strategy was used on the site I used to work for.  Obviously it increases the cost to the publisher, which is why they would rather have Google incur the costs through this hack.
</p><p>
Of course Murdoch goes a bit further by saying no content should ever be free, even if it includes advertising as most of his properties.  This is way out there.  Even expensive journals will have some short articles that is free, and of course usually abstracts to be viewed for free.  This would basically require Google to pay for create a mechanism to prevent users for what is otherwise available content.  This would be like placing a gold brick in the front yard of each person house, then required them to sign an agreement that they have no ownership of the brick, will be required to pay for securing the brick, will be liable if the brick is stolen, and can only receive revenue by having firms who wish to place ads around the brick.  Pretty silly.
</p><p>
What everyone but Murdoch knows, or maybe he does, is that if google really prevented access to otherwise publicly accessible content other search engines will appear that do.  The reason he may know this is that he may be hoping MS deep pockets will be willing to pay for what is otherwise publicly available content in a effort to drive Google out of business.  If Bing is the only provider with Page 3, then maybe everyone will use Bing instead of Google, even though Page 3 is freely available.
</p><p>
I think it will be more likely that a third party will enter and begin to index pages that Google does not and that Bing pays money for.  Eventually, Bing will likely tire of paying for free content, and Google will either cave to the publishers and die or continue with the current business model.  In any case, without court ruling against deep linking, of which there are none, I believe, other than bandwidth intensive content, there is no way to prevent a website from linking to publicly served file except to remove the content or declare the content illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me is seems like that articles are just sitting there on a server , and the only thing protecting them is that users do n't know the fully qualified URL .
However , as publishers want google to search the headlines so as bring readers to article , Google does know the URL .
So if one can bring up the article in Google , then one can get to the article .
This is a dilemma for publishers , since they do get the ad revenue , but they have unregistered user , sometime viewing paid content .
Therefore the need to register is severely reduced .
I sympathize with this issue .
On way to deal with it would be to have headlines and a snippet of free text available for the search engines , while the full article would be dynamically generated only for registered users .
This type of strategy was used on the site I used to work for .
Obviously it increases the cost to the publisher , which is why they would rather have Google incur the costs through this hack .
Of course Murdoch goes a bit further by saying no content should ever be free , even if it includes advertising as most of his properties .
This is way out there .
Even expensive journals will have some short articles that is free , and of course usually abstracts to be viewed for free .
This would basically require Google to pay for create a mechanism to prevent users for what is otherwise available content .
This would be like placing a gold brick in the front yard of each person house , then required them to sign an agreement that they have no ownership of the brick , will be required to pay for securing the brick , will be liable if the brick is stolen , and can only receive revenue by having firms who wish to place ads around the brick .
Pretty silly .
What everyone but Murdoch knows , or maybe he does , is that if google really prevented access to otherwise publicly accessible content other search engines will appear that do .
The reason he may know this is that he may be hoping MS deep pockets will be willing to pay for what is otherwise publicly available content in a effort to drive Google out of business .
If Bing is the only provider with Page 3 , then maybe everyone will use Bing instead of Google , even though Page 3 is freely available .
I think it will be more likely that a third party will enter and begin to index pages that Google does not and that Bing pays money for .
Eventually , Bing will likely tire of paying for free content , and Google will either cave to the publishers and die or continue with the current business model .
In any case , without court ruling against deep linking , of which there are none , I believe , other than bandwidth intensive content , there is no way to prevent a website from linking to publicly served file except to remove the content or declare the content illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me is seems like that articles are just sitting there on a server, and the only thing protecting them is that users don't know the fully qualified URL.
However, as publishers want google to search the headlines so as bring readers to article, Google does know the URL.
So if one can bring up the article in Google, then one can get to the article.
This is a dilemma for publishers, since they do get the ad revenue, but they have unregistered user, sometime viewing paid content.
Therefore the need to register is severely reduced.
I sympathize with this issue.
On way to deal with it would be to have headlines and a snippet of free text available for the search engines, while the full article would be dynamically generated only for registered users.
This type of strategy was used on the site I used to work for.
Obviously it increases the cost to the publisher, which is why they would rather have Google incur the costs through this hack.
Of course Murdoch goes a bit further by saying no content should ever be free, even if it includes advertising as most of his properties.
This is way out there.
Even expensive journals will have some short articles that is free, and of course usually abstracts to be viewed for free.
This would basically require Google to pay for create a mechanism to prevent users for what is otherwise available content.
This would be like placing a gold brick in the front yard of each person house, then required them to sign an agreement that they have no ownership of the brick, will be required to pay for securing the brick, will be liable if the brick is stolen, and can only receive revenue by having firms who wish to place ads around the brick.
Pretty silly.
What everyone but Murdoch knows, or maybe he does, is that if google really prevented access to otherwise publicly accessible content other search engines will appear that do.
The reason he may know this is that he may be hoping MS deep pockets will be willing to pay for what is otherwise publicly available content in a effort to drive Google out of business.
If Bing is the only provider with Page 3, then maybe everyone will use Bing instead of Google, even though Page 3 is freely available.
I think it will be more likely that a third party will enter and begin to index pages that Google does not and that Bing pays money for.
Eventually, Bing will likely tire of paying for free content, and Google will either cave to the publishers and die or continue with the current business model.
In any case, without court ruling against deep linking, of which there are none, I believe, other than bandwidth intensive content, there is no way to prevent a website from linking to publicly served file except to remove the content or declare the content illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296286</id>
	<title>One WORD...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PROXY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PROXY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PROXY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296304</id>
	<title>Sounds Reasonable to Me</title>
	<author>Frightened\_Turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1259590560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.</i> </p><p>This sounds reasonable to me. A newspaper, magazine or some other media outlet is a business. As a business, they need to make revenue to survive. It costs a lot of money to pay people to go out, collect information and write the news that we are all looking for. News articles don't magically appear out of the ether. It takes someone to write that article and that person has to put food on the table and pay the rent/mortgage.</p><p>It doesn't take too much brain power to realize that a publication with a circulation of 50,000 (common for many newspapers) selling periodicals at $1 per copy isn't going to be getting much of its income from subscriptions alone. They get most of their income from advertising. And if you want any businesses to advertise with your publication, you need to show data that proves your publication is read by people who are most likely to buy a given business' product. Think about it: if you created a FPS game with highly detailed and lifelike graphics with a free pr0n option and a totally ripping heavy metal acid rock soundtrack, do you really think you are going to make many sales by placing a $2,000 ad in <i>Grannie's Moral Christian Crocheting Magazine</i>?</p><p>So, it makes sense to a media outlet to restrict free access to their articles. They need something in exchange for your having free access. Publishers need demographic data to prove to advertisers that they are reaching a particular target audience. If you want access to a publisher's articles for free, than it makes sense that you have to give them something of value, and that is demographic data. If you really like reading a particular publication, then why not subscribe to it? Contrary to what is implied above, these restrictions do not only apply to Google (or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) users.</p><p>Will it work? It might. I may only read two or three articles from any given news site in a single day, so the five-article restriction won't really affect me. If there is a news site that you really like to follow a lot &mdash; say, <i>Slashdot</i> for instance &mdash; would you register an account with that site? I think it is very likely you would. If there is a site that you dislike and would never follow, then you will probably not want to register. (You might even delete the record of that site from your browser's history file along with any cookies.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages .
This sounds reasonable to me .
A newspaper , magazine or some other media outlet is a business .
As a business , they need to make revenue to survive .
It costs a lot of money to pay people to go out , collect information and write the news that we are all looking for .
News articles do n't magically appear out of the ether .
It takes someone to write that article and that person has to put food on the table and pay the rent/mortgage.It does n't take too much brain power to realize that a publication with a circulation of 50,000 ( common for many newspapers ) selling periodicals at $ 1 per copy is n't going to be getting much of its income from subscriptions alone .
They get most of their income from advertising .
And if you want any businesses to advertise with your publication , you need to show data that proves your publication is read by people who are most likely to buy a given business ' product .
Think about it : if you created a FPS game with highly detailed and lifelike graphics with a free pr0n option and a totally ripping heavy metal acid rock soundtrack , do you really think you are going to make many sales by placing a $ 2,000 ad in Grannie 's Moral Christian Crocheting Magazine ? So , it makes sense to a media outlet to restrict free access to their articles .
They need something in exchange for your having free access .
Publishers need demographic data to prove to advertisers that they are reaching a particular target audience .
If you want access to a publisher 's articles for free , than it makes sense that you have to give them something of value , and that is demographic data .
If you really like reading a particular publication , then why not subscribe to it ?
Contrary to what is implied above , these restrictions do not only apply to Google ( or / .
) users.Will it work ?
It might .
I may only read two or three articles from any given news site in a single day , so the five-article restriction wo n't really affect me .
If there is a news site that you really like to follow a lot    say , Slashdot for instance    would you register an account with that site ?
I think it is very likely you would .
If there is a site that you dislike and would never follow , then you will probably not want to register .
( You might even delete the record of that site from your browser 's history file along with any cookies .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.
This sounds reasonable to me.
A newspaper, magazine or some other media outlet is a business.
As a business, they need to make revenue to survive.
It costs a lot of money to pay people to go out, collect information and write the news that we are all looking for.
News articles don't magically appear out of the ether.
It takes someone to write that article and that person has to put food on the table and pay the rent/mortgage.It doesn't take too much brain power to realize that a publication with a circulation of 50,000 (common for many newspapers) selling periodicals at $1 per copy isn't going to be getting much of its income from subscriptions alone.
They get most of their income from advertising.
And if you want any businesses to advertise with your publication, you need to show data that proves your publication is read by people who are most likely to buy a given business' product.
Think about it: if you created a FPS game with highly detailed and lifelike graphics with a free pr0n option and a totally ripping heavy metal acid rock soundtrack, do you really think you are going to make many sales by placing a $2,000 ad in Grannie's Moral Christian Crocheting Magazine?So, it makes sense to a media outlet to restrict free access to their articles.
They need something in exchange for your having free access.
Publishers need demographic data to prove to advertisers that they are reaching a particular target audience.
If you want access to a publisher's articles for free, than it makes sense that you have to give them something of value, and that is demographic data.
If you really like reading a particular publication, then why not subscribe to it?
Contrary to what is implied above, these restrictions do not only apply to Google (or /.
) users.Will it work?
It might.
