<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_0040252</id>
	<title>Target.com's Aggressive SEO Tactic Spams Google</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261596840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Greg Niland is blogging about <a href="http://www.goodroi.com/why-google-allows-target-com-to-spam-results/">target.com's aggressive near-spam search engine optimization</a>, and is more than a little critical not only of how this affects the most popular search engine, but also why it will probably persist. If you want an example, search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance' and click the first link."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Greg Niland is blogging about target.com 's aggressive near-spam search engine optimization , and is more than a little critical not only of how this affects the most popular search engine , but also why it will probably persist .
If you want an example , search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance ' and click the first link .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Greg Niland is blogging about target.com's aggressive near-spam search engine optimization, and is more than a little critical not only of how this affects the most popular search engine, but also why it will probably persist.
If you want an example, search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance' and click the first link.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533610</id>
	<title>FTFY</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1259747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Target <b>dumps toxic waste off the Ivory Coast</b>. For a company their size that's diligence. Now list companies in the Fortune 500 that neither know nor care about <b>inexpensive toxic waste disposal</b> and report back how much that's costing the shareholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Target dumps toxic waste off the Ivory Coast .
For a company their size that 's diligence .
Now list companies in the Fortune 500 that neither know nor care about inexpensive toxic waste disposal and report back how much that 's costing the shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Target dumps toxic waste off the Ivory Coast.
For a company their size that's diligence.
Now list companies in the Fortune 500 that neither know nor care about inexpensive toxic waste disposal and report back how much that's costing the shareholders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534406</id>
	<title>Recent site:target.com search turned up old pages</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure whether this is related, but I was searching target.com yesterday via Google and got lots of hits to pages for products they apparently don't sale any more. Maybe they need to first remove old pages before they up their rank...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure whether this is related , but I was searching target.com yesterday via Google and got lots of hits to pages for products they apparently do n't sale any more .
Maybe they need to first remove old pages before they up their rank.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure whether this is related, but I was searching target.com yesterday via Google and got lots of hits to pages for products they apparently don't sale any more.
Maybe they need to first remove old pages before they up their rank...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536628</id>
	<title>We have a policy against this</title>
	<author>MattCutts</author>
	<datestamp>1259777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Empty search results are against our quality guidelines: <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/empty-review-sites/" title="mattcutts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/empty-review-sites/</a> [mattcutts.com]

I asked my team to check into this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Empty search results are against our quality guidelines : http : //www.mattcutts.com/blog/empty-review-sites/ [ mattcutts.com ] I asked my team to check into this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Empty search results are against our quality guidelines: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/empty-review-sites/ [mattcutts.com]

I asked my team to check into this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535614</id>
	<title>And now thanks to near real-time indexing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The results have all changed.  No longer is Target the target of results, but all the blogs that have picked up the story.  Now "exercise bike clearance" returns blog entries as the top results.  Seems if the offense is egregious enough, all we have to do is flood the blogosphere with the same term to drown out the offending phrase, thereby beating SEO optimization at it's own game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The results have all changed .
No longer is Target the target of results , but all the blogs that have picked up the story .
Now " exercise bike clearance " returns blog entries as the top results .
Seems if the offense is egregious enough , all we have to do is flood the blogosphere with the same term to drown out the offending phrase , thereby beating SEO optimization at it 's own game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results have all changed.
No longer is Target the target of results, but all the blogs that have picked up the story.
Now "exercise bike clearance" returns blog entries as the top results.
Seems if the offense is egregious enough, all we have to do is flood the blogosphere with the same term to drown out the offending phrase, thereby beating SEO optimization at it's own game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535660</id>
	<title>I wonder if Target is still selling...</title>
	<author>the saltydog</author>
	<datestamp>1259772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this?</p><p><a href="http://current.com/items/91149842\_black-kids-computer-desk.htm" title="current.com" rel="nofollow">http://current.com/items/91149842\_black-kids-computer-desk.htm</a> [current.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this ? http : //current.com/items/91149842 \ _black-kids-computer-desk.htm [ current.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this?http://current.com/items/91149842\_black-kids-computer-desk.htm [current.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533788</id>
	<title>Not Spam - use some common sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not spamming. Google has indexed their search pages (valid) but they are not static and so they fail. The google link is to "clearance" items, and there are no clearance bikes.

Why would target want people clicking links that tell visitors that they don't carry that stock?

I think a little common sense before accusatory blogging would have been a good idea here.

Feel free to debate whether indexing of search results pages is a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not spamming .
Google has indexed their search pages ( valid ) but they are not static and so they fail .
The google link is to " clearance " items , and there are no clearance bikes .
Why would target want people clicking links that tell visitors that they do n't carry that stock ?
I think a little common sense before accusatory blogging would have been a good idea here .
Feel free to debate whether indexing of search results pages is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not spamming.
Google has indexed their search pages (valid) but they are not static and so they fail.
The google link is to "clearance" items, and there are no clearance bikes.
Why would target want people clicking links that tell visitors that they don't carry that stock?
I think a little common sense before accusatory blogging would have been a good idea here.
Feel free to debate whether indexing of search results pages is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535370</id>
	<title>Re:I have found the solution!...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259770440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So view the Google Cache and scroll all the way down...  Ta-da, you don't have to pay for Expert Exchange now unless you have a new issue!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So view the Google Cache and scroll all the way down... Ta-da , you do n't have to pay for Expert Exchange now unless you have a new issue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So view the Google Cache and scroll all the way down...  Ta-da, you don't have to pay for Expert Exchange now unless you have a new issue!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30540102</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Google just manually filter target.</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1259757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually they just have to block that one page: "http://www.target.com/gp/search?field-keywords=" <br> <br>Better yet why don't they fiter out all search pages from websites? I hate finding what looks to be the exact page I need on a google search only to click it and end at "http://www.target.com/gp/search/192-2967276-3174027?field-keywords=exact+page+I+needed" I don't think its spamdexing on targets part, it's  google's fault for not figuring out that linking to searches run by other companies, is useless and annoying to users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they just have to block that one page : " http : //www.target.com/gp/search ? field-keywords = " Better yet why do n't they fiter out all search pages from websites ?
I hate finding what looks to be the exact page I need on a google search only to click it and end at " http : //www.target.com/gp/search/192-2967276-3174027 ? field-keywords = exact + page + I + needed " I do n't think its spamdexing on targets part , it 's google 's fault for not figuring out that linking to searches run by other companies , is useless and annoying to users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they just have to block that one page: "http://www.target.com/gp/search?field-keywords="  Better yet why don't they fiter out all search pages from websites?
I hate finding what looks to be the exact page I need on a google search only to click it and end at "http://www.target.com/gp/search/192-2967276-3174027?field-keywords=exact+page+I+needed" I don't think its spamdexing on targets part, it's  google's fault for not figuring out that linking to searches run by other companies, is useless and annoying to users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533412</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1259787120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Target employs SEO.  For a company their size that's diligence.  Now list companies in the Fortune 500 that neither know nor care about SEO and report back how much that's costing the shareholders.
</p><p>Extra points if you mention HP whose web technologies are for a technology company nothing short of incredible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Target employs SEO .
For a company their size that 's diligence .
Now list companies in the Fortune 500 that neither know nor care about SEO and report back how much that 's costing the shareholders .
Extra points if you mention HP whose web technologies are for a technology company nothing short of incredible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Target employs SEO.
For a company their size that's diligence.
Now list companies in the Fortune 500 that neither know nor care about SEO and report back how much that's costing the shareholders.
Extra points if you mention HP whose web technologies are for a technology company nothing short of incredible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534054</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google shouldn't care about this. They don't give a damn about the SEO spam from the rip off report (which itself is a not-at-all-disguised extortion program masquarading as a customer advocacy site). In fact, they should do with Target what they do with the rip off report. They should promote the results to the top of the pages, while the other search engines bury them for the bad behavior (directly and SEO spam<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/engine abuse wise).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should n't care about this .
They do n't give a damn about the SEO spam from the rip off report ( which itself is a not-at-all-disguised extortion program masquarading as a customer advocacy site ) .
In fact , they should do with Target what they do with the rip off report .
They should promote the results to the top of the pages , while the other search engines bury them for the bad behavior ( directly and SEO spam /engine abuse wise ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google shouldn't care about this.
They don't give a damn about the SEO spam from the rip off report (which itself is a not-at-all-disguised extortion program masquarading as a customer advocacy site).
In fact, they should do with Target what they do with the rip off report.
They should promote the results to the top of the pages, while the other search engines bury them for the bad behavior (directly and SEO spam /engine abuse wise).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535118</id>
	<title>Load of crap</title>
	<author>mcoonrod</author>
	<datestamp>1259769060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>pfffft... try typing in clearance. The top 4 are all retailers and the top isn't Target, it's Walmart. Where did you get this story, Christmas shopping?</htmltext>
<tokenext>pfffft... try typing in clearance .
The top 4 are all retailers and the top is n't Target , it 's Walmart .
Where did you get this story , Christmas shopping ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pfffft... try typing in clearance.
The top 4 are all retailers and the top isn't Target, it's Walmart.
Where did you get this story, Christmas shopping?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538732</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been doing this a lot lately...  I will often search for technical/programming APIs and will generally promote the better results.  If it's JS related, I'll usually promote the MDC results over other references, in many cases the MDC results are more definitive and a better explanation.  I'll often promote other articles over poorer MSDN references as well, for an opposite effect.  It's actually really appreciated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been doing this a lot lately... I will often search for technical/programming APIs and will generally promote the better results .
If it 's JS related , I 'll usually promote the MDC results over other references , in many cases the MDC results are more definitive and a better explanation .
I 'll often promote other articles over poorer MSDN references as well , for an opposite effect .
It 's actually really appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been doing this a lot lately...  I will often search for technical/programming APIs and will generally promote the better results.
If it's JS related, I'll usually promote the MDC results over other references, in many cases the MDC results are more definitive and a better explanation.