I may only read two or three articles from any given news site in a single day, so the five-article restriction won't really affect me.
If there is a news site that you really like to follow a lot — say, Slashdot for instance — would you register an account with that site?
I think it is very likely you would.
If there is a site that you dislike and would never follow, then you will probably not want to register.
(You might even delete the record of that site from your browser's history file along with any cookies.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297302</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>jetxee</author>
	<datestamp>1259596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish there were a way to exclude pay-walled pages from the search results. What do you think about it, Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there were a way to exclude pay-walled pages from the search results .
What do you think about it , Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there were a way to exclude pay-walled pages from the search results.
What do you think about it, Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30299814</id>
	<title>I pay for WSJ, and it sucks</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1259608080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading the WSJ for &gt;30 years. It used to be the world's greatest newspaper, but since Murdoch took over it suffered a noticeable decline.</p><p>When they wrote a story, they used to interview people on all sides of the story, answer every obvious question, and wrap it up in a tight 1,500 or 2,000 words. Now they just interview a few people and wrap it up, even if the story has holes in it. They used to have editors who would review the stories and make sure they did everything right. Now they just let things slide.</p><p>Case in point: WSJ had a story a few days ago about how Wikipedia lost 50,000 editors, supposedly indicating a decline in Wikipedia. But: They didn't give the total number of editors. What good is a numerator without a denominator? (By one count, Wikipedia has 300,000 editors who edited &gt;10 times.) But actually, Wikipedia has been modifying its pages with procedures like nofollow to discourage spammers. Does that 50,000 editors represent 50,000 editors who were discouraged and hassled by Wikipedia pettiness, as the story claimed? Or was it just 50,000 spammers who were successfully discouraged by new policies? The story doesn't find out. I pay $155 a year for my subscription and for that money, I expect to get a story that tells me. And I don't want to spend 5 minutes reading it and find out I've wasted my time.</p><p>Another story covered the closing of a prison in Michigan, because it finally hit them that the $40,000 a year it costs to keep a prisoner is coming out of their tax money. The WSJ did a lot of stories like that over the years, and they would always talk to one of the prisoners. This story didn't interview any of the prisoners. Is Michigan locking up people who are dangerous to society, or are they locking up shoplifters and drug dealers? The story didn't say.</p><p>Another bad development is that many of the columns in the WSJ are no longer written by journalists, but contracted out to business consultants, who are just promoting their own consultancies.</p><p>This is partially the result of layoffs <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/the-wall-street-journal-layoffs-memo-nws" title="businessinsider.com">http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/the-wall-street-journal-layoffs-memo-nws</a> [businessinsider.com] You can turn any great institution into a mediocre institution by cutting its budget sufficiently.</p><p>But I think the problem is the underlying philosophy. The WSJ used to be run by the Bancroft family, who loved great journalism more than they loved making money. Murdoch loves some things, but not great journalism.</p><p>Murdoch, listen to this: I'm willing to pay $155 a year for good information. That's what I pay for Science, the New Scientist, the New England Journal of Medicine, and others. I even paid $50 for the New York Times online. I'm not willing to pay $155 a year (which you just deducted from my credit card without my permission) for the same crap I can get anywhere else. You know how to win the race to the bottom, but you don't understand fair, balanced, quality American journalism, and you don't understand the Internet.</p><p>The free market is giving you a kick in the ass. Well deserved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading the WSJ for &gt; 30 years .
It used to be the world 's greatest newspaper , but since Murdoch took over it suffered a noticeable decline.When they wrote a story , they used to interview people on all sides of the story , answer every obvious question , and wrap it up in a tight 1,500 or 2,000 words .
Now they just interview a few people and wrap it up , even if the story has holes in it .
They used to have editors who would review the stories and make sure they did everything right .
Now they just let things slide.Case in point : WSJ had a story a few days ago about how Wikipedia lost 50,000 editors , supposedly indicating a decline in Wikipedia .
But : They did n't give the total number of editors .
What good is a numerator without a denominator ?
( By one count , Wikipedia has 300,000 editors who edited &gt; 10 times .
) But actually , Wikipedia has been modifying its pages with procedures like nofollow to discourage spammers .
Does that 50,000 editors represent 50,000 editors who were discouraged and hassled by Wikipedia pettiness , as the story claimed ?
Or was it just 50,000 spammers who were successfully discouraged by new policies ?
The story does n't find out .
I pay $ 155 a year for my subscription and for that money , I expect to get a story that tells me .
And I do n't want to spend 5 minutes reading it and find out I 've wasted my time.Another story covered the closing of a prison in Michigan , because it finally hit them that the $ 40,000 a year it costs to keep a prisoner is coming out of their tax money .
The WSJ did a lot of stories like that over the years , and they would always talk to one of the prisoners .
This story did n't interview any of the prisoners .
Is Michigan locking up people who are dangerous to society , or are they locking up shoplifters and drug dealers ?
The story did n't say.Another bad development is that many of the columns in the WSJ are no longer written by journalists , but contracted out to business consultants , who are just promoting their own consultancies.This is partially the result of layoffs http : //www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/the-wall-street-journal-layoffs-memo-nws [ businessinsider.com ] You can turn any great institution into a mediocre institution by cutting its budget sufficiently.But I think the problem is the underlying philosophy .
The WSJ used to be run by the Bancroft family , who loved great journalism more than they loved making money .
Murdoch loves some things , but not great journalism.Murdoch , listen to this : I 'm willing to pay $ 155 a year for good information .
That 's what I pay for Science , the New Scientist , the New England Journal of Medicine , and others .
I even paid $ 50 for the New York Times online .
I 'm not willing to pay $ 155 a year ( which you just deducted from my credit card without my permission ) for the same crap I can get anywhere else .
You know how to win the race to the bottom , but you do n't understand fair , balanced , quality American journalism , and you do n't understand the Internet.The free market is giving you a kick in the ass .
Well deserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading the WSJ for &gt;30 years.
It used to be the world's greatest newspaper, but since Murdoch took over it suffered a noticeable decline.When they wrote a story, they used to interview people on all sides of the story, answer every obvious question, and wrap it up in a tight 1,500 or 2,000 words.
Now they just interview a few people and wrap it up, even if the story has holes in it.
They used to have editors who would review the stories and make sure they did everything right.
Now they just let things slide.Case in point: WSJ had a story a few days ago about how Wikipedia lost 50,000 editors, supposedly indicating a decline in Wikipedia.
But: They didn't give the total number of editors.
What good is a numerator without a denominator?
(By one count, Wikipedia has 300,000 editors who edited &gt;10 times.
) But actually, Wikipedia has been modifying its pages with procedures like nofollow to discourage spammers.
Does that 50,000 editors represent 50,000 editors who were discouraged and hassled by Wikipedia pettiness, as the story claimed?
Or was it just 50,000 spammers who were successfully discouraged by new policies?
The story doesn't find out.
I pay $155 a year for my subscription and for that money, I expect to get a story that tells me.
And I don't want to spend 5 minutes reading it and find out I've wasted my time.Another story covered the closing of a prison in Michigan, because it finally hit them that the $40,000 a year it costs to keep a prisoner is coming out of their tax money.
The WSJ did a lot of stories like that over the years, and they would always talk to one of the prisoners.
This story didn't interview any of the prisoners.
Is Michigan locking up people who are dangerous to society, or are they locking up shoplifters and drug dealers?
The story didn't say.Another bad development is that many of the columns in the WSJ are no longer written by journalists, but contracted out to business consultants, who are just promoting their own consultancies.This is partially the result of layoffs http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/the-wall-street-journal-layoffs-memo-nws [businessinsider.com] You can turn any great institution into a mediocre institution by cutting its budget sufficiently.But I think the problem is the underlying philosophy.
The WSJ used to be run by the Bancroft family, who loved great journalism more than they loved making money.
Murdoch loves some things, but not great journalism.Murdoch, listen to this: I'm willing to pay $155 a year for good information.
That's what I pay for Science, the New Scientist, the New England Journal of Medicine, and others.
I even paid $50 for the New York Times online.
I'm not willing to pay $155 a year (which you just deducted from my credit card without my permission) for the same crap I can get anywhere else.
You know how to win the race to the bottom, but you don't understand fair, balanced, quality American journalism, and you don't understand the Internet.The free market is giving you a kick in the ass.
Well deserved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296658</id>
	<title>May (Not) Work</title>
	<author>yakatz</author>
	<datestamp>1259593020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they're picky, they mightn't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages. Change your User-Agent accordingly. In Firefox, go to about:config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go (as Googlebot).</p></div><p>Doing something like this (showing different content by user-agent) is against Google's terms-of-service  and can cause your site to be removed from the index.</p><p>Google has said that each provider must figure out by itself how to implement this free view limit  based on referrer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're picky , they might n't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages .
Change your User-Agent accordingly .
In Firefox , go to about : config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go ( as Googlebot ) .Doing something like this ( showing different content by user-agent ) is against Google 's terms-of-service and can cause your site to be removed from the index.Google has said that each provider must figure out by itself how to implement this free view limit based on referrer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're picky, they mightn't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages.
Change your User-Agent accordingly.
In Firefox, go to about:config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go (as Googlebot).Doing something like this (showing different content by user-agent) is against Google's terms-of-service  and can cause your site to be removed from the index.Google has said that each provider must figure out by itself how to implement this free view limit  based on referrer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298210</id>
	<title>Too easily circumvented</title>
	<author>Handover Phist</author>
	<datestamp>1259601060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the New York Times, the Globe and Mail, and my local papers all through RSS feeds from the sites themselves. Google is totally unnecessary.</p><p>Do they not know about robots.txt?</p><p>This whole thing is confusing and convinces me the either I'm smarter than most folks who work at newspapers or quite a bit dumber. Have they been talking to the folks at RIAA or am I just retarded?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the New York Times , the Globe and Mail , and my local papers all through RSS feeds from the sites themselves .
Google is totally unnecessary.Do they not know about robots.txt ? This whole thing is confusing and convinces me the either I 'm smarter than most folks who work at newspapers or quite a bit dumber .
Have they been talking to the folks at RIAA or am I just retarded ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the New York Times, the Globe and Mail, and my local papers all through RSS feeds from the sites themselves.
Google is totally unnecessary.Do they not know about robots.txt?This whole thing is confusing and convinces me the either I'm smarter than most folks who work at newspapers or quite a bit dumber.
Have they been talking to the folks at RIAA or am I just retarded?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296248</id>
	<title>Free advertising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I don't understand is what prevents the websites themselves from enforcing some limit.</p></div><p>What prevents them from enforcing a limit themselves is because they don't actually want a limit enforced.  They want the free advertising  Except they don't want it free - they want Google to pay them for it, which would be an interesting advertising model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is what prevents the websites themselves from enforcing some limit.What prevents them from enforcing a limit themselves is because they do n't actually want a limit enforced .
They want the free advertising Except they do n't want it free - they want Google to pay them for it , which would be an interesting advertising model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is what prevents the websites themselves from enforcing some limit.What prevents them from enforcing a limit themselves is because they don't actually want a limit enforced.
They want the free advertising  Except they don't want it free - they want Google to pay them for it, which would be an interesting advertising model.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297050</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259595600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Google simply allowing logged in readers to use checkboxes to hide certain outlets?  Let me filter out the Fox News's and others that want only to get subscriptions, and let me view the ones who make their money off of ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Google simply allowing logged in readers to use checkboxes to hide certain outlets ?
Let me filter out the Fox News 's and others that want only to get subscriptions , and let me view the ones who make their money off of ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Google simply allowing logged in readers to use checkboxes to hide certain outlets?
Let me filter out the Fox News's and others that want only to get subscriptions, and let me view the ones who make their money off of ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296066</id>
	<title>Seems like a good plan</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1259588580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read the article, this seems like a reasonable plan. Not only does it push those who read lots to pay, it also leaves some pretty good options for those who want to read lots, but don't want to/can't pay. That's all you can really ask for. These people need to earn a living somehow, and I'd rather they did it writing news articles than working on a factory line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the article , this seems like a reasonable plan .
Not only does it push those who read lots to pay , it also leaves some pretty good options for those who want to read lots , but do n't want to/ca n't pay .
That 's all you can really ask for .
These people need to earn a living somehow , and I 'd rather they did it writing news articles than working on a factory line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the article, this seems like a reasonable plan.
Not only does it push those who read lots to pay, it also leaves some pretty good options for those who want to read lots, but don't want to/can't pay.
That's all you can really ask for.
These people need to earn a living somehow, and I'd rather they did it writing news articles than working on a factory line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's the other side of the coin; if I'm willing to pay for my news, will I finally be rid of all the ads? I think not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's the other side of the coin ; if I 'm willing to pay for my news , will I finally be rid of all the ads ?
I think not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's the other side of the coin; if I'm willing to pay for my news, will I finally be rid of all the ads?
I think not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30302764</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1259576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It seems to me that the people that advertise in newspapers would feel as though they were willing to pay more for ads if the newspapers would put the entire content online.</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Not necessarily.<br>
&nbsp; <br>For targeted advertising, it could also be argued that people who pay for the article (subscription, whatever) are the ones who are REALLY interested in the content and are therefore more likely to be interested in what the advertiser is selling.<br>
&nbsp; <br>It's the same reason why ads are generally more expensive in daily paid-subscription newspapers than in free-handout rags at the subway station, even though the handout rag might actually distribute more copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the people that advertise in newspapers would feel as though they were willing to pay more for ads if the newspapers would put the entire content online .
  Not necessarily .
  For targeted advertising , it could also be argued that people who pay for the article ( subscription , whatever ) are the ones who are REALLY interested in the content and are therefore more likely to be interested in what the advertiser is selling .
  It 's the same reason why ads are generally more expensive in daily paid-subscription newspapers than in free-handout rags at the subway station , even though the handout rag might actually distribute more copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the people that advertise in newspapers would feel as though they were willing to pay more for ads if the newspapers would put the entire content online.
  Not necessarily.
  For targeted advertising, it could also be argued that people who pay for the article (subscription, whatever) are the ones who are REALLY interested in the content and are therefore more likely to be interested in what the advertiser is selling.
  It's the same reason why ads are generally more expensive in daily paid-subscription newspapers than in free-handout rags at the subway station, even though the handout rag might actually distribute more copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295884</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1259586420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL but I think claiming this in the name of fair use is kind of dubious since Google is doing it with profit motive in mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL but I think claiming this in the name of fair use is kind of dubious since Google is doing it with profit motive in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL but I think claiming this in the name of fair use is kind of dubious since Google is doing it with profit motive in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295702</id>
	<title>Re:I'll wait for the plugin</title>
	<author>Mortaegus</author>
	<datestamp>1259584380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope it's only a cookie, because that would be easy to circumvent.

More annoying would be IP tracking, but that just requires a few seconds to reboot the modem.

If you need to set up an account and log in then you can just set up multiple accounts.

This is just annoying though.  I like my news, but I don't like it enough to pay for it.  I might only use such services twice a month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope it 's only a cookie , because that would be easy to circumvent .
More annoying would be IP tracking , but that just requires a few seconds to reboot the modem .
If you need to set up an account and log in then you can just set up multiple accounts .
This is just annoying though .
I like my news , but I do n't like it enough to pay for it .
I might only use such services twice a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope it's only a cookie, because that would be easy to circumvent.
More annoying would be IP tracking, but that just requires a few seconds to reboot the modem.
If you need to set up an account and log in then you can just set up multiple accounts.
This is just annoying though.
I like my news, but I don't like it enough to pay for it.
I might only use such services twice a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295748</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259584980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent -5, National Security attacks</p><p>-US Government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent -5 , National Security attacks-US Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent -5, National Security attacks-US Government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298736</id>
	<title>Publishing costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real cost of publishing these articles is not the 'printing' of the article, (basically just pasting the pdf submitted to the web) but in peer-reviewing the articles.</p><p>That said, I do find it underhanded to charge for both the 'privilege' to have your article published and the 'privilege' to read an article, but since I assume that they make much of their money off charging group rates for universities to gain access, I doubt that is going to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real cost of publishing these articles is not the 'printing ' of the article , ( basically just pasting the pdf submitted to the web ) but in peer-reviewing the articles.That said , I do find it underhanded to charge for both the 'privilege ' to have your article published and the 'privilege ' to read an article , but since I assume that they make much of their money off charging group rates for universities to gain access , I doubt that is going to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real cost of publishing these articles is not the 'printing' of the article, (basically just pasting the pdf submitted to the web) but in peer-reviewing the articles.That said, I do find it underhanded to charge for both the 'privilege' to have your article published and the 'privilege' to read an article, but since I assume that they make much of their money off charging group rates for universities to gain access, I doubt that is going to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298164</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1259600820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what happens when google sees that google bot is indexing google search results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what happens when google sees that google bot is indexing google search results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what happens when google sees that google bot is indexing google search results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297248</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>MoNsTeR</author>
	<datestamp>1259596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're too quick with that "False." there.  Two other obvious possibilities exist:<br>1. Google hasn't found out about it.<br>2. These sites have An Arrangement with Google that bends the rules.</p><p>As dependent as my company is on Google traffic, I can assure you that Anonymous Coward's statement is broadly true.  Unless you are special, if Google discovers their bot sees different content than real users you get the boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're too quick with that " False .
" there .
Two other obvious possibilities exist : 1 .
Google has n't found out about it.2 .
These sites have An Arrangement with Google that bends the rules.As dependent as my company is on Google traffic , I can assure you that Anonymous Coward 's statement is broadly true .
Unless you are special , if Google discovers their bot sees different content than real users you get the boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're too quick with that "False.
" there.
Two other obvious possibilities exist:1.
Google hasn't found out about it.2.
These sites have An Arrangement with Google that bends the rules.As dependent as my company is on Google traffic, I can assure you that Anonymous Coward's statement is broadly true.
Unless you are special, if Google discovers their bot sees different content than real users you get the boot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296312</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1259590680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers were once the only source of information</p><p>Then came Radio and TV, and they because the source of in depth well researched information</p><p>Then came the Internet, they could have a role as a known reliable source of information</p><p>The problem is that the only role they have left is to be a reliable source of in depth news - and my experience is that they are not reliable, cover most stories in a very superficial way, do poor research (mostly from the internet, or direct from press statements) and are not very well written<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>If they were a bit more processional then people would be willing to pay for their content, as it is people will just go elsewhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers were once the only source of informationThen came Radio and TV , and they because the source of in depth well researched informationThen came the Internet , they could have a role as a known reliable source of informationThe problem is that the only role they have left is to be a reliable source of in depth news - and my experience is that they are not reliable , cover most stories in a very superficial way , do poor research ( mostly from the internet , or direct from press statements ) and are not very well written ....If they were a bit more processional then people would be willing to pay for their content , as it is people will just go elsewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers were once the only source of informationThen came Radio and TV, and they because the source of in depth well researched informationThen came the Internet, they could have a role as a known reliable source of informationThe problem is that the only role they have left is to be a reliable source of in depth news - and my experience is that they are not reliable, cover most stories in a very superficial way, do poor research (mostly from the internet, or direct from press statements) and are not very well written ....If they were a bit more processional then people would be willing to pay for their content, as it is people will just go elsewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295464</id>
	<title>Meaningless concession</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People used to get their news by looking for a news brand like BBC or The Times, and reading stuff that was presented under that brand. Now a lot of people look for news under topics that interest them, and skip between news brands doing so. What google is offering to do will have little effect on such news browsers, who will have a choice of several competing free links under their topic of interest. People linking to interesting stories will simply copy and paste the content they wish to discuss.</p><p>The print industry is dead and just doesn't know it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People used to get their news by looking for a news brand like BBC or The Times , and reading stuff that was presented under that brand .
Now a lot of people look for news under topics that interest them , and skip between news brands doing so .
What google is offering to do will have little effect on such news browsers , who will have a choice of several competing free links under their topic of interest .
People linking to interesting stories will simply copy and paste the content they wish to discuss.The print industry is dead and just does n't know it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People used to get their news by looking for a news brand like BBC or The Times, and reading stuff that was presented under that brand.
Now a lot of people look for news under topics that interest them, and skip between news brands doing so.
What google is offering to do will have little effect on such news browsers, who will have a choice of several competing free links under their topic of interest.
People linking to interesting stories will simply copy and paste the content they wish to discuss.The print industry is dead and just doesn't know it yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30301652</id>
	<title>convenience is key</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1259573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want paywalls to work, they have to make them painless.  It's *not* the money stopping people (unless they're being outrageous, which is no doubt a factor for some of the sites)...  I just don't see how they can be both secure and painless...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want paywalls to work , they have to make them painless .