I'll often promote other articles over poorer MSDN references as well, for an opposite effect.
It's actually really appreciated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1259745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best way to help Google improve is to use another search engine. Blacklists don't work.</p><p>Making Google understand that good alternatives exist is the only way to force them to improve, for example...</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=exercise+bike+clearance" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">Exercise Bike Clearance</a> [bing.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to help Google improve is to use another search engine .
Blacklists do n't work.Making Google understand that good alternatives exist is the only way to force them to improve , for example...Exercise Bike Clearance [ bing.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to help Google improve is to use another search engine.
Blacklists don't work.Making Google understand that good alternatives exist is the only way to force them to improve, for example...Exercise Bike Clearance [bing.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535846</id>
	<title>Re:I have found the solution!...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259773560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're joking, but did you know you can scroll to the bottom of pages on Experts-exchange to see the unconcealed answer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're joking , but did you know you can scroll to the bottom of pages on Experts-exchange to see the unconcealed answer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're joking, but did you know you can scroll to the bottom of pages on Experts-exchange to see the unconcealed answer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536040</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1259774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm not sure whether you could have chosen a worse example on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm not sure whether you could have chosen a worse example on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm not sure whether you could have chosen a worse example on /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535174</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>Van Vleck</author>
	<datestamp>1259769420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honorable AC quotes...<blockquote><div><p>There's no irrelevant keywords here, no hidden text, no hidden links,</p></div></blockquote><p>

Uhmm...  Here's an H1 tag that's hidden, exactly the sort of SEO trick that google warns against.</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;h1 class="offscreen"&gt;Welcome to Target Products and Promotions&lt;/h1&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>And more relevant, perhaps, here's one from the "Your Mom Is So Hot" Target search.</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;h1 class="offscreen"&gt;your mom is hot Products and Promotions&lt;/h1&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>In this case, there are no actual promotions available from Target about "Your Mom is So Hot," which means, I think, that it's expressly deceptive.

And here are some hidden links on the page as well.</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;a href="#mainBody"&gt;Skip to Main Content&lt;/a&gt;<br> &lt;a href="#leftNav"&gt;Skip to Left Navigation&lt;/a&gt;<br> &lt;a href="#scripted\_tabs"&gt;Skip to Product Information Tabs&lt;/a&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>These links cannot be seen in a regular browser.  Dunno if this qualifies as nefarious or black-hat, but it's definitely, obviously hidden links.  Of course, any site with a dropdown menu has hidden links on it, but these hidden links on the Target.com page don't even qualify for that.  Perhaps they show up if you have javascript disabled, or browse from text-only browser.  The point is, in a regular browser, they are hidden links.

I suppose I'm responding to an AC troll.  But I do find it interesting that Target.com can get away with clearly deceptive hidden H1 tags.  That's like the definition of amateur black hat SEO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honorable AC quotes...There 's no irrelevant keywords here , no hidden text , no hidden links , Uhmm... Here 's an H1 tag that 's hidden , exactly the sort of SEO trick that google warns against .
Welcome to Target Products and Promotions And more relevant , perhaps , here 's one from the " Your Mom Is So Hot " Target search .
your mom is hot Products and Promotions In this case , there are no actual promotions available from Target about " Your Mom is So Hot , " which means , I think , that it 's expressly deceptive .
And here are some hidden links on the page as well .
Skip to Main Content Skip to Left Navigation Skip to Product Information Tabs These links can not be seen in a regular browser .
Dunno if this qualifies as nefarious or black-hat , but it 's definitely , obviously hidden links .
Of course , any site with a dropdown menu has hidden links on it , but these hidden links on the Target.com page do n't even qualify for that .
Perhaps they show up if you have javascript disabled , or browse from text-only browser .
The point is , in a regular browser , they are hidden links .
I suppose I 'm responding to an AC troll .
But I do find it interesting that Target.com can get away with clearly deceptive hidden H1 tags .
That 's like the definition of amateur black hat SEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honorable AC quotes...There's no irrelevant keywords here, no hidden text, no hidden links,

Uhmm...  Here's an H1 tag that's hidden, exactly the sort of SEO trick that google warns against.
Welcome to Target Products and Promotions And more relevant, perhaps, here's one from the "Your Mom Is So Hot" Target search.
your mom is hot Products and Promotions In this case, there are no actual promotions available from Target about "Your Mom is So Hot," which means, I think, that it's expressly deceptive.
And here are some hidden links on the page as well.
Skip to Main Content Skip to Left Navigation Skip to Product Information Tabs These links cannot be seen in a regular browser.
Dunno if this qualifies as nefarious or black-hat, but it's definitely, obviously hidden links.
Of course, any site with a dropdown menu has hidden links on it, but these hidden links on the Target.com page don't even qualify for that.
Perhaps they show up if you have javascript disabled, or browse from text-only browser.
The point is, in a regular browser, they are hidden links.
I suppose I'm responding to an AC troll.
But I do find it interesting that Target.com can get away with clearly deceptive hidden H1 tags.
That's like the definition of amateur black hat SEO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533460</id>
	<title>Roadmap</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1259745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol> <li>bombing Google with spam</li><li>Getting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. publicity because of the spamming</li><li>???</li><li>Profit!!1!</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>bombing Google with spamGetting / .
publicity because of the spamming ? ? ? Profit !
! 1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> bombing Google with spamGetting /.
publicity because of the spamming???Profit!
!1!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534218</id>
	<title>Re:Could have made it a link</title>
	<author>kiwimate</author>
	<datestamp>1259761200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You and me both. My completely unscientific and subjective anecdotal experience suggests I get more results with Google but better results with Yahoo. And there is no way I will give up my Yahoo mail. I've tried GMail a few times, and it is painful for me to use. The layout is weird and I can never find anything (commands <b>or</b> e-mails...that's not helpful). Perhaps Yahoo mail is easier because I've been using it for so long (well over a decade, since the time when AltaVista was king) and have become accustomed to its interface. Whatever the explanation, I just know I have thousands of e-mails and records in my Yahoo e-mail and can easily find what I need, whereas even with just a handful of e-mails in my Google mail account I could never find anything without a struggle.</p><p>I do like being able to manually alter my route in Google maps, but I've had so many problems with it being down or flaky this year that I always go back to good old reliable MapQuest.</p><p>I suppose this shows that Google is like Microsoft; if you are the most ubiquitous in your market (OS, search engine, what have you), you will be targeted (viruses, search engine spammers). Yahoo search is my Linux...it's there, but everyone is targeting the big guy in the room and is ignoring my favorite. Yay!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You and me both .
My completely unscientific and subjective anecdotal experience suggests I get more results with Google but better results with Yahoo .
And there is no way I will give up my Yahoo mail .
I 've tried GMail a few times , and it is painful for me to use .
The layout is weird and I can never find anything ( commands or e-mails...that 's not helpful ) .
Perhaps Yahoo mail is easier because I 've been using it for so long ( well over a decade , since the time when AltaVista was king ) and have become accustomed to its interface .
Whatever the explanation , I just know I have thousands of e-mails and records in my Yahoo e-mail and can easily find what I need , whereas even with just a handful of e-mails in my Google mail account I could never find anything without a struggle.I do like being able to manually alter my route in Google maps , but I 've had so many problems with it being down or flaky this year that I always go back to good old reliable MapQuest.I suppose this shows that Google is like Microsoft ; if you are the most ubiquitous in your market ( OS , search engine , what have you ) , you will be targeted ( viruses , search engine spammers ) .
Yahoo search is my Linux...it 's there , but everyone is targeting the big guy in the room and is ignoring my favorite .
Yay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You and me both.
My completely unscientific and subjective anecdotal experience suggests I get more results with Google but better results with Yahoo.
And there is no way I will give up my Yahoo mail.
I've tried GMail a few times, and it is painful for me to use.
The layout is weird and I can never find anything (commands or e-mails...that's not helpful).
Perhaps Yahoo mail is easier because I've been using it for so long (well over a decade, since the time when AltaVista was king) and have become accustomed to its interface.
Whatever the explanation, I just know I have thousands of e-mails and records in my Yahoo e-mail and can easily find what I need, whereas even with just a handful of e-mails in my Google mail account I could never find anything without a struggle.I do like being able to manually alter my route in Google maps, but I've had so many problems with it being down or flaky this year that I always go back to good old reliable MapQuest.I suppose this shows that Google is like Microsoft; if you are the most ubiquitous in your market (OS, search engine, what have you), you will be targeted (viruses, search engine spammers).
Yahoo search is my Linux...it's there, but everyone is targeting the big guy in the room and is ignoring my favorite.
Yay!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536460</id>
	<title>Re:Google problem only - not Bing</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259776980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I get the same results on Bing.<br>Both on the first pages, neither number 1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I get the same results on Bing.Both on the first pages , neither number 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I get the same results on Bing.Both on the first pages, neither number 1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533564</id>
	<title>Spammy words bring spam results</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1259746860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is anyone really surprised that the amount and ranking of spam goes up when you include spammy terms like "clearance" in your search?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone really surprised that the amount and ranking of spam goes up when you include spammy terms like " clearance " in your search ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone really surprised that the amount and ranking of spam goes up when you include spammy terms like "clearance" in your search?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534650</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259765760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence.</p></div><p>Never attribute to incompetence that which is better explained by self-interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence.Never attribute to incompetence that which is better explained by self-interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence.Never attribute to incompetence that which is better explained by self-interest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533532</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Rebelgecko</author>
	<datestamp>1259746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting because I accidently modded parent overrated.<br>Anyways, I too told Google it was spam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting because I accidently modded parent overrated.Anyways , I too told Google it was spam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting because I accidently modded parent overrated.Anyways, I too told Google it was spam</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533808</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy that. Legitimate people (i.e. not SEOers) are supposed to have put 15 million DIFFERENT links to failed Target searches somewhere, often enough for Google to rank them so high?</p><p>Plus, it's not only target's search engine that does this. I get increasingly more Google results from other search engine's "not found" or "generic non-content landing site" pages. In my opinion this is intentional SEO spam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy that .
Legitimate people ( i.e .
not SEOers ) are supposed to have put 15 million DIFFERENT links to failed Target searches somewhere , often enough for Google to rank them so high ? Plus , it 's not only target 's search engine that does this .
I get increasingly more Google results from other search engine 's " not found " or " generic non-content landing site " pages .
In my opinion this is intentional SEO spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy that.
Legitimate people (i.e.
not SEOers) are supposed to have put 15 million DIFFERENT links to failed Target searches somewhere, often enough for Google to rank them so high?Plus, it's not only target's search engine that does this.
I get increasingly more Google results from other search engine's "not found" or "generic non-content landing site" pages.
In my opinion this is intentional SEO spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538532</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here.</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that Target should be returning the HTML as it is, but use a 404 status header (Not Found)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Target should be returning the HTML as it is , but use a 404 status header ( Not Found ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Target should be returning the HTML as it is, but use a 404 status header (Not Found)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535480</id>
	<title>Re:I have found the solution!...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Expert-exchange is as free as any other site, if you know where to look down there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Expert-exchange is as free as any other site , if you know where to look down there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expert-exchange is as free as any other site, if you know where to look down there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533948</id>
	<title>Slight adjustment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259755260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the first link that comes up when you alter the example search just the slightest bit - type into a google text field:</p><p>[site:target.com "could not find matches for"] and you get <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;num=100&amp;q=site\%3Atarget.com+\%22could+not+find+matches+for\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">this (NSFW on that first link)</a> [google.com].</p><p>- I doubt they meant for that to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the first link that comes up when you alter the example search just the slightest bit - type into a google text field : [ site : target.com " could not find matches for " ] and you get this ( NSFW on that first link ) [ google.com ] .- I doubt they meant for that to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the first link that comes up when you alter the example search just the slightest bit - type into a google text field:[site:target.com "could not find matches for"] and you get this (NSFW on that first link) [google.com].- I doubt they meant for that to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30542032</id>
	<title>Google toolbar is simply indexing the deep web</title>
	<author>BcNexus</author>
	<datestamp>1259779440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is simply indexing the deep web with their toolbar. Someone with the Google toolbar searches Target.com for something non-existent, gets an html page that says there are no matching results, and Google indexes it. The irrelevant Target.com results on Google are systemic to Google's indexing of sites and content that it can't reach but its toolbar users can. The irrelevant results are Google's fault, not an evil search engine optimization ploy by Target.<br> <br>
By the way, someone mentioned Target should use a 404 error, but that doesn't seem right. A search that doesn't have any results shouldn't give you a 404, it should give you page that says there aren't any results. Google's toolbar is simply indexing those "no results" pages.<br> <br>Apparently, tons of people search for (funny) stuff that doesn't exist on Target.com (check out the results for inurl searches for "not found" on Target.com).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is simply indexing the deep web with their toolbar .
Someone with the Google toolbar searches Target.com for something non-existent , gets an html page that says there are no matching results , and Google indexes it .
The irrelevant Target.com results on Google are systemic to Google 's indexing of sites and content that it ca n't reach but its toolbar users can .
The irrelevant results are Google 's fault , not an evil search engine optimization ploy by Target .
By the way , someone mentioned Target should use a 404 error , but that does n't seem right .
A search that does n't have any results should n't give you a 404 , it should give you page that says there are n't any results .
Google 's toolbar is simply indexing those " no results " pages .
Apparently , tons of people search for ( funny ) stuff that does n't exist on Target.com ( check out the results for inurl searches for " not found " on Target.com ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is simply indexing the deep web with their toolbar.
Someone with the Google toolbar searches Target.com for something non-existent, gets an html page that says there are no matching results, and Google indexes it.
The irrelevant Target.com results on Google are systemic to Google's indexing of sites and content that it can't reach but its toolbar users can.
The irrelevant results are Google's fault, not an evil search engine optimization ploy by Target.
By the way, someone mentioned Target should use a 404 error, but that doesn't seem right.
A search that doesn't have any results shouldn't give you a 404, it should give you page that says there aren't any results.
Google's toolbar is simply indexing those "no results" pages.
Apparently, tons of people search for (funny) stuff that doesn't exist on Target.com (check out the results for inurl searches for "not found" on Target.com).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533618</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how they are breaking any of those terms.
</p><p> It seems to me that they used to have a page for Exercise Bike Clearance which ranked highly for whatever reason. Now that the promotion is over, the page no longer exists and requests for it end up going to a lame search engine that can't even direct users to the page for full price Exercise Bikes, which would at least help target to sell something instead of annoying users and sending them straight for the back button.  The fact that Google is still indexing it with the old ranking is Google's problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how they are breaking any of those terms .
It seems to me that they used to have a page for Exercise Bike Clearance which ranked highly for whatever reason .
Now that the promotion is over , the page no longer exists and requests for it end up going to a lame search engine that ca n't even direct users to the page for full price Exercise Bikes , which would at least help target to sell something instead of annoying users and sending them straight for the back button .
The fact that Google is still indexing it with the old ranking is Google 's problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how they are breaking any of those terms.
It seems to me that they used to have a page for Exercise Bike Clearance which ranked highly for whatever reason.
Now that the promotion is over, the page no longer exists and requests for it end up going to a lame search engine that can't even direct users to the page for full price Exercise Bikes, which would at least help target to sell something instead of annoying users and sending them straight for the back button.
The fact that Google is still indexing it with the old ranking is Google's problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</id>
	<title>Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the bottom of every Google Search result page is a link titled <b>Dissatisfied? Help us improve</b>. Click it. Tell them the link is spam. Google ends up filtering them out of the search results, and we all win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the bottom of every Google Search result page is a link titled Dissatisfied ?
Help us improve .
Click it .
Tell them the link is spam .
Google ends up filtering them out of the search results , and we all win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the bottom of every Google Search result page is a link titled Dissatisfied?
Help us improve.
Click it.
Tell them the link is spam.
Google ends up filtering them out of the search results, and we all win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533812</id>
	<title>Re:Could have made it a link</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1259751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I can report that I tried it in both Bing (got Durham Sports) and in Yahoo (got Overstock.com) so apparently this BS is only being done in Google. I guess this just gives me one more reason for keeping my Yahoo search over Google.</p><p>

 I never did get why folks liked Google search over Yahoo search anyway. The "more" tab (the little blue down arrow under the search box) is just too damned handy. You get used to having the more tab and pretty soon other search engines will just drive you nuts. I just hope when MSFT takes over the backend they don't fuck it up like they do everything else web related, as not having my more tab would really suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I can report that I tried it in both Bing ( got Durham Sports ) and in Yahoo ( got Overstock.com ) so apparently this BS is only being done in Google .
I guess this just gives me one more reason for keeping my Yahoo search over Google .
I never did get why folks liked Google search over Yahoo search anyway .
The " more " tab ( the little blue down arrow under the search box ) is just too damned handy .
You get used to having the more tab and pretty soon other search engines will just drive you nuts .
I just hope when MSFT takes over the backend they do n't fuck it up like they do everything else web related , as not having my more tab would really suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can report that I tried it in both Bing (got Durham Sports) and in Yahoo (got Overstock.com) so apparently this BS is only being done in Google.
I guess this just gives me one more reason for keeping my Yahoo search over Google.
I never did get why folks liked Google search over Yahoo search anyway.
The "more" tab (the little blue down arrow under the search box) is just too damned handy.
You get used to having the more tab and pretty soon other search engines will just drive you nuts.
I just hope when MSFT takes over the backend they don't fuck it up like they do everything else web related, as not having my more tab would really suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533528</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1259746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay the google.com search for that query points to both Amazon and Target. Did target actually give a page containing those search terms to the google bot? Why would they do that?</p><p>Is there a big generic library of "stuff people buy" which SEO companies use to send traffic to their clients sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay the google.com search for that query points to both Amazon and Target .
Did target actually give a page containing those search terms to the google bot ?
Why would they do that ? Is there a big generic library of " stuff people buy " which SEO companies use to send traffic to their clients sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay the google.com search for that query points to both Amazon and Target.
Did target actually give a page containing those search terms to the google bot?
Why would they do that?Is there a big generic library of "stuff people buy" which SEO companies use to send traffic to their clients sites?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533446</id>
	<title>It's not first here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I search for that on Google, I get the mentioned company fourth in the non-sponsored links.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I search for that on Google , I get the mentioned company fourth in the non-sponsored links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I search for that on Google, I get the mentioned company fourth in the non-sponsored links.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533718</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1259749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Extra points if you mention HP whose web technologies are for a technology company nothing short of incredible.</p></div><p>I'm not sure if you mean that in a good way or a bad way...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Extra points if you mention HP whose web technologies are for a technology company nothing short of incredible.I 'm not sure if you mean that in a good way or a bad way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extra points if you mention HP whose web technologies are for a technology company nothing short of incredible.I'm not sure if you mean that in a good way or a bad way...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533862</id>
	<title>Seems fixed already</title>
	<author>talexb</author>
	<datestamp>1259752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I get 'http://www.alexa.com/hoturls?q=exercise bike clearance' which links to 'http://www.goodroi.com/why-google-allows-target-com-to-spam-results/', a post dated December 10, 2009 (thirteen days ago).</p><p>No biggie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I get 'http : //www.alexa.com/hoturls ? q = exercise bike clearance ' which links to 'http : //www.goodroi.com/why-google-allows-target-com-to-spam-results/ ' , a post dated December 10 , 2009 ( thirteen days ago ) .No biggie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I get 'http://www.alexa.com/hoturls?q=exercise bike clearance' which links to 'http://www.goodroi.com/why-google-allows-target-com-to-spam-results/', a post dated December 10, 2009 (thirteen days ago).No biggie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536482</id>
	<title>Target's SEO dept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an acquaintance in target's SEO department and they're paying google in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year for search advertising (adwords and custom ad building. I wouldn't be surprised if they figured out a way to help them rank well for bogus products as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an acquaintance in target 's SEO department and they 're paying google in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year for search advertising ( adwords and custom ad building .