It 's * not * the money stopping people ( unless they 're being outrageous , which is no doubt a factor for some of the sites ) ... I just do n't see how they can be both secure and painless.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want paywalls to work, they have to make them painless.
It's *not* the money stopping people (unless they're being outrageous, which is no doubt a factor for some of the sites)...  I just don't see how they can be both secure and painless...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298056</id>
	<title>Re:I'll wait for the plugin</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1259600340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, is bugmenot actually useful for someone ? I can't remember ever getting an active account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , is bugmenot actually useful for someone ?
I ca n't remember ever getting an active account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, is bugmenot actually useful for someone ?
I can't remember ever getting an active account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297488</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Phil06</author>
	<datestamp>1259597580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose you have not seen the ads in newspapers and on TV?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose you have not seen the ads in newspapers and on TV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose you have not seen the ads in newspapers and on TV?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298644</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interesting, informative, insightful, yada blahda<br>the news can kiss my chuddies, if they start charging, i'll stop reading it again<br>simple</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting , informative , insightful , yada blahdathe news can kiss my chuddies , if they start charging , i 'll stop reading it againsimple</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting, informative, insightful, yada blahdathe news can kiss my chuddies, if they start charging, i'll stop reading it againsimple</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296162</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>mike2R</author>
	<datestamp>1259589300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Restricting access will turn around and bite the newspaper industry. The will rue th day they thought of restricting access.</p></div></blockquote><p>They have to do <i>something</i> - they are haemorrhaging money at the moment.  If you know what that something is then you can make a shit-load from that idea.</p><p>The problem is simply that the shift to online has had a drastically bad effect on their advertising revenue.  They have two options: 1) cut costs - this means cutting journalists, and essentially stopping being a serious news outlet, ie just become yet another website that rewrites other websites and press releases.  2) Raise more revenue.  I'm sure they would love to do this from advertisers in the traditional way, but you can't force people to pay more than they want to to advertise with you, so that leaves trying to get money from readers.</p><p>If you think Murdoch et al don't understand the risks of this then you are a fool; hence why he has been making noises about paywalls rather than actually doing it, but they have to get money from somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Restricting access will turn around and bite the newspaper industry .
The will rue th day they thought of restricting access.They have to do something - they are haemorrhaging money at the moment .
If you know what that something is then you can make a shit-load from that idea.The problem is simply that the shift to online has had a drastically bad effect on their advertising revenue .
They have two options : 1 ) cut costs - this means cutting journalists , and essentially stopping being a serious news outlet , ie just become yet another website that rewrites other websites and press releases .
2 ) Raise more revenue .
I 'm sure they would love to do this from advertisers in the traditional way , but you ca n't force people to pay more than they want to to advertise with you , so that leaves trying to get money from readers.If you think Murdoch et al do n't understand the risks of this then you are a fool ; hence why he has been making noises about paywalls rather than actually doing it , but they have to get money from somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Restricting access will turn around and bite the newspaper industry.
The will rue th day they thought of restricting access.They have to do something - they are haemorrhaging money at the moment.
If you know what that something is then you can make a shit-load from that idea.The problem is simply that the shift to online has had a drastically bad effect on their advertising revenue.
They have two options: 1) cut costs - this means cutting journalists, and essentially stopping being a serious news outlet, ie just become yet another website that rewrites other websites and press releases.
2) Raise more revenue.
I'm sure they would love to do this from advertisers in the traditional way, but you can't force people to pay more than they want to to advertise with you, so that leaves trying to get money from readers.If you think Murdoch et al don't understand the risks of this then you are a fool; hence why he has been making noises about paywalls rather than actually doing it, but they have to get money from somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297036</id>
	<title>Thunderous Applause</title>
	<author>YesDinosaursDidExist</author>
	<datestamp>1259595420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That old Google saying, "don't be evil" must not be true anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That old Google saying , " do n't be evil " must not be true anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That old Google saying, "don't be evil" must not be true anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30299446</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>illumin8</author>
	<datestamp>1259606580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For an easier solution, if you find an article that is indexed by Google bot, but stuck behind a paywall, just hit the back button and view Google's cached copy.  It will have the text that the crawler indexed.  This really helps for those annoying "Expert's Exchange" articles that seem to be the top hit for a lot of computer troubleshooting terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For an easier solution , if you find an article that is indexed by Google bot , but stuck behind a paywall , just hit the back button and view Google 's cached copy .
It will have the text that the crawler indexed .
This really helps for those annoying " Expert 's Exchange " articles that seem to be the top hit for a lot of computer troubleshooting terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an easier solution, if you find an article that is indexed by Google bot, but stuck behind a paywall, just hit the back button and view Google's cached copy.
It will have the text that the crawler indexed.
This really helps for those annoying "Expert's Exchange" articles that seem to be the top hit for a lot of computer troubleshooting terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296246</id>
	<title>What's the use?</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1259590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I've been using Google News for as long as I can remember.  I can't recall *ever* seeing an ad displayed alongside news results.  Now if I do a regular search, *then* I see ads.  And when I get to the source article, I see ads there, too.  Seems like Google is doing someone a service.
<br> <br>
I like Google News because I have found it to be the best resource for comparing news stories.  I've even found clear cases of plagiarism and reported them to the original author after doing some tracking.
<br> <br>
In some circles it is acknowledged that the newspapers provide a news hole as a service.  Some have even said that people who read the newspapers aren't the real consumers of the news since advertisers pay for the news and are therefore the consumers.  Nearly the entire printed page (except the front page) is advertising and somewhere in the middle, is the actual news.  What newspapers have found is that it's nearly impossible to get a good impression (ads on eyeballs) with a web page.  Why?  I can adjust the size of the type so that the ads are pushed off to the side.  With a sight impairment, this is a requirement.
<br> <br>
There may also be an ulterior motive: they don't want us checking facts in articles across news sources.  Google makes it easy for me to do that.  The hits returned on a news story come from a variety of sources and allow me to compare articles for the perspectives and the facts stated.  This allows me to form an opinion on a topic of news from a variety of sources instead of just one.  The paywall would help to accomplish the goal of limiting my sources on a story.  If I'm paying for one, I won't be paying for another and I won't be comparing sources.
<br> <br>
So, unless I'm searching the "web" section of Google, Google isn't going to make any money from ads. This issue is clearly missing from the debate, perhaps intentionally so.  Google has been *very* clear about making this distinction and seems to be offering a free service to the news outlets on the web.  As some have noted, newspapers are dead, they just don't know it yet.  I take a different view.  Newspapers are just waking up to being wrapped up by a (web) spider, they just don't know what to do yet.
<br> <br>
Any minute now they're going to figure out that their beloved paywall finished the job for the spider.
<br> <br>
The only question left in my mind is this: Why aren't they complaining about all the other search sites?  Why just Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 've been using Google News for as long as I can remember .
I ca n't recall * ever * seeing an ad displayed alongside news results .
Now if I do a regular search , * then * I see ads .
And when I get to the source article , I see ads there , too .
Seems like Google is doing someone a service .
I like Google News because I have found it to be the best resource for comparing news stories .
I 've even found clear cases of plagiarism and reported them to the original author after doing some tracking .
In some circles it is acknowledged that the newspapers provide a news hole as a service .
Some have even said that people who read the newspapers are n't the real consumers of the news since advertisers pay for the news and are therefore the consumers .
Nearly the entire printed page ( except the front page ) is advertising and somewhere in the middle , is the actual news .
What newspapers have found is that it 's nearly impossible to get a good impression ( ads on eyeballs ) with a web page .
Why ? I can adjust the size of the type so that the ads are pushed off to the side .
With a sight impairment , this is a requirement .
There may also be an ulterior motive : they do n't want us checking facts in articles across news sources .
Google makes it easy for me to do that .
The hits returned on a news story come from a variety of sources and allow me to compare articles for the perspectives and the facts stated .
This allows me to form an opinion on a topic of news from a variety of sources instead of just one .
The paywall would help to accomplish the goal of limiting my sources on a story .
If I 'm paying for one , I wo n't be paying for another and I wo n't be comparing sources .
So , unless I 'm searching the " web " section of Google , Google is n't going to make any money from ads .
This issue is clearly missing from the debate , perhaps intentionally so .
Google has been * very * clear about making this distinction and seems to be offering a free service to the news outlets on the web .
As some have noted , newspapers are dead , they just do n't know it yet .
I take a different view .
Newspapers are just waking up to being wrapped up by a ( web ) spider , they just do n't know what to do yet .
Any minute now they 're going to figure out that their beloved paywall finished the job for the spider .
The only question left in my mind is this : Why are n't they complaining about all the other search sites ?
Why just Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I've been using Google News for as long as I can remember.
I can't recall *ever* seeing an ad displayed alongside news results.
Now if I do a regular search, *then* I see ads.
And when I get to the source article, I see ads there, too.
Seems like Google is doing someone a service.
I like Google News because I have found it to be the best resource for comparing news stories.
I've even found clear cases of plagiarism and reported them to the original author after doing some tracking.
In some circles it is acknowledged that the newspapers provide a news hole as a service.
Some have even said that people who read the newspapers aren't the real consumers of the news since advertisers pay for the news and are therefore the consumers.
Nearly the entire printed page (except the front page) is advertising and somewhere in the middle, is the actual news.
What newspapers have found is that it's nearly impossible to get a good impression (ads on eyeballs) with a web page.
Why?  I can adjust the size of the type so that the ads are pushed off to the side.
With a sight impairment, this is a requirement.
There may also be an ulterior motive: they don't want us checking facts in articles across news sources.
Google makes it easy for me to do that.
The hits returned on a news story come from a variety of sources and allow me to compare articles for the perspectives and the facts stated.
This allows me to form an opinion on a topic of news from a variety of sources instead of just one.
The paywall would help to accomplish the goal of limiting my sources on a story.
If I'm paying for one, I won't be paying for another and I won't be comparing sources.
So, unless I'm searching the "web" section of Google, Google isn't going to make any money from ads.
This issue is clearly missing from the debate, perhaps intentionally so.
Google has been *very* clear about making this distinction and seems to be offering a free service to the news outlets on the web.
As some have noted, newspapers are dead, they just don't know it yet.
I take a different view.