I would n't be surprised if they figured out a way to help them rank well for bogus products as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an acquaintance in target's SEO department and they're paying google in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year for search advertising (adwords and custom ad building.
I wouldn't be surprised if they figured out a way to help them rank well for bogus products as a result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534202</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's really the case too. Some of the url's also contain affiliate field, but they vary and some don't. So it's not done by a single person, nor is it done by Target.</p><p>Just old links that rank well because of Target's and linking sites PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's really the case too .
Some of the url 's also contain affiliate field , but they vary and some do n't .
So it 's not done by a single person , nor is it done by Target.Just old links that rank well because of Target 's and linking sites PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's really the case too.
Some of the url's also contain affiliate field, but they vary and some don't.
So it's not done by a single person, nor is it done by Target.Just old links that rank well because of Target's and linking sites PR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536502</id>
	<title>Re:FTFY</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1259777160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast is 100\% the same as having some misconfigured search results. You and BadAnalogyGuy must get along great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast is 100 \ % the same as having some misconfigured search results .
You and BadAnalogyGuy must get along great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast is 100\% the same as having some misconfigured search results.
You and BadAnalogyGuy must get along great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533530</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm pretty annoyed that areyoutargeted.com is second to target.com in some searches.</p><p>Grrr!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm pretty annoyed that areyoutargeted.com is second to target.com in some searches.Grrr !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm pretty annoyed that areyoutargeted.com is second to target.com in some searches.Grrr!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534744</id>
	<title>Why doesn't Google just manually filter target.com</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1259766600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be an easy fix I think...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be an easy fix I think.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be an easy fix I think...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535410</id>
	<title>Simple Solution</title>
	<author>EndlessNameless</author>
	<datestamp>1259770680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a comment on the original article suggested, Target just needs to block gp/search in their robots.txt file to prevent that crap from being indexed.</p><p>In the absence of such action, Google surely has a way to block it themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a comment on the original article suggested , Target just needs to block gp/search in their robots.txt file to prevent that crap from being indexed.In the absence of such action , Google surely has a way to block it themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a comment on the original article suggested, Target just needs to block gp/search in their robots.txt file to prevent that crap from being indexed.In the absence of such action, Google surely has a way to block it themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533956</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did the same thing, but when I went to the bottom of the page found this from google trends:<p><div class="quote"><p>16th most popular search in the past hour.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the same thing , but when I went to the bottom of the page found this from google trends : 16th most popular search in the past hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the same thing, but when I went to the bottom of the page found this from google trends:16th most popular search in the past hour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535808</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1259773260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's showing up in Google's results because people are linking to it.</p></div></blockquote><p>So if we all link to the Target URL for a search for <a href="http://www.target.com/gp/search?field-keywords=child+porn" title="target.com">child porn</a> [target.com], Target will become the #1 hit when someone does a Google search for child porn?</p><p>Just wondering...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's showing up in Google 's results because people are linking to it.So if we all link to the Target URL for a search for child porn [ target.com ] , Target will become the # 1 hit when someone does a Google search for child porn ? Just wondering.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's showing up in Google's results because people are linking to it.So if we all link to the Target URL for a search for child porn [target.com], Target will become the #1 hit when someone does a Google search for child porn?Just wondering...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533886</id>
	<title>What's to stop the spammers ...</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from spamming the dissatisfied feature or even abusing it to remove competitors? The former might make it harder to filter out the true complaints and the latter hurts businesses in general.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from spamming the dissatisfied feature or even abusing it to remove competitors ?
The former might make it harder to filter out the true complaints and the latter hurts businesses in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from spamming the dissatisfied feature or even abusing it to remove competitors?
The former might make it harder to filter out the true complaints and the latter hurts businesses in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generating them is wrong, according to <a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769#3" title="google.com">Google</a> [google.com]:</p><p><b>Quality guidelines - basic principles</b></p><ul><li>Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."</li><li> <i>Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"</i> </li><li>Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.</li><li>Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold(TM) that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.</li></ul><p><b>Quality guidelines - specific guidelines</b></p><ul> <li> <i>Avoid hidden text or hidden links.</i> </li><li>Don't use cloaking or sneaky redirects.</li><li>Don't send automated queries to Google.</li><li> <i>Don't load pages with irrelevant keywords.</i> </li><li>Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.</li><li>Don't create pages with malicious behavior, such as phishing or installing viruses, trojans, or other badware.</li><li>Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.</li><li>If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your site adds value. Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first.</li></ul><p>Emphasis mine, on the areas that Target is plainly and obviously not following.  There's a bunch of other stuff listed which they might be doing as well, but I can't be bothered to look into it any further at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generating them is wrong , according to Google [ google.com ] : Quality guidelines - basic principlesMake pages primarily for users , not for search engines .
Do n't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users , which is commonly referred to as " cloaking .
" Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings .
A good rule of thumb is whether you 'd feel comfortable explaining what you 've done to a website that competes with you .
Another useful test is to ask , " Does this help my users ?
Would I do this if search engines did n't exist ?
" Do n't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site 's ranking or PageRank .
In particular , avoid links to web spammers or " bad neighborhoods " on the web , as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.Do n't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages , check rankings , etc .
Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service .
Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold ( TM ) that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.Quality guidelines - specific guidelines Avoid hidden text or hidden links .
Do n't use cloaking or sneaky redirects.Do n't send automated queries to Google .
Do n't load pages with irrelevant keywords .
Do n't create multiple pages , subdomains , or domains with substantially duplicate content.Do n't create pages with malicious behavior , such as phishing or installing viruses , trojans , or other badware.Avoid " doorway " pages created just for search engines , or other " cookie cutter " approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.If your site participates in an affiliate program , make sure that your site adds value .
Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first.Emphasis mine , on the areas that Target is plainly and obviously not following .
There 's a bunch of other stuff listed which they might be doing as well , but I ca n't be bothered to look into it any further at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generating them is wrong, according to Google [google.com]:Quality guidelines - basic principlesMake pages primarily for users, not for search engines.
Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking.
" Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings.
A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you.
Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users?
Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?
" Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank.
In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc.
Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service.
Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold(TM) that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.Quality guidelines - specific guidelines  Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
Don't use cloaking or sneaky redirects.Don't send automated queries to Google.
Don't load pages with irrelevant keywords.
Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.Don't create pages with malicious behavior, such as phishing or installing viruses, trojans, or other badware.Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your site adds value.
Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first.Emphasis mine, on the areas that Target is plainly and obviously not following.
There's a bunch of other stuff listed which they might be doing as well, but I can't be bothered to look into it any further at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422</id>
	<title>How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1259787420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big question is how are these pages getting indexed? Generating them isn't wrong but there should be no links to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big question is how are these pages getting indexed ?
Generating them is n't wrong but there should be no links to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big question is how are these pages getting indexed?
Generating them isn't wrong but there should be no links to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533848</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know. It is like free advertising for Target's web site. It may not be for exercise bikes-but it does allow the user once on Targets page to then try a slightly different term in Targets search box like just bikes. That then means Targets makes money if they go through with the purchase. Sounds like it is just very clever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
It is like free advertising for Target 's web site .
It may not be for exercise bikes-but it does allow the user once on Targets page to then try a slightly different term in Targets search box like just bikes .
That then means Targets makes money if they go through with the purchase .
Sounds like it is just very clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
It is like free advertising for Target's web site.
It may not be for exercise bikes-but it does allow the user once on Targets page to then try a slightly different term in Targets search box like just bikes.
That then means Targets makes money if they go through with the purchase.
Sounds like it is just very clever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536188</id>
	<title>Re:I have found the solution!...</title>
	<author>Anomalyst</author>
	<datestamp>1259775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But is on expect-exchange.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Nobody expects Microsoft exchange. Its three main weapons are embrace, extend, extinguish and Ballmer propelled comfy chairs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait I'll in again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But is on expect-exchange .
Nobody expects Microsoft exchange .
Its three main weapons are embrace , extend , extinguish and Ballmer propelled comfy chairs ... wait I 'll in again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is on expect-exchange.
Nobody expects Microsoft exchange.
Its three main weapons are embrace, extend, extinguish and Ballmer propelled comfy chairs ... wait I'll in again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30539114</id>
	<title>shittiest story ever</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1259749980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson's Mom must be very proud of her anencephalic offspring.</p><p>If it weren't foe slashdot he'd be totally unemployable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson 's Mom must be very proud of her anencephalic offspring.If it were n't foe slashdot he 'd be totally unemployable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson's Mom must be very proud of her anencephalic offspring.If it weren't foe slashdot he'd be totally unemployable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533444</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But its 15 million spam links !!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But its 15 million spam links ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But its 15 million spam links !!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534424</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1259763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's obvious that these pages are just part of the built-in search and will return for any
<a href="http://www.target.com/gp/search?field-keywords=random+search+terms" title="target.com">random search terms</a> [target.com]. They're not doing anything suspicious. The only odd thing is that Google is somehow indexing the pages. It's more likely a bug in Google or someone somewhere thought it'd be amusing to create a bunch of links to Target for random search terms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious that these pages are just part of the built-in search and will return for any random search terms [ target.com ] .
They 're not doing anything suspicious .
The only odd thing is that Google is somehow indexing the pages .
It 's more likely a bug in Google or someone somewhere thought it 'd be amusing to create a bunch of links to Target for random search terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious that these pages are just part of the built-in search and will return for any
random search terms [target.com].
They're not doing anything suspicious.
The only odd thing is that Google is somehow indexing the pages.
It's more likely a bug in Google or someone somewhere thought it'd be amusing to create a bunch of links to Target for random search terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533824</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm convinced that it's intentional. Several - mostly shady - sites are doing it, i.e. pretend there's a search result for your generic terms. Some just say "not found, but try our other crap", while others create pages that actually contain the terms you were looking for with links that lead somewhere totally unrelated.</p><p>As for the "exercise bike" example and why there is no specific landing page, judging from the sheer volume of "not found" pages, they most likely use some sort of dictionary. It's easier to simply spam millions of term combinations. They want people to end up on their site, no matter what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm convinced that it 's intentional .
Several - mostly shady - sites are doing it , i.e .
pretend there 's a search result for your generic terms .
Some just say " not found , but try our other crap " , while others create pages that actually contain the terms you were looking for with links that lead somewhere totally unrelated.As for the " exercise bike " example and why there is no specific landing page , judging from the sheer volume of " not found " pages , they most likely use some sort of dictionary .
It 's easier to simply spam millions of term combinations .
They want people to end up on their site , no matter what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm convinced that it's intentional.
Several - mostly shady - sites are doing it, i.e.
pretend there's a search result for your generic terms.
Some just say "not found, but try our other crap", while others create pages that actually contain the terms you were looking for with links that lead somewhere totally unrelated.As for the "exercise bike" example and why there is no specific landing page, judging from the sheer volume of "not found" pages, they most likely use some sort of dictionary.
It's easier to simply spam millions of term combinations.
They want people to end up on their site, no matter what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534148</id>
	<title>It's already gone</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1259759460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is only 10 minutes old, and I do not see any of the aforementioned results clicking that link.</p><p>The only results I get about "Excersize bike clearance" are all about how Target is spamming search engines! Interesting...</p><p>There isn't a link to target in the first 50 results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is only 10 minutes old , and I do not see any of the aforementioned results clicking that link.The only results I get about " Excersize bike clearance " are all about how Target is spamming search engines !
Interesting...There is n't a link to target in the first 50 results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is only 10 minutes old, and I do not see any of the aforementioned results clicking that link.The only results I get about "Excersize bike clearance" are all about how Target is spamming search engines!
Interesting...There isn't a link to target in the first 50 results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533398</id>
	<title>Target, or Amazon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "target.com" online store is run by Amazon for Target, not by the company that does the brick and mortar stores.  (Long story.)</p><p>So which of them is doing this?  If it's Amazon, it's not exactly surprising -- spammers, patent trolls, and "search engine optimizers" sound like pretty much related categories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " target.com " online store is run by Amazon for Target , not by the company that does the brick and mortar stores .
( Long story .
) So which of them is doing this ?
If it 's Amazon , it 's not exactly surprising -- spammers , patent trolls , and " search engine optimizers " sound like pretty much related categories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "target.com" online store is run by Amazon for Target, not by the company that does the brick and mortar stores.
(Long story.
)So which of them is doing this?
If it's Amazon, it's not exactly surprising -- spammers, patent trolls, and "search engine optimizers" sound like pretty much related categories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535478</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here.</title>
	<author>onepoint</author>
	<datestamp>1259771040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would agree that this is closer to a bug than anything else.</p><p>But good seo work will take advantage of any bug and I feel that they must have put someone in the SEO department and said " hey, let's try this".</p><p>When testing ideas on SEO you always take a tiny non revenue non supporting section that you play with and see how the search engine's behave. the best thing that Google ever did was create the button on webmaster control for "see how we crawl"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... talk about properly learning the different tricks to feed a search engine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>anyway, this whole thing is a non-issue, give it 2 weeks and Google will be clearing this right up and problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree that this is closer to a bug than anything else.But good seo work will take advantage of any bug and I feel that they must have put someone in the SEO department and said " hey , let 's try this " .When testing ideas on SEO you always take a tiny non revenue non supporting section that you play with and see how the search engine 's behave .
the best thing that Google ever did was create the button on webmaster control for " see how we crawl " ... talk about properly learning the different tricks to feed a search engine ...anyway , this whole thing is a non-issue , give it 2 weeks and Google will be clearing this right up and problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree that this is closer to a bug than anything else.But good seo work will take advantage of any bug and I feel that they must have put someone in the SEO department and said " hey, let's try this".When testing ideas on SEO you always take a tiny non revenue non supporting section that you play with and see how the search engine's behave.
the best thing that Google ever did was create the button on webmaster control for "see how we crawl" ... talk about properly learning the different tricks to feed a search engine ...anyway, this whole thing is a non-issue, give it 2 weeks and Google will be clearing this right up and problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533940</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>whencanistop</author>
	<datestamp>1259755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to go with you on the unintentional options here.  But it probably means that someone at Target hasn't really worked out what is going on yet.  I mean - there are some quite sophisticated tracking technologies going on there, someone should know that there are people arriving at these random searching pages from Google and then working out if they actually sell anything from it.  If people then click through to the actual exercise bike pages and buy stuff, then it will probably look like it is profitable and will discourage them from removing it.  Whilst you may think getting them pointed at the 'correct' landing page might lead to higher conversions, it may possibly be that by sending them to the search pages even for things they don't sell, they make more money, because they get visits for things they wouldn't do normally.<br>
<br>
Although it would make more sense if they noidnexed those search results pages, to be fair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to go with you on the unintentional options here .
But it probably means that someone at Target has n't really worked out what is going on yet .
I mean - there are some quite sophisticated tracking technologies going on there , someone should know that there are people arriving at these random searching pages from Google and then working out if they actually sell anything from it .
If people then click through to the actual exercise bike pages and buy stuff , then it will probably look like it is profitable and will discourage them from removing it .
Whilst you may think getting them pointed at the 'correct ' landing page might lead to higher conversions , it may possibly be that by sending them to the search pages even for things they do n't sell , they make more money , because they get visits for things they would n't do normally .
Although it would make more sense if they noidnexed those search results pages , to be fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to go with you on the unintentional options here.
But it probably means that someone at Target hasn't really worked out what is going on yet.
I mean - there are some quite sophisticated tracking technologies going on there, someone should know that there are people arriving at these random searching pages from Google and then working out if they actually sell anything from it.
If people then click through to the actual exercise bike pages and buy stuff, then it will probably look like it is profitable and will discourage them from removing it.
Whilst you may think getting them pointed at the 'correct' landing page might lead to higher conversions, it may possibly be that by sending them to the search pages even for things they don't sell, they make more money, because they get visits for things they wouldn't do normally.
Although it would make more sense if they noidnexed those search results pages, to be fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534130</id>
	<title>New way to game the search engine.</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1259758920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For both google and bing the auto suggest for "exercise bik"  now comes up with "exercise bike clearance" as the top results.  Pushing out the obvious top search choice of "exercise bikes"</htmltext>
<tokenext>For both google and bing the auto suggest for " exercise bik " now comes up with " exercise bike clearance " as the top results .
Pushing out the obvious top search choice of " exercise bikes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For both google and bing the auto suggest for "exercise bik"  now comes up with "exercise bike clearance" as the top results.
Pushing out the obvious top search choice of "exercise bikes"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536438</id>
	<title>Your mom is hot</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1259776920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.target.com/gp/search/178-2905776-2539507?field-keywords=your+mom+is+hot&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index&amp;ref=sr\_bx\_1\_1&amp;x=0&amp;y=0" title="target.com">http://www.target.com/gp/search/178-2905776-2539507?field-keywords=your+mom+is+hot&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index&amp;ref=sr\_bx\_1\_1&amp;x=0&amp;y=0</a> [target.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.target.com/gp/search/178-2905776-2539507 ? field-keywords = your + mom + is + hot&amp;url = index \ % 3Dtarget \ % 26search-alias \ % 3Dtgt-index&amp;ref = sr \ _bx \ _1 \ _1&amp;x = 0&amp;y = 0 [ target.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.target.com/gp/search/178-2905776-2539507?field-keywords=your+mom+is+hot&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index&amp;ref=sr\_bx\_1\_1&amp;x=0&amp;y=0 [target.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534508</id>
	<title>The complaint is valid, regardless</title>
	<author>Capt.Albatross</author>
	<datestamp>1259764440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of motives, this is a valid complaint. If I search for something, I don't want to see anything from anyone who has no information on that topic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of motives , this is a valid complaint .
If I search for something , I do n't want to see anything from anyone who has no information on that topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of motives, this is a valid complaint.
If I search for something, I don't want to see anything from anyone who has no information on that topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534958</id>
	<title>Next Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259767920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been saying it since they took away \_exact\_ text searching.  They peaked.  It's all downhill from here.</p><p>Good thing gets big.  Quality suffers.</p><p>Sometimes case and special characters are what separates exactly what I'm looking for and pages of crap.</p><p>Don't get me started on treating search terms an acronyms and returning pages that don't contain the search term but something, usually an entity name, who's initials make up my search term.  Returning a page that doesn't contain my search term is a failure state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying it since they took away \ _exact \ _ text searching .
They peaked .
It 's all downhill from here.Good thing gets big .
Quality suffers.Sometimes case and special characters are what separates exactly what I 'm looking for and pages of crap.Do n't get me started on treating search terms an acronyms and returning pages that do n't contain the search term but something , usually an entity name , who 's initials make up my search term .
Returning a page that does n't contain my search term is a failure state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying it since they took away \_exact\_ text searching.
They peaked.
It's all downhill from here.Good thing gets big.
Quality suffers.Sometimes case and special characters are what separates exactly what I'm looking for and pages of crap.Don't get me started on treating search terms an acronyms and returning pages that don't contain the search term but something, usually an entity name, who's initials make up my search term.
Returning a page that doesn't contain my search term is a failure state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534026</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1259756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing! Are you sure that even searches the same internet?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing !
Are you sure that even searches the same internet ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing!