Newspapers are just waking up to being wrapped up by a (web) spider, they just don't know what to do yet.
Any minute now they're going to figure out that their beloved paywall finished the job for the spider.
The only question left in my mind is this: Why aren't they complaining about all the other search sites?
Why just Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295448</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1259580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or visit other freely available news-based sites across the internet!</p><p>As far as I understand a newspaper will allow you to read x number of articles before you are redirected to a login/payment page then it is up to you to pay for it or go elsewhere.</p><p>At the end of the day it all depends on how much you are charged and how.</p><p>It's worth a try - charge too much and people just won't pay and will you still get adverts even though you have paid for the article or subscription?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or visit other freely available news-based sites across the internet ! As far as I understand a newspaper will allow you to read x number of articles before you are redirected to a login/payment page then it is up to you to pay for it or go elsewhere.At the end of the day it all depends on how much you are charged and how.It 's worth a try - charge too much and people just wo n't pay and will you still get adverts even though you have paid for the article or subscription ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or visit other freely available news-based sites across the internet!As far as I understand a newspaper will allow you to read x number of articles before you are redirected to a login/payment page then it is up to you to pay for it or go elsewhere.At the end of the day it all depends on how much you are charged and how.It's worth a try - charge too much and people just won't pay and will you still get adverts even though you have paid for the article or subscription?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295770</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>Saint Fnordius</author>
	<datestamp>1259585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a model some internet-only news sources are going to follow is that used by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. He has taken a blog, and built a political news network out of it with TPM, TPMDC, TPMuckraker and a couple other sites. It's been successful enough for them.</p><p>I would also keep an eye on how Salon evolves. They've been at the forefront as well, but not always among the winners. Time will tell...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a model some internet-only news sources are going to follow is that used by Josh Marshall 's Talking Points Memo .
He has taken a blog , and built a political news network out of it with TPM , TPMDC , TPMuckraker and a couple other sites .
It 's been successful enough for them.I would also keep an eye on how Salon evolves .
They 've been at the forefront as well , but not always among the winners .
Time will tell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a model some internet-only news sources are going to follow is that used by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo.
He has taken a blog, and built a political news network out of it with TPM, TPMDC, TPMuckraker and a couple other sites.
It's been successful enough for them.I would also keep an eye on how Salon evolves.
They've been at the forefront as well, but not always among the winners.
Time will tell...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298452</id>
	<title>Google hypocrisy.</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1259602200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; In effect Google has given me a "hit" on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.</p><p>Google punished BMW.de for doing something similar to this before.</p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/Google-blacklists-BMW.de/2100-1024\_3-6035412.html" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/Google-blacklists-BMW.de/2100-1024\_3-6035412.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>Quote: This is a violation of our Webmaster quality guidelines, specifically the principle of 'Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users,'" Cutts' blog said.</p><p>Go figure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In effect Google has given me a " hit " on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.Google punished BMW.de for doing something similar to this before.http : //news.cnet.com/Google-blacklists-BMW.de/2100-1024 \ _3-6035412.html [ cnet.com ] Quote : This is a violation of our Webmaster quality guidelines , specifically the principle of 'Do n't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, ' " Cutts ' blog said.Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; In effect Google has given me a "hit" on my search then led me to a place where not even the search terms are present... Google crawler has access to it but I do not.Google punished BMW.de for doing something similar to this before.http://news.cnet.com/Google-blacklists-BMW.de/2100-1024\_3-6035412.html [cnet.com]Quote: This is a violation of our Webmaster quality guidelines, specifically the principle of 'Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users,'" Cutts' blog said.Go figure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30308768</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1259839140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can see why it annoys you when the main Google index does this, but I thought that was the point of Google Scholar.  In hte Scholar preferences you can set your organization and Google Scholar will then route you through your institution's authentication and link resolver systems which will provide access to the content your institution has paid for.</p></div><p>It not the point of Google Scholar, unless your married to the idea that all research must be paywalled. I do not know the statistics, but it appears the paywalled sites are <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=open+access+biology+site\%3Aslashdot.org" title="google.com">losing ground fast</a> [google.com], with lots of quality new research being freely available. Perhaps the younger generation of researches "get it" when it comes to the internet and information distribution - a major reason to do research in the first place. Definition of Scholar: "a learned person".  Fortunately for those of us who are learned, and more importantly, for those of us who want to learn, the paywalled gatekeepers to scholarly articles are <a href="http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/create\_change/" title="cam.ac.uk">quickly</a> [cam.ac.uk] being <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=open+access+research+movement" title="google.com">replaced worldwide</a> [google.com], much to <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/09/08/1739235.shtml" title="slashdot.org">their disgust</a> [slashdot.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see why it annoys you when the main Google index does this , but I thought that was the point of Google Scholar .
In hte Scholar preferences you can set your organization and Google Scholar will then route you through your institution 's authentication and link resolver systems which will provide access to the content your institution has paid for.It not the point of Google Scholar , unless your married to the idea that all research must be paywalled .
I do not know the statistics , but it appears the paywalled sites are losing ground fast [ google.com ] , with lots of quality new research being freely available .
Perhaps the younger generation of researches " get it " when it comes to the internet and information distribution - a major reason to do research in the first place .
Definition of Scholar : " a learned person " .
Fortunately for those of us who are learned , and more importantly , for those of us who want to learn , the paywalled gatekeepers to scholarly articles are quickly [ cam.ac.uk ] being replaced worldwide [ google.com ] , much to their disgust [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see why it annoys you when the main Google index does this, but I thought that was the point of Google Scholar.
In hte Scholar preferences you can set your organization and Google Scholar will then route you through your institution's authentication and link resolver systems which will provide access to the content your institution has paid for.It not the point of Google Scholar, unless your married to the idea that all research must be paywalled.
I do not know the statistics, but it appears the paywalled sites are losing ground fast [google.com], with lots of quality new research being freely available.
Perhaps the younger generation of researches "get it" when it comes to the internet and information distribution - a major reason to do research in the first place.
Definition of Scholar: "a learned person".
Fortunately for those of us who are learned, and more importantly, for those of us who want to learn, the paywalled gatekeepers to scholarly articles are quickly [cam.ac.uk] being replaced worldwide [google.com], much to their disgust [slashdot.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296086</id>
	<title>Here comes a troll or flamebait tag, but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259588820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this a YRO story? In all seriousness, it's a "newspaper's rights online." They have every right to do with their content what they wish. If they suffer financially for their decisions, then it serves them right. But there's no inherent right to free access to the content they produce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this a YRO story ?
In all seriousness , it 's a " newspaper 's rights online .
" They have every right to do with their content what they wish .
If they suffer financially for their decisions , then it serves them right .
But there 's no inherent right to free access to the content they produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this a YRO story?
In all seriousness, it's a "newspaper's rights online.
" They have every right to do with their content what they wish.
If they suffer financially for their decisions, then it serves them right.
But there's no inherent right to free access to the content they produce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307664</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>ps2os2</author>
	<datestamp>1259604720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. The whole idea behind PAY TV (HBO and the like) was that you do not have to put up with commercials. Now you get the commercials and poor quality content. So why pay for poor quality?</p><p>Like wise Rupert Murdoch's (sp?) and his right wing trash I would be happy if they dropped off the net maybe they would finally get the idea and publish for the rest of the world not the right wing loonies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The whole idea behind PAY TV ( HBO and the like ) was that you do not have to put up with commercials .
Now you get the commercials and poor quality content .
So why pay for poor quality ? Like wise Rupert Murdoch 's ( sp ?
) and his right wing trash I would be happy if they dropped off the net maybe they would finally get the idea and publish for the rest of the world not the right wing loonies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The whole idea behind PAY TV (HBO and the like) was that you do not have to put up with commercials.
Now you get the commercials and poor quality content.
So why pay for poor quality?Like wise Rupert Murdoch's (sp?
) and his right wing trash I would be happy if they dropped off the net maybe they would finally get the idea and publish for the rest of the world not the right wing loonies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30306492</id>
	<title>Awesome, now Murdoch can afford to hire...</title>
	<author>amchugh</author>
	<datestamp>1259592780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome, now Murdoch can afford to hire journalists and fact checkers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome , now Murdoch can afford to hire journalists and fact checkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome, now Murdoch can afford to hire journalists and fact checkers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297384</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it, you get kicked out of the Google index</i> </p><p>False.  Springer, the academic publisher, has dozens of paywalled journals that routinely return hits on Google that lead to pages that have none of the search terms and whose contents are inaccessible.  Nor is there any metadata in those pages that would justify the hit, and I'm damned sure their pagerank isn't due to having many other high quality pages pointing at their requests for $29.95 for PDF download.  The only way this is happening is if the GoogleBot is seeing something that ordinary users can't.</p><p>There is some non-obvious game being played here between Google and the newspapers, and I don't know what it is, but it doesn't smell good.  This is "public policy theatre" we're watching here, which plays the same role as "security theatre":  it distracts people from the real issues and makes them feel like their freedom is being taken away for a reason (yeah, ok, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now...)</p></div><p>The difference between Springer and newspapers is that scientific articles can rarely be summarized in a sentence or two, while newspaper articles can be reduced to a sentence. So if Google indexes a scientific paper, you still need to see the whole paper at Springer's site. For a newspaper article, the headline and a one-sentence summary often satisfies most readers, so they do not feel like going to the newspaper's website.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it , you get kicked out of the Google index False .
Springer , the academic publisher , has dozens of paywalled journals that routinely return hits on Google that lead to pages that have none of the search terms and whose contents are inaccessible .
Nor is there any metadata in those pages that would justify the hit , and I 'm damned sure their pagerank is n't due to having many other high quality pages pointing at their requests for $ 29.95 for PDF download .
The only way this is happening is if the GoogleBot is seeing something that ordinary users ca n't.There is some non-obvious game being played here between Google and the newspapers , and I do n't know what it is , but it does n't smell good .
This is " public policy theatre " we 're watching here , which plays the same role as " security theatre " : it distracts people from the real issues and makes them feel like their freedom is being taken away for a reason ( yeah , ok , I 'll take my tinfoil hat off now... ) The difference between Springer and newspapers is that scientific articles can rarely be summarized in a sentence or two , while newspaper articles can be reduced to a sentence .
So if Google indexes a scientific paper , you still need to see the whole paper at Springer 's site .