Are you sure that even searches the same internet?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533734</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please learn what you're talking about: these aren't generated.  Example:<br><a href="http://www.target.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&amp;index=target&amp;field-browse=1038626&amp;rh=k\%3Aadolf\%20from\%20slashdot" title="target.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.target.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&amp;index=target&amp;field-browse=1038626&amp;rh=k\%3Aadolf\%20from\%20slashdot</a> [target.com] will give a page claiming that the search had no results.  This is exactly the same as, say:<br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=aosdnfons+foasnfo+nafonwefoawenfowng&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=aosdnfons+foasnfo+nafonwefoawenfowng&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8</a> [google.com]  which ALSO has no results.</p><p>So, sometime in the past, someone searched for 'exercise bike' in the clearance section of target.  Then they posted about it, and google found that, and indexed the page.  Then the item went away, and google.. kept indexing the link.  There's no irrelevant keywords here, no hidden text, no hidden links, and the page DOES help users, since coincidentally, it's a search results page correctly informing people of the results.  Yes, that's right, the top result for 'exercise bike clearance' is a search results page from someone else's search engine; in this case it just happens to be target.com's search engine.</p><p>There is NO indication that Target did anything wrong here, I don't understand why no one has noticed that yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please learn what you 're talking about : these are n't generated .
Example : http : //www.target.com/gp/search ? ie = UTF8&amp;index = target&amp;field-browse = 1038626&amp;rh = k \ % 3Aadolf \ % 20from \ % 20slashdot [ target.com ] will give a page claiming that the search had no results .
This is exactly the same as , say : http : //www.google.com/search ? client = safari&amp;rls = en&amp;q = aosdnfons + foasnfo + nafonwefoawenfowng&amp;ie = UTF-8&amp;oe = UTF-8 [ google.com ] which ALSO has no results.So , sometime in the past , someone searched for 'exercise bike ' in the clearance section of target .
Then they posted about it , and google found that , and indexed the page .
Then the item went away , and google.. kept indexing the link .
There 's no irrelevant keywords here , no hidden text , no hidden links , and the page DOES help users , since coincidentally , it 's a search results page correctly informing people of the results .
Yes , that 's right , the top result for 'exercise bike clearance ' is a search results page from someone else 's search engine ; in this case it just happens to be target.com 's search engine.There is NO indication that Target did anything wrong here , I do n't understand why no one has noticed that yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please learn what you're talking about: these aren't generated.
Example:http://www.target.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&amp;index=target&amp;field-browse=1038626&amp;rh=k\%3Aadolf\%20from\%20slashdot [target.com] will give a page claiming that the search had no results.
This is exactly the same as, say:http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=aosdnfons+foasnfo+nafonwefoawenfowng&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8 [google.com]  which ALSO has no results.So, sometime in the past, someone searched for 'exercise bike' in the clearance section of target.
Then they posted about it, and google found that, and indexed the page.
Then the item went away, and google.. kept indexing the link.
There's no irrelevant keywords here, no hidden text, no hidden links, and the page DOES help users, since coincidentally, it's a search results page correctly informing people of the results.
Yes, that's right, the top result for 'exercise bike clearance' is a search results page from someone else's search engine; in this case it just happens to be target.com's search engine.There is NO indication that Target did anything wrong here, I don't understand why no one has noticed that yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535650</id>
	<title>Don't blame Target, blame Google</title>
	<author>itwbennett</author>
	<datestamp>1259772240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's the holiday spirit talking, but I'm not at all bothered by what Target is doing. They're trying to game an unfair system just like everyone else. I'm far more irritated by the hoops that Google makes web publishers jump through. From writing SEO-friendly copy that is practically unreadable by humans, to deciding to penalize sites for syndication agreements, and, most of all, for being vague about exactly what they want everyone to do. Can't tell you how many times I've heard contradictory advice starting with the phrase, "So-and-so at Google told us to do it this way."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's the holiday spirit talking , but I 'm not at all bothered by what Target is doing .
They 're trying to game an unfair system just like everyone else .
I 'm far more irritated by the hoops that Google makes web publishers jump through .
From writing SEO-friendly copy that is practically unreadable by humans , to deciding to penalize sites for syndication agreements , and , most of all , for being vague about exactly what they want everyone to do .
Ca n't tell you how many times I 've heard contradictory advice starting with the phrase , " So-and-so at Google told us to do it this way .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's the holiday spirit talking, but I'm not at all bothered by what Target is doing.
They're trying to game an unfair system just like everyone else.
I'm far more irritated by the hoops that Google makes web publishers jump through.
From writing SEO-friendly copy that is practically unreadable by humans, to deciding to penalize sites for syndication agreements, and, most of all, for being vague about exactly what they want everyone to do.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard contradictory advice starting with the phrase, "So-and-so at Google told us to do it this way.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534310</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1259762280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the article?</p><p>There is nothing wrong with having a page not return results to a search. There isn't anything wrong with responding to the search terms from a referer. As far as I can tell they aren't hiding anything or participating in any kind of link scheme.</p><p>The only issue would be if Target is somehow tricking Google into going to these pages for select terms. More than anything this seems like a bug in Google's algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the article ? There is nothing wrong with having a page not return results to a search .
There is n't anything wrong with responding to the search terms from a referer .
As far as I can tell they are n't hiding anything or participating in any kind of link scheme.The only issue would be if Target is somehow tricking Google into going to these pages for select terms .
More than anything this seems like a bug in Google 's algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the article?There is nothing wrong with having a page not return results to a search.
There isn't anything wrong with responding to the search terms from a referer.
As far as I can tell they aren't hiding anything or participating in any kind of link scheme.The only issue would be if Target is somehow tricking Google into going to these pages for select terms.
More than anything this seems like a bug in Google's algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534456</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259763960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you log into google you get to just click to denote relevance of links, there's a promote button and a remove button. Legend is that google watches this information and ranks down pages regularly removed from results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you log into google you get to just click to denote relevance of links , there 's a promote button and a remove button .
Legend is that google watches this information and ranks down pages regularly removed from results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you log into google you get to just click to denote relevance of links, there's a promote button and a remove button.
Legend is that google watches this information and ranks down pages regularly removed from results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</id>
	<title>Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is obviously not intentional.  If it were intentional, Target would be providing decent landing pages.  For instance, Target actually sells exercise bikes.  If they were intentionally spamming the term "exercise bike", why on earth would they be doing it with an error page rather than provide an actual exercise bike page?  That doesn't make any sense.</p><p>As for Google, I think it's a safe bet that they have zero interest in having these crappy results in their result list.  There's probably some sort of bug affecting this.  Perhaps Target recently changed their site and, in so doing, broke a ton of links that were perfectly valid before?  If so then my guess is that these will disappear after a short time, once the ranking system catches up.</p><p>Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously not intentional .
If it were intentional , Target would be providing decent landing pages .
For instance , Target actually sells exercise bikes .
If they were intentionally spamming the term " exercise bike " , why on earth would they be doing it with an error page rather than provide an actual exercise bike page ?
That does n't make any sense.As for Google , I think it 's a safe bet that they have zero interest in having these crappy results in their result list .
There 's probably some sort of bug affecting this .
Perhaps Target recently changed their site and , in so doing , broke a ton of links that were perfectly valid before ?
If so then my guess is that these will disappear after a short time , once the ranking system catches up.Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously not intentional.
If it were intentional, Target would be providing decent landing pages.
For instance, Target actually sells exercise bikes.
If they were intentionally spamming the term "exercise bike", why on earth would they be doing it with an error page rather than provide an actual exercise bike page?
That doesn't make any sense.As for Google, I think it's a safe bet that they have zero interest in having these crappy results in their result list.
There's probably some sort of bug affecting this.
Perhaps Target recently changed their site and, in so doing, broke a ton of links that were perfectly valid before?
If so then my guess is that these will disappear after a short time, once the ranking system catches up.Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533628</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>El Jynx</author>
	<datestamp>1259747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True enough. Also, doesn't Google frown on that sort of thing? Give it a little publicity and one of Google's engineers might just decide to get medieval on their portly rotund segments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough .
Also , does n't Google frown on that sort of thing ?
Give it a little publicity and one of Google 's engineers might just decide to get medieval on their portly rotund segments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough.
Also, doesn't Google frown on that sort of thing?
Give it a little publicity and one of Google's engineers might just decide to get medieval on their portly rotund segments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534610</id>
	<title>Misleading title</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259765400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Target.com's Agressive SEO Tactic Spams Slahdot". Probably will have hundreds of more visits just managing to be published in slashdot frontpage than with playing with Google algorithms. And after this history is enough discussed and linked everywhere, google algorithms do their normal work putting it to the roof. Why trick robots when people is more than willing to do the dirty work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Target.com 's Agressive SEO Tactic Spams Slahdot " .
Probably will have hundreds of more visits just managing to be published in slashdot frontpage than with playing with Google algorithms .
And after this history is enough discussed and linked everywhere , google algorithms do their normal work putting it to the roof .
Why trick robots when people is more than willing to do the dirty work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Target.com's Agressive SEO Tactic Spams Slahdot".
Probably will have hundreds of more visits just managing to be published in slashdot frontpage than with playing with Google algorithms.
And after this history is enough discussed and linked everywhere, google algorithms do their normal work putting it to the roof.
Why trick robots when people is more than willing to do the dirty work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538992</id>
	<title>Don't be too worried...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did some cross searches to find similar rank results, and get this one:</p><p>Searching for "Anal Massage for Lovers Vol 2" brings put a #5 position for Target!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did some cross searches to find similar rank results , and get this one : Searching for " Anal Massage for Lovers Vol 2 " brings put a # 5 position for Target !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did some cross searches to find similar rank results, and get this one:Searching for "Anal Massage for Lovers Vol 2" brings put a #5 position for Target!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533822</id>
	<title>Page rank is broke.</title>
	<author>Garrynz</author>
	<datestamp>1259751720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Page rank is broke and to be honest it always has been.

"These terms only appear in links pointing to this page".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Page rank is broke and to be honest it always has been .
" These terms only appear in links pointing to this page " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Page rank is broke and to be honest it always has been.
"These terms only appear in links pointing to this page".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534100</id>
	<title>Oh, clever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>exercise bike clearance<br>- Add to iGoogle    Trends chart graph<br>7th most popular search in the past hour.</p><p>Hotness:Spicy<br>google.com/trends</p></div></blockquote><p>Way to go, Fitness Equipment Clearance (whatever that is).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>exercise bike clearance- Add to iGoogle Trends chart graph7th most popular search in the past hour.Hotness : Spicygoogle.com/trendsWay to go , Fitness Equipment Clearance ( whatever that is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exercise bike clearance- Add to iGoogle    Trends chart graph7th most popular search in the past hour.Hotness:Spicygoogle.com/trendsWay to go, Fitness Equipment Clearance (whatever that is).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382</id>
	<title>haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>number 3 on "we could not find"

<a href="http://www.target.com/gp/search/ref=sr\_bmvd\_redirect?field-keywords=Anal\%20Massage\%20for\%20Lovers\%20Vol\%202&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index" title="target.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.target.com/gp/search/ref=sr\_bmvd\_redirect?field-keywords=Anal\%20Massage\%20for\%20Lovers\%20Vol\%202&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index</a> [target.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>number 3 on " we could not find " http : //www.target.com/gp/search/ref = sr \ _bmvd \ _redirect ? field-keywords = Anal \ % 20Massage \ % 20for \ % 20Lovers \ % 20Vol \ % 202&amp;url = index \ % 3Dtarget \ % 26search-alias \ % 3Dtgt-index [ target.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>number 3 on "we could not find"

http://www.target.com/gp/search/ref=sr\_bmvd\_redirect?field-keywords=Anal\%20Massage\%20for\%20Lovers\%20Vol\%202&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index [target.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30540764</id>
	<title>Re:Could have made it a link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259762280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My first result is http://www.fitness-equipment-clearance.co.uk/</p><p>What is the problem here?</p></div><p>Because so many people have been hitting Google that this example is polluted.</p><p>Here's why it's a big deal, I have pasted below the search result. Notice that even though Target's site is coming up (right now about 5th on the list), they don't actually HAVE ANY.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>exercise bike : Clearance : Target Search Results<br>We could not find matches for &ldquo;exercise bike&rdquo;. Please try your search again. Search for: Choose a category: All Categories, Women, Men, Baby, Kids, Home<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>www.target.com/gp/search?...k\%3Aexercise\%20bike - Cached - Similar</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first result is http : //www.fitness-equipment-clearance.co.uk/What is the problem here ? Because so many people have been hitting Google that this example is polluted.Here 's why it 's a big deal , I have pasted below the search result .
Notice that even though Target 's site is coming up ( right now about 5th on the list ) , they do n't actually HAVE ANY.exercise bike : Clearance : Target Search ResultsWe could not find matches for    exercise bike    .
Please try your search again .
Search for : Choose a category : All Categories , Women , Men , Baby , Kids , Home ...www.target.com/gp/search ? ...k \ % 3Aexercise \ % 20bike - Cached - Similar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first result is http://www.fitness-equipment-clearance.co.uk/What is the problem here?Because so many people have been hitting Google that this example is polluted.Here's why it's a big deal, I have pasted below the search result.
Notice that even though Target's site is coming up (right now about 5th on the list), they don't actually HAVE ANY.exercise bike : Clearance : Target Search ResultsWe could not find matches for “exercise bike”.
Please try your search again.
Search for: Choose a category: All Categories, Women, Men, Baby, Kids, Home ...www.target.com/gp/search?...k\%3Aexercise\%20bike - Cached - Similar
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534728</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1259766600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No the writer is pissed because those terms are linking to bogus result pages. If they were legit terms and the results directed to actual items then it would be a win for target and everyone else. But they are spamming the search and as a whole search results get muddied for everyone. It's a legit complaint IMHO. I want real results, not spammed links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No the writer is pissed because those terms are linking to bogus result pages .
If they were legit terms and the results directed to actual items then it would be a win for target and everyone else .
But they are spamming the search and as a whole search results get muddied for everyone .
It 's a legit complaint IMHO .
I want real results , not spammed links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No the writer is pissed because those terms are linking to bogus result pages.
If they were legit terms and the results directed to actual items then it would be a win for target and everyone else.
But they are spamming the search and as a whole search results get muddied for everyone.
It's a legit complaint IMHO.
I want real results, not spammed links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533758</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the tip!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the tip !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the tip!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534044</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>oreaq</author>
	<datestamp>1259757240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or get the CustomizeGoogle plugin and simply remove target.com from all Google search results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or get the CustomizeGoogle plugin and simply remove target.com from all Google search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or get the CustomizeGoogle plugin and simply remove target.com from all Google search results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602</id>
	<title>I have found the solution!...</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1259747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But is on expect-exchange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is on expect-exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is on expect-exchange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362</id>
	<title>Could have made it a link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=exercise+bike+clearance" title="google.com">Exercise Bike Clearance</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exercise Bike Clearance [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exercise Bike Clearance [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533802</id>
	<title>Re:Could have made it a link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first result is http://www.fitness-equipment-clearance.co.uk/<br><br>What is the problem here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first result is http : //www.fitness-equipment-clearance.co.uk/What is the problem here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first result is http://www.fitness-equipment-clearance.co.uk/What is the problem here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536610</id>
	<title>Only Google has this problem</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259777700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I just tried "exercise bike clearance" on Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask, Baidu, AltaVista, and Cuil. Only Google picks up the bogus Target pages.
</p><p>
The problem, I suspect, is Google's "site map" scheme, which allows sites to explicitly specify their page tree for indexing purposes.  Those bogus pages don't have links to them, so the link-based search engines don't find them.
</p><p>
A solution to this is for Google to detect sites with large numbers of pages in their site map that are similar and lack external links.  When that's found, mark the site map as search spam, and index the site based on links only.  That will drop all the bogus pages from the index.  Webmasters will notice this via the webmaster tools and stop doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just tried " exercise bike clearance " on Google , Yahoo , Bing , Ask , Baidu , AltaVista , and Cuil .
Only Google picks up the bogus Target pages .
The problem , I suspect , is Google 's " site map " scheme , which allows sites to explicitly specify their page tree for indexing purposes .
Those bogus pages do n't have links to them , so the link-based search engines do n't find them .
A solution to this is for Google to detect sites with large numbers of pages in their site map that are similar and lack external links .
When that 's found , mark the site map as search spam , and index the site based on links only .
That will drop all the bogus pages from the index .
Webmasters will notice this via the webmaster tools and stop doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I just tried "exercise bike clearance" on Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask, Baidu, AltaVista, and Cuil.
Only Google picks up the bogus Target pages.
The problem, I suspect, is Google's "site map" scheme, which allows sites to explicitly specify their page tree for indexing purposes.
Those bogus pages don't have links to them, so the link-based search engines don't find them.
A solution to this is for Google to detect sites with large numbers of pages in their site map that are similar and lack external links.
When that's found, mark the site map as search spam, and index the site based on links only.
That will drop all the bogus pages from the index.
Webmasters will notice this via the webmaster tools and stop doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533416</id>
	<title>SEO'er complaining about competitions SEO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259787300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So an SEO'er is complaining because someone else is ranking higher for some SEO terms.  I bet the article write was paid to optimize some pages and couldn't get them higher than Target's, so he is trying a different approach to knock Target down.</p><p>Live by the sword, die by the sword.  Why is Slashdot even giving a link to an SEO'er for this lame article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So an SEO'er is complaining because someone else is ranking higher for some SEO terms .
I bet the article write was paid to optimize some pages and could n't get them higher than Target 's , so he is trying a different approach to knock Target down.Live by the sword , die by the sword .
Why is Slashdot even giving a link to an SEO'er for this lame article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So an SEO'er is complaining because someone else is ranking higher for some SEO terms.
I bet the article write was paid to optimize some pages and couldn't get them higher than Target's, so he is trying a different approach to knock Target down.Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Why is Slashdot even giving a link to an SEO'er for this lame article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535032</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1259768460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could go for thousands of links being attributed to incompetence.</p><p>But we're talking about 14.8 MILLION dead links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could go for thousands of links being attributed to incompetence.But we 're talking about 14.8 MILLION dead links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could go for thousands of links being attributed to incompetence.But we're talking about 14.8 MILLION dead links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536226</id>
	<title>Should be using 410 http code</title>
	<author>dhammond</author>
	<datestamp>1259775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I think Target could fix this pretty easily.  They are sending a "302 Found" response for the original request and redirecting to the search results.  They should be sending "410 Gone".  The 302 tells Google that the search result page is the new location for the page.

Now, maybe Target doesn't mind getting all that extra traffic, and if they're using the wrong reponse code on purpose, that does seem like a form of spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think Target could fix this pretty easily .
They are sending a " 302 Found " response for the original request and redirecting to the search results .
They should be sending " 410 Gone " .
The 302 tells Google that the search result page is the new location for the page .
Now , maybe Target does n't mind getting all that extra traffic , and if they 're using the wrong reponse code on purpose , that does seem like a form of spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think Target could fix this pretty easily.
They are sending a "302 Found" response for the original request and redirecting to the search results.
They should be sending "410 Gone".
The 302 tells Google that the search result page is the new location for the page.
Now, maybe Target doesn't mind getting all that extra traffic, and if they're using the wrong reponse code on purpose, that does seem like a form of spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534188</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they just aren't that good.  Hanlon's Razor?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon\%27s\_razor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they just are n't that good .
Hanlon 's Razor ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon \ % 27s \ _razor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they just aren't that good.
Hanlon's Razor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon\%27s\_razor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30537794</id>
	<title>Slashdotted other sites</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259784840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems we have slashdotted the first couple web sites that come before Target when using google.co.uk .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems we have slashdotted the first couple web sites that come before Target when using google.co.uk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems we have slashdotted the first couple web sites that come before Target when using google.co.uk .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534024</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259756880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Matches for anal massage? They must be really tight assed at Target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Matches for anal massage ?
They must be really tight assed at Target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Matches for anal massage?