For a newspaper article , the headline and a one-sentence summary often satisfies most readers , so they do not feel like going to the newspaper 's website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it, you get kicked out of the Google index False.
Springer, the academic publisher, has dozens of paywalled journals that routinely return hits on Google that lead to pages that have none of the search terms and whose contents are inaccessible.
Nor is there any metadata in those pages that would justify the hit, and I'm damned sure their pagerank isn't due to having many other high quality pages pointing at their requests for $29.95 for PDF download.
The only way this is happening is if the GoogleBot is seeing something that ordinary users can't.There is some non-obvious game being played here between Google and the newspapers, and I don't know what it is, but it doesn't smell good.
This is "public policy theatre" we're watching here, which plays the same role as "security theatre":  it distracts people from the real issues and makes them feel like their freedom is being taken away for a reason (yeah, ok, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now...)The difference between Springer and newspapers is that scientific articles can rarely be summarized in a sentence or two, while newspaper articles can be reduced to a sentence.
So if Google indexes a scientific paper, you still need to see the whole paper at Springer's site.
For a newspaper article, the headline and a one-sentence summary often satisfies most readers, so they do not feel like going to the newspaper's website.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295412</id>
	<title>or users behind a NAT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"can visit one article a day.."<br>great thanks</p><p>look, either get behind a paywall and disappear or dont!, the rest of us dont really care as we will just get our news from somewhere who doesnt put up walls and doesnt want the web looking like a version of TV</p><p>thats why i like the web, its a level playing field and because of that it pisses off big business no end</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" can visit one article a day.. " great thankslook , either get behind a paywall and disappear or dont ! , the rest of us dont really care as we will just get our news from somewhere who doesnt put up walls and doesnt want the web looking like a version of TVthats why i like the web , its a level playing field and because of that it pisses off big business no end</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"can visit one article a day.."great thankslook, either get behind a paywall and disappear or dont!, the rest of us dont really care as we will just get our news from somewhere who doesnt put up walls and doesnt want the web looking like a version of TVthats why i like the web, its a level playing field and because of that it pisses off big business no end</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296194</id>
	<title>Obama Health Care Ad, WTF???</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1259589600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone notice that the ad on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is an anti-Obama ad, that then links to a newsmax "poll"?</p><p><a href="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CLCGguXpu7\_\_WxCsAhjvATIIaWdO27C-o9o" title="googlesyndication.com">photo</a> [googlesyndication.com]</p><p>Well, of COURSE if you have that pic, with that message, the only people who will participate will be rabidly anti-Obama. Kind of makes for a nice poll, Newsmax, right? Of course, that *couldn't* be the purpose, now could it?</p><p>LAME.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone notice that the ad on / .
is an anti-Obama ad , that then links to a newsmax " poll " ? photo [ googlesyndication.com ] Well , of COURSE if you have that pic , with that message , the only people who will participate will be rabidly anti-Obama .
Kind of makes for a nice poll , Newsmax , right ?
Of course , that * could n't * be the purpose , now could it ? LAME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone notice that the ad on /.
is an anti-Obama ad, that then links to a newsmax "poll"?photo [googlesyndication.com]Well, of COURSE if you have that pic, with that message, the only people who will participate will be rabidly anti-Obama.
Kind of makes for a nice poll, Newsmax, right?
Of course, that *couldn't* be the purpose, now could it?LAME.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297360</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why not just switch search engines?
<br> <br>
Free market and all that.
<br> <br>
ps if you don't need a lot of articles you can just email the authors and they will send you the paper for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why not just switch search engines ?
Free market and all that .
ps if you do n't need a lot of articles you can just email the authors and they will send you the paper for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not just switch search engines?
Free market and all that.
ps if you don't need a lot of articles you can just email the authors and they will send you the paper for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297556</id>
	<title>Re: Opting out of Certain News or Searches</title>
	<author>NReitzel</author>
	<datestamp>1259598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In point of fact, there are sites that I would just rather not see from Google searches.  An example of this would be news articles about politics from either NMR or Fox News.  If I want propaganda, I can go to al-jazeera.  In a similar vein, when I am searching for a product, I do not want to see twenty "we compare prices" sites -- if I wanted a price comparison site, I'd go to one.</p><p>I would like a way to customize my google "experience" so that I could specify sites that I simply do not want to see.  Far be it from me to suggest that others not see these sites; I just want google to leave them out of results it produces for me.</p><p>As for pay news sites, I have paid subscriptions to a few news sites, and also subscriptions to some sites presented in Google Scholar.  That does not mean that I want to subscribe - ever - to certain "news" sites that I find to be exceptionally biased.</p><p>If nothing else, perhaps I can convince google to add an option (plugin?) so that certain news sites links are rendered in yellow, instead of the default color.  This would be helpful, at least to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In point of fact , there are sites that I would just rather not see from Google searches .
An example of this would be news articles about politics from either NMR or Fox News .
If I want propaganda , I can go to al-jazeera .
In a similar vein , when I am searching for a product , I do not want to see twenty " we compare prices " sites -- if I wanted a price comparison site , I 'd go to one.I would like a way to customize my google " experience " so that I could specify sites that I simply do not want to see .
Far be it from me to suggest that others not see these sites ; I just want google to leave them out of results it produces for me.As for pay news sites , I have paid subscriptions to a few news sites , and also subscriptions to some sites presented in Google Scholar .
That does not mean that I want to subscribe - ever - to certain " news " sites that I find to be exceptionally biased.If nothing else , perhaps I can convince google to add an option ( plugin ?
) so that certain news sites links are rendered in yellow , instead of the default color .
This would be helpful , at least to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In point of fact, there are sites that I would just rather not see from Google searches.
An example of this would be news articles about politics from either NMR or Fox News.
If I want propaganda, I can go to al-jazeera.
In a similar vein, when I am searching for a product, I do not want to see twenty "we compare prices" sites -- if I wanted a price comparison site, I'd go to one.I would like a way to customize my google "experience" so that I could specify sites that I simply do not want to see.
Far be it from me to suggest that others not see these sites; I just want google to leave them out of results it produces for me.As for pay news sites, I have paid subscriptions to a few news sites, and also subscriptions to some sites presented in Google Scholar.
That does not mean that I want to subscribe - ever - to certain "news" sites that I find to be exceptionally biased.If nothing else, perhaps I can convince google to add an option (plugin?
) so that certain news sites links are rendered in yellow, instead of the default color.
This would be helpful, at least to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295502</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Firebug you can modify the page on-the-fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Firebug you can modify the page on-the-fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Firebug you can modify the page on-the-fly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         It seems to me that the people that advertise in newspapers would feel as though they were willing to pay more for ads if the newspapers would put the entire content online. Restricting access will turn around and bite the newspaper industry. The will rue th day they thought of restricting access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the people that advertise in newspapers would feel as though they were willing to pay more for ads if the newspapers would put the entire content online .
Restricting access will turn around and bite the newspaper industry .
The will rue th day they thought of restricting access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         It seems to me that the people that advertise in newspapers would feel as though they were willing to pay more for ads if the newspapers would put the entire content online.
Restricting access will turn around and bite the newspaper industry.
The will rue th day they thought of restricting access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296788</id>
	<title>Firefox?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1259593800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If it's not indexed yet and you're using Opera: Go to any Google page, press Ctrl + U, change any one link's href to the article's URI, click "Save Changes", click the link and off you go (with a fake Google referer. This works for any fake referer, by the way).</i></p><p>Is there a Firefox plugin to be able to do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not indexed yet and you 're using Opera : Go to any Google page , press Ctrl + U , change any one link 's href to the article 's URI , click " Save Changes " , click the link and off you go ( with a fake Google referer .
This works for any fake referer , by the way ) .Is there a Firefox plugin to be able to do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not indexed yet and you're using Opera: Go to any Google page, press Ctrl + U, change any one link's href to the article's URI, click "Save Changes", click the link and off you go (with a fake Google referer.
This works for any fake referer, by the way).Is there a Firefox plugin to be able to do that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307878</id>
	<title>Re:I'll wait for the plugin</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1259607780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Pay for access.</p><p>2. Run stories through a thesaurus and post them on my news website.</p><p>3. Frame the "free" content with LOTS of advertisements.</p><p>4. Profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Pay for access.2 .
Run stories through a thesaurus and post them on my news website.3 .
Frame the " free " content with LOTS of advertisements.4 .
Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Pay for access.2.
Run stories through a thesaurus and post them on my news website.3.
Frame the "free" content with LOTS of advertisements.4.
Profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300850</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1259613000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Newspapers were once the only source of information</p></div></blockquote><p>Person-to-person news dissemination predates newspapers by several thousand years, and didn't stop when newspapers came into being. Newspapers were for a while a prominent form of information because they had broader reach without change and each outlet had a reputation that could be traded on, but they were never the <i>only</i> source of information. And modern technology provides frameworks for narrowing the gaps between centralized media like newspapers and P2P mechanisms in terms of accountability and reach.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers were once the only source of informationPerson-to-person news dissemination predates newspapers by several thousand years , and did n't stop when newspapers came into being .
Newspapers were for a while a prominent form of information because they had broader reach without change and each outlet had a reputation that could be traded on , but they were never the only source of information .
And modern technology provides frameworks for narrowing the gaps between centralized media like newspapers and P2P mechanisms in terms of accountability and reach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers were once the only source of informationPerson-to-person news dissemination predates newspapers by several thousand years, and didn't stop when newspapers came into being.
Newspapers were for a while a prominent form of information because they had broader reach without change and each outlet had a reputation that could be traded on, but they were never the only source of information.
And modern technology provides frameworks for narrowing the gaps between centralized media like newspapers and P2P mechanisms in terms of accountability and reach.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30299988</id>
	<title>Google Evil is here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Google for stealing contents.  Stop tracking me with your dataming shits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Google for stealing contents .
Stop tracking me with your dataming shits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Google for stealing contents.
Stop tracking me with your dataming shits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296804</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it, you get kicked out of the Google index</i></p><p>False.  Springer, the academic publisher, has dozens of paywalled journals that routinely return hits on Google that lead to pages that have none of the search terms and whose contents are inaccessible.  Nor is there any metadata in those pages that would justify the hit, and I'm damned sure their pagerank isn't due to having many other high quality pages pointing at their requests for $29.95 for PDF download.  The only way this is happening is if the GoogleBot is seeing something that ordinary users can't.</p><p>There is some non-obvious game being played here between Google and the newspapers, and I don't know what it is, but it doesn't smell good.  This is "public policy theatre" we're watching here, which plays the same role as "security theatre":  it distracts people from the real issues and makes them feel like their freedom is being taken away for a reason (yeah, ok, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it , you get kicked out of the Google indexFalse .
Springer , the academic publisher , has dozens of paywalled journals that routinely return hits on Google that lead to pages that have none of the search terms and whose contents are inaccessible .
Nor is there any metadata in those pages that would justify the hit , and I 'm damned sure their pagerank is n't due to having many other high quality pages pointing at their requests for $ 29.95 for PDF download .
The only way this is happening is if the GoogleBot is seeing something that ordinary users ca n't.There is some non-obvious game being played here between Google and the newspapers , and I do n't know what it is , but it does n't smell good .
This is " public policy theatre " we 're watching here , which plays the same role as " security theatre " : it distracts people from the real issues and makes them feel like their freedom is being taken away for a reason ( yeah , ok , I 'll take my tinfoil hat off now... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you present different information to Googlebot than to normal users and Google finds out about it, you get kicked out of the Google indexFalse.
Springer, the academic publisher, has dozens of paywalled journals that routinely return hits on Google that lead to pages that have none of the search terms and whose contents are inaccessible.
Nor is there any metadata in those pages that would justify the hit, and I'm damned sure their pagerank isn't due to having many other high quality pages pointing at their requests for $29.95 for PDF download.
The only way this is happening is if the GoogleBot is seeing something that ordinary users can't.There is some non-obvious game being played here between Google and the newspapers, and I don't know what it is, but it doesn't smell good.
This is "public policy theatre" we're watching here, which plays the same role as "security theatre":  it distracts people from the real issues and makes them feel like their freedom is being taken away for a reason (yeah, ok, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297188</id>
	<title>Guess how many...</title>
	<author>alteveer</author>
	<datestamp>1259596260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...articles I am going to read a day:

5</htmltext>
<tokenext>...articles I am going to read a day : 5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...articles I am going to read a day:

5</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307868</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259607660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they're picky, they mightn't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages. Change your User-Agent accordingly. In Firefox, go to about:config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go (as Googlebot).</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'd <i>not</i> recommend this because it will make <b>gmail</b> impossible to use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're picky , they might n't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages .
Change your User-Agent accordingly .
In Firefox , go to about : config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go ( as Googlebot ) .
I 'd not recommend this because it will make gmail impossible to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're picky, they mightn't let hits from Google through but still allow the Google bot to index their pages.
Change your User-Agent accordingly.
In Firefox, go to about:config and change general.useragent.extra.firefox to Googlebot 2.1 and off you go (as Googlebot).
I'd not recommend this because it will make gmail impossible to use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368</id>
	<title>I'll wait for the plugin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably there'll be a cookie to remove, or a BugMeNot account, or a way of creating/managing the 50 accounts needed to read as before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably there 'll be a cookie to remove , or a BugMeNot account , or a way of creating/managing the 50 accounts needed to read as before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably there'll be a cookie to remove, or a BugMeNot account, or a way of creating/managing the 50 accounts needed to read as before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295798</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>addsalt</author>
	<datestamp>1259585580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a large effort needed to write quality stories...a lot of calling people, driving around interviewing, checking documents etc.pp</p></div><p>Many people, myself included, won't favor paying for what is passing as news because the stuff above doesn't happen. If there are journalists and writers actually doing in-depth analysis, writing thought provoking stories, with relevant and accurate facts, people will pay for it. Right now, I see more of this is being done in magazines, not newspapers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a large effort needed to write quality stories...a lot of calling people , driving around interviewing , checking documents etc.ppMany people , myself included , wo n't favor paying for what is passing as news because the stuff above does n't happen .
If there are journalists and writers actually doing in-depth analysis , writing thought provoking stories , with relevant and accurate facts , people will pay for it .
Right now , I see more of this is being done in magazines , not newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a large effort needed to write quality stories...a lot of calling people, driving around interviewing, checking documents etc.ppMany people, myself included, won't favor paying for what is passing as news because the stuff above doesn't happen.
If there are journalists and writers actually doing in-depth analysis, writing thought provoking stories, with relevant and accurate facts, people will pay for it.
Right now, I see more of this is being done in magazines, not newspapers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297592</id>
	<title>Like the FT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Limit the number of views? You mean like the FT does? <a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/13821" title="userscripts.org" rel="nofollow">That doesn't work.</a> [userscripts.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Limit the number of views ?
You mean like the FT does ?
That does n't work .
[ userscripts.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Limit the number of views?
You mean like the FT does?
That doesn't work.
[userscripts.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298086</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>hweimer</author>
	<datestamp>1259600520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>YES, please. My god I hate this aspect of Google, which is an incredibly annoying time-suck. It's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research, but only when I'm on campus, so when I'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.</p></div><p>Got an SSH account? Then you can download the papers by setting up an <a href="http://www.quantenblog.net/physics/read-articles" title="quantenblog.net">HTTP proxy</a> [quantenblog.net].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YES , please .
My god I hate this aspect of Google , which is an incredibly annoying time-suck .
It 's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research , but only when I 'm on campus , so when I 'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.Got an SSH account ?
Then you can download the papers by setting up an HTTP proxy [ quantenblog.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES, please.
My god I hate this aspect of Google, which is an incredibly annoying time-suck.
It's even worse for me because I have a uni account that gives me access to most of the paywalled research, but only when I'm on campus, so when I'm off-campus and I want to know something I just desperately want the option to turn off all that paywalled crap.Got an SSH account?
Then you can download the papers by setting up an HTTP proxy [quantenblog.net].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296478</id>
	<title>Re:This is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they falter, what will happen?</p></div></blockquote><p> Answer: Fark.com  . Sites like that, other unbiased sites that aggregate will still have ways to aggregate, and in the comments they will likely link the whole article as text.</p><p>Basically one person will get access and give it to everyone else or something. Nobody cares to register or pay, or whatever. This is just trying to make information not free, which is asinine.</p><p>Meanwhile, I'm actually quite skeptical that google will buckle here, and of the accuracy of the whole article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they falter , what will happen ?
Answer : Fark.com .
Sites like that , other unbiased sites that aggregate will still have ways to aggregate , and in the comments they will likely link the whole article as text.Basically one person will get access and give it to everyone else or something .
Nobody cares to register or pay , or whatever .
This is just trying to make information not free , which is asinine.Meanwhile , I 'm actually quite skeptical that google will buckle here , and of the accuracy of the whole article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they falter, what will happen?
Answer: Fark.com  .
Sites like that, other unbiased sites that aggregate will still have ways to aggregate, and in the comments they will likely link the whole article as text.Basically one person will get access and give it to everyone else or something.
Nobody cares to register or pay, or whatever.
This is just trying to make information not free, which is asinine.Meanwhile, I'm actually quite skeptical that google will buckle here, and of the accuracy of the whole article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297230</id>
	<title>Re:Here comes a troll or flamebait tag, but ...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259596440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why is this a YRO story? In all seriousness, it's a "newspaper's rights online." </i></p><p>If you own a newspsper, it is exactly your rights online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this a YRO story ?
In all seriousness , it 's a " newspaper 's rights online .
" If you own a newspsper , it is exactly your rights online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this a YRO story?
In all seriousness, it's a "newspaper's rights online.
" If you own a newspsper, it is exactly your rights online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296238</id>
	<title>meh, I get my news from the Daily Show...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297396</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>OldBus</author>
	<datestamp>1259597160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see why it annoys you when the main Google index does this, but I thought that was the point of Google Scholar.  In hte Scholar preferences you can set your organization and Google Scholar will then route you through your institution's authentication and link resolver systems which will provide access to the content your institution has paid for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see why it annoys you when the main Google index does this , but I thought that was the point of Google Scholar .
In hte Scholar preferences you can set your organization and Google Scholar will then route you through your institution 's authentication and link resolver systems which will provide access to the content your institution has paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see why it annoys you when the main Google index does this, but I thought that was the point of Google Scholar.
In hte Scholar preferences you can set your organization and Google Scholar will then route you through your institution's authentication and link resolver systems which will provide access to the content your institution has paid for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298262</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1259601360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A fee is NOT a tax</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I don't think you know what that word means.
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Tax" title="merriam-webster.com">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Tax</a> [merriam-webster.com]
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on 
</p><p>
Charging $40 to see an article that used to be free nd that is frequently outdated, obsolete, or inaccurate is really pushing the limits, as in "This paywall tax is taxing my patience."
</p><p>
It's also a "tax on stupidity", same as lotteries, not only because it encourages the use of outdated materials subjected to less review by outsiders, but also because it extracts a fee from those who do not know how to find the free version of many of the articles.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A fee is NOT a tax I do n't think you know what that word means .
http : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Tax [ merriam-webster.com ] 5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on Charging $ 40 to see an article that used to be free nd that is frequently outdated , obsolete , or inaccurate is really pushing the limits , as in " This paywall tax is taxing my patience .
" It 's also a " tax on stupidity " , same as lotteries , not only because it encourages the use of outdated materials subjected to less review by outsiders , but also because it extracts a fee from those who do not know how to find the free version of many of the articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fee is NOT a tax

I don't think you know what that word means.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Tax [merriam-webster.com]
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on 

Charging $40 to see an article that used to be free nd that is frequently outdated, obsolete, or inaccurate is really pushing the limits, as in "This paywall tax is taxing my patience.
"

It's also a "tax on stupidity", same as lotteries, not only because it encourages the use of outdated materials subjected to less review by outsiders, but also because it extracts a fee from those who do not know how to find the free version of many of the articles.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297190</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1259596260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say bring it.</p><p>With IEEE you can't get the article in question anywhere else.</p><p>For news, you can read the "michael jackson is dead" story from anywhere. Furthermore, society benefits as a whole if we can get away from the news sources we currently have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say bring it.With IEEE you ca n't get the article in question anywhere else.For news , you can read the " michael jackson is dead " story from anywhere .
Furthermore , society benefits as a whole if we can get away from the news sources we currently have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say bring it.With IEEE you can't get the article in question anywhere else.For news, you can read the "michael jackson is dead" story from anywhere.
Furthermore, society benefits as a whole if we can get away from the news sources we currently have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296594</id>
	<title>Re:or users behind a NAT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets say that larger news sites do this, or outright ban Google searches.  Three things will happen:</p><p>1:  People use Bing, or another search engine (unlikely, but could happen.  People took a long while to shift from Yahoo to Google, but when they did, they did en masse.)</p><p>2:  People will pony up the subscriptions for each news site.  In this economy where US employment in the Rust belt is *worse* than the Great Depression, and has yet to even slow down the free fall when it comes to unemployment, people are watching their money.  I doubt that this option, especially after a decade of people receiving news without charge will fly.</p><p>3:  People will find other ways.  Advertising money is money, and it may not pay for a large business like the WSJ, but it would keep smaller firms who can employ less experienced journalists going.</p><p>I'm pretty sure, #3 is in the larger companys' minds.  The second they step away from being #1 on Google stuff, there are plenty of other sites that will step in to provide news, official AP wire or no.  If pressed, someone with good venture capital behind them might even set up an open clearinghouse paid for by ads.  Someone's news article getting hit, they get a big fat revenue check.</p><p>What should the big news companies do?  There are a number of options.  However, they need to remember that people want to get their news from somewhere.  Someone out there will fill that void when people wake up, and fire up their web browser to their favorite news aggregator.  If news.bigcompany.com doesn't give people their daily fix, there are many other sites that might just end up as the home page, or on the toolbar.</p><p>My cynical self thinks that the larger news sites would put some entry in ACTA saying that any news has to be done through the AP wire, or it is considered a criminal offense, as well as mandating that any AP stuff be served wrapped in some heavy DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets say that larger news sites do this , or outright ban Google searches .
Three things will happen : 1 : People use Bing , or another search engine ( unlikely , but could happen .
People took a long while to shift from Yahoo to Google , but when they did , they did en masse .
) 2 : People will pony up the subscriptions for each news site .
In this economy where US employment in the Rust belt is * worse * than the Great Depression , and has yet to even slow down the free fall when it comes to unemployment , people are watching their money .
I doubt that this option , especially after a decade of people receiving news without charge will fly.3 : People will find other ways .
Advertising money is money , and it may not pay for a large business like the WSJ , but it would keep smaller firms who can employ less experienced journalists going.I 'm pretty sure , # 3 is in the larger companys ' minds .
The second they step away from being # 1 on Google stuff , there are plenty of other sites that will step in to provide news , official AP wire or no .
If pressed , someone with good venture capital behind them might even set up an open clearinghouse paid for by ads .
Someone 's news article getting hit , they get a big fat revenue check.What should the big news companies do ?
There are a number of options .
However , they need to remember that people want to get their news from somewhere .
Someone out there will fill that void when people wake up , and fire up their web browser to their favorite news aggregator .
If news.bigcompany.com does n't give people their daily fix , there are many other sites that might just end up as the home page , or on the toolbar.My cynical self thinks that the larger news sites would put some entry in ACTA saying that any news has to be done through the AP wire , or it is considered a criminal offense , as well as mandating that any AP stuff be served wrapped in some heavy DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets say that larger news sites do this, or outright ban Google searches.
Three things will happen:1:  People use Bing, or another search engine (unlikely, but could happen.
People took a long while to shift from Yahoo to Google, but when they did, they did en masse.
)2:  People will pony up the subscriptions for each news site.
In this economy where US employment in the Rust belt is *worse* than the Great Depression, and has yet to even slow down the free fall when it comes to unemployment, people are watching their money.
I doubt that this option, especially after a decade of people receiving news without charge will fly.3:  People will find other ways.
Advertising money is money, and it may not pay for a large business like the WSJ, but it would keep smaller firms who can employ less experienced journalists going.I'm pretty sure, #3 is in the larger companys' minds.
The second they step away from being #1 on Google stuff, there are plenty of other sites that will step in to provide news, official AP wire or no.
If pressed, someone with good venture capital behind them might even set up an open clearinghouse paid for by ads.
Someone's news article getting hit, they get a big fat revenue check.What should the big news companies do?
There are a number of options.
However, they need to remember that people want to get their news from somewhere.
Someone out there will fill that void when people wake up, and fire up their web browser to their favorite news aggregator.
If news.bigcompany.com doesn't give people their daily fix, there are many other sites that might just end up as the home page, or on the toolbar.My cynical self thinks that the larger news sites would put some entry in ACTA saying that any news has to be done through the AP wire, or it is considered a criminal offense, as well as mandating that any AP stuff be served wrapped in some heavy DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295852</id>
	<title>Re:Frist Psot!</title>
	<author>darthflo</author>
	<datestamp>1259586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I wasn't, but at least I tried, aye?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>About the API, I'm guessing that it'll focus on feeding Google News, including News results in Google Web Search, but not GWS itself. I'm also guessing that many a publisher will be too lazy to make the 5 articles a day properly and instead just stick to the behaviour where coming from or being Google gets you the full text for free, but anything else (including clicking any of the internal links you see on that free page) would go behind a paywall. Should my guess prove true, the methods as described above will get you free full articles.</p><p>And for those papers who actually implement a five-a-day-free, it'll either be done with cookies (flush 'em for another five free stories), your IP address (reset your router, use TOR, use CoralCDN (.nyud.net), use a proxy) or tied to your Google Account (very unlikely, but solvable with more Google Accounts.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I was n't , but at least I tried , aye ?
; ) About the API , I 'm guessing that it 'll focus on feeding Google News , including News results in Google Web Search , but not GWS itself .
I 'm also guessing that many a publisher will be too lazy to make the 5 articles a day properly and instead just stick to the behaviour where coming from or being Google gets you the full text for free , but anything else ( including clicking any of the internal links you see on that free page ) would go behind a paywall .
Should my guess prove true , the methods as described above will get you free full articles.And for those papers who actually implement a five-a-day-free , it 'll either be done with cookies ( flush 'em for another five free stories ) , your IP address ( reset your router , use TOR , use CoralCDN ( .nyud.net ) , use a proxy ) or tied to your Google Account ( very unlikely , but solvable with more Google Accounts .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I wasn't, but at least I tried, aye?
;)About the API, I'm guessing that it'll focus on feeding Google News, including News results in Google Web Search, but not GWS itself.
I'm also guessing that many a publisher will be too lazy to make the 5 articles a day properly and instead just stick to the behaviour where coming from or being Google gets you the full text for free, but anything else (including clicking any of the internal links you see on that free page) would go behind a paywall.
Should my guess prove true, the methods as described above will get you free full articles.And for those papers who actually implement a five-a-day-free, it'll either be done with cookies (flush 'em for another five free stories), your IP address (reset your router, use TOR, use CoralCDN (.nyud.net), use a proxy) or tied to your Google Account (very unlikely, but solvable with more Google Accounts.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296986</id>
	<title>Re:What really pisses me right off about paywalled</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1259595120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is by far the most hateful, stupid and annoying thing Google does, and in close to a decade of searches I have never once purchased article access from one of these pirates (academics don't get paid by journals for their manuscripts, and now that publishing costs have fallen to almost nothing due to Web delivery there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of rates academic publishers are charging.</p></div><p>I hear your pain, cursed googles paywalled roadblocks in my search results once too many.  Same boat here but no way I am going to make a trip to campus, especially since in many cases the article is freely and legally available elsewhere - but due to all the paywalled crap sitting in the top page or two of my results, it just takes waaay longer to look up the information.  How the hell do they scam their way into the top search positions anyway when you can only get into their fortress of anti-information via a campus or similar?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Open access journals are the future, and the sooner Google gets on board with the future, the better)</p></div><p>I'll second that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is by far the most hateful , stupid and annoying thing Google does , and in close to a decade of searches I have never once purchased article access from one of these pirates ( academics do n't get paid by journals for their manuscripts , and now that publishing costs have fallen to almost nothing due to Web delivery there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of rates academic publishers are charging.I hear your pain , cursed googles paywalled roadblocks in my search results once too many .
Same boat here but no way I am going to make a trip to campus , especially since in many cases the article is freely and legally available elsewhere - but due to all the paywalled crap sitting in the top page or two of my results , it just takes waaay longer to look up the information .
How the hell do they scam their way into the top search positions anyway when you can only get into their fortress of anti-information via a campus or similar ? Open access journals are the future , and the sooner Google gets on board with the future , the better ) I 'll second that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is by far the most hateful, stupid and annoying thing Google does, and in close to a decade of searches I have never once purchased article access from one of these pirates (academics don't get paid by journals for their manuscripts, and now that publishing costs have fallen to almost nothing due to Web delivery there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of rates academic publishers are charging.I hear your pain, cursed googles paywalled roadblocks in my search results once too many.
Same boat here but no way I am going to make a trip to campus, especially since in many cases the article is freely and legally available elsewhere - but due to all the paywalled crap sitting in the top page or two of my results, it just takes waaay longer to look up the information.
How the hell do they scam their way into the top search positions anyway when you can only get into their fortress of anti-information via a campus or similar?Open access journals are the future, and the sooner Google gets on board with the future, the better)I'll second that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297032</id>
	<title>Well Well</title>
	<author>man\_the\_king</author>
	<datestamp>1259595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like Murdoch came through...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Murdoch came through.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Murdoch came through...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296584</id>
	<title>Re:What is going one here?</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, not the case. I regularly run across pdfs that I cannot access because they're behind a paywall. Even if I tell google "filetype:pdf", it still finds them for me. Which, quite frankly, pollutes the results to an extent that I sometimes cannot find the signal (actual readable scientific articles) amidst all the noise (IEEE, JSTOR, etc...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , not the case .
I regularly run across pdfs that I can not access because they 're behind a paywall .
Even if I tell google " filetype : pdf " , it still finds them for me .
Which , quite frankly , pollutes the results to an extent that I sometimes can not find the signal ( actual readable scientific articles ) amidst all the noise ( IEEE , JSTOR , etc... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, not the case.
I regularly run across pdfs that I cannot access because they're behind a paywall.
Even if I tell google "filetype:pdf", it still finds them for me.
Which, quite frankly, pollutes the results to an extent that I sometimes cannot find the signal (actual readable scientific articles) amidst all the noise (IEEE, JSTOR, etc...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30303112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30301540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30308768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30299446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30303596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30302764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0224250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30303112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30303596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30302764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30299446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30300878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296804
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297384
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30307878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296718
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30308768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30297190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30298210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30295452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30301540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0224250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0224250.30296304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