They must be really tight assed at Target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533406</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259787000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just removed it and commented that Target.com was spamming Google. I added that I found this on Slashdot.</p><p>I wonder if the slashdot effect works with this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just removed it and commented that Target.com was spamming Google .
I added that I found this on Slashdot.I wonder if the slashdot effect works with this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just removed it and commented that Target.com was spamming Google.
I added that I found this on Slashdot.I wonder if the slashdot effect works with this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533882</id>
	<title>Re:Could have made it a link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly if you change the search phrase to "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=unsafe+exercise+bike+clearance" title="google.com">unsafe exercise bike clearance</a> [google.com]" Target drops down to the fourth hit on the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly if you change the search phrase to " unsafe exercise bike clearance [ google.com ] " Target drops down to the fourth hit on the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly if you change the search phrase to "unsafe exercise bike clearance [google.com]" Target drops down to the fourth hit on the list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534454</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1259763960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are linking to an old product URL (Target sometimes has humorous products on their site), which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product. Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same (you'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL, not the search result URL).</p></div><p>Good sleuthing there.  It's a clever feature to run a search on similar products if the desired one is not found.  It may or may not have been intentional for Target to pollute search results with garbage.  However, Google's mission statement is "To organize the world's information and make it useful", and failed retailer SERPs are not information nor useful.</p><p>This is hardly a new issue, though.  Try looking for walkthroughs for a video game that has just been released and you'll find many SERPs full of "game123 walkthrough" links, only to click them and find a page with the content "be the first to submit your walkthrough."  Misleading search users is a failure of Google's mission statement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are linking to an old product URL ( Target sometimes has humorous products on their site ) , which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product .
Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same ( you 'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL , not the search result URL ) .Good sleuthing there .
It 's a clever feature to run a search on similar products if the desired one is not found .
It may or may not have been intentional for Target to pollute search results with garbage .
However , Google 's mission statement is " To organize the world 's information and make it useful " , and failed retailer SERPs are not information nor useful.This is hardly a new issue , though .
Try looking for walkthroughs for a video game that has just been released and you 'll find many SERPs full of " game123 walkthrough " links , only to click them and find a page with the content " be the first to submit your walkthrough .
" Misleading search users is a failure of Google 's mission statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are linking to an old product URL (Target sometimes has humorous products on their site), which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product.
Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same (you'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL, not the search result URL).Good sleuthing there.
It's a clever feature to run a search on similar products if the desired one is not found.
It may or may not have been intentional for Target to pollute search results with garbage.
However, Google's mission statement is "To organize the world's information and make it useful", and failed retailer SERPs are not information nor useful.This is hardly a new issue, though.
Try looking for walkthroughs for a video game that has just been released and you'll find many SERPs full of "game123 walkthrough" links, only to click them and find a page with the content "be the first to submit your walkthrough.
"  Misleading search users is a failure of Google's mission statement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536530</id>
	<title>Re:How are these getting indexed?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259777280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not wrong.<br>Google has no authority here.</p><p>They can choose who to index, but they can't tell someone how to have a website behave. Google is full of ranking that violate the three guidelines you emphasized.</p><p>So screw Google. If they don't want to index target.com that's fine, but when someone goes to search for it and it doesn't show up on Google they will assume Google is broke and move on to Bing.<br>If Google to return what the user wants, it IS broke, BTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not wrong.Google has no authority here.They can choose who to index , but they ca n't tell someone how to have a website behave .
Google is full of ranking that violate the three guidelines you emphasized.So screw Google .
If they do n't want to index target.com that 's fine , but when someone goes to search for it and it does n't show up on Google they will assume Google is broke and move on to Bing.If Google to return what the user wants , it IS broke , BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not wrong.Google has no authority here.They can choose who to index, but they can't tell someone how to have a website behave.
Google is full of ranking that violate the three guidelines you emphasized.So screw Google.
If they don't want to index target.com that's fine, but when someone goes to search for it and it doesn't show up on Google they will assume Google is broke and move on to Bing.If Google to return what the user wants, it IS broke, BTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533694</id>
	<title>Acronym</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing??? Bah! I'm Not Going there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing ? ? ?
Bah ! I 'm Not Going there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing???
Bah! I'm Not Going there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google for link:http://www.target.com/gp/search/ref=sr\_bmvd\_redirect?field-keywords=Anal\%20Massage\%20for\%20Lovers\%20Vol\%202&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index. Six sites are linking to it! It's showing up in Google's results <b>because people are linking to it</b>.
<br> <br>
Of course, the story is a bit trickier than that. People are linking to an old product URL (Target sometimes has humorous products on their site), which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product. Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same (you'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL, not the search result URL).
<br> <br>
In many cases, this is a reasonable thing to do. People point to content they care about. They usually don't care what the exact URL is. If the URL changes, they likely still care about the original content. Target's redirection breaks this assumption, but I'm not sure there's a straight-forward fix. Perhaps they could return a 404 response (with the same content) when redirecting from a broken product URL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google for link : http : //www.target.com/gp/search/ref = sr \ _bmvd \ _redirect ? field-keywords = Anal \ % 20Massage \ % 20for \ % 20Lovers \ % 20Vol \ % 202&amp;url = index \ % 3Dtarget \ % 26search-alias \ % 3Dtgt-index .
Six sites are linking to it !
It 's showing up in Google 's results because people are linking to it .
Of course , the story is a bit trickier than that .
People are linking to an old product URL ( Target sometimes has humorous products on their site ) , which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product .
Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same ( you 'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL , not the search result URL ) .
In many cases , this is a reasonable thing to do .
People point to content they care about .
They usually do n't care what the exact URL is .
If the URL changes , they likely still care about the original content .
Target 's redirection breaks this assumption , but I 'm not sure there 's a straight-forward fix .
Perhaps they could return a 404 response ( with the same content ) when redirecting from a broken product URL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google for link:http://www.target.com/gp/search/ref=sr\_bmvd\_redirect?field-keywords=Anal\%20Massage\%20for\%20Lovers\%20Vol\%202&amp;url=index\%3Dtarget\%26search-alias\%3Dtgt-index.
Six sites are linking to it!
It's showing up in Google's results because people are linking to it.
Of course, the story is a bit trickier than that.
People are linking to an old product URL (Target sometimes has humorous products on their site), which Target redirects to a search page when they no longer carry the product.
Google indexes this redirect and treats both URLs as the roughly the same (you'll notice that the links you find above point to a product URL, not the search result URL).
In many cases, this is a reasonable thing to do.
People point to content they care about.
They usually don't care what the exact URL is.
If the URL changes, they likely still care about the original content.
Target's redirection breaks this assumption, but I'm not sure there's a straight-forward fix.
Perhaps they could return a 404 response (with the same content) when redirecting from a broken product URL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534220</id>
	<title>Is the submitter retarded?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259761200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this spam?  Seriously.  It only takes a second or two to figure out what happened:<br>1. They were selling a product and made a URL for the page listing that project.<br>2. People linked to that page (and google ended up indexing it).<br>3. They stopped selling that product, so the URL is no longer valid.  Instead of just returning a 404, they changed it to a search page, so you might find a similar product to what you were looking for.<br>4. Someone clicks the link to the page for the product google indexed, and the search page at target is sent.</p><p>Should google index those pages?  Maybe not, but since they aren't strictly error pages, and at one point they were normal pages, it makes sense that they would index them normally.  I don't think this is a secret communist ploy by Dr. Evil of Target corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this spam ?
Seriously. It only takes a second or two to figure out what happened : 1 .
They were selling a product and made a URL for the page listing that project.2 .
People linked to that page ( and google ended up indexing it ) .3 .
They stopped selling that product , so the URL is no longer valid .
Instead of just returning a 404 , they changed it to a search page , so you might find a similar product to what you were looking for.4 .
Someone clicks the link to the page for the product google indexed , and the search page at target is sent.Should google index those pages ?
Maybe not , but since they are n't strictly error pages , and at one point they were normal pages , it makes sense that they would index them normally .
I do n't think this is a secret communist ploy by Dr. Evil of Target corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this spam?
Seriously.  It only takes a second or two to figure out what happened:1.
They were selling a product and made a URL for the page listing that project.2.
People linked to that page (and google ended up indexing it).3.
They stopped selling that product, so the URL is no longer valid.
Instead of just returning a 404, they changed it to a search page, so you might find a similar product to what you were looking for.4.
Someone clicks the link to the page for the product google indexed, and the search page at target is sent.Should google index those pages?
Maybe not, but since they aren't strictly error pages, and at one point they were normal pages, it makes sense that they would index them normally.
I don't think this is a secret communist ploy by Dr. Evil of Target corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533380</id>
	<title>I see what you did there...</title>
	<author>Centurix</author>
	<datestamp>1259786520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously work for the ONLINE FITNESS CLEARANCE STORE. Attempting to get a health equipment store slashdotted would seem like an impossible task.</p><p>BREWERY CLEARANCE STORE, now there's a Google search worth submitting. I'll be in my car driving to the Plank Road Brewery. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously work for the ONLINE FITNESS CLEARANCE STORE .
Attempting to get a health equipment store slashdotted would seem like an impossible task.BREWERY CLEARANCE STORE , now there 's a Google search worth submitting .
I 'll be in my car driving to the Plank Road Brewery .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously work for the ONLINE FITNESS CLEARANCE STORE.
Attempting to get a health equipment store slashdotted would seem like an impossible task.BREWERY CLEARANCE STORE, now there's a Google search worth submitting.
I'll be in my car driving to the Plank Road Brewery.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534712</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>interiot</author>
	<datestamp>1259766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At one point, Target had <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/20/targetcom-sells-anal.html" title="boingboing.net">mirrored Amazon's product pages</a> [boingboing.net], which resulted in Target appearing to sell <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/28/targetcom\_sells\_mari.html" title="boingboing.net">marijuana</a> [boingboing.net] and an <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/23/target-sells-anal-ma.html" title="boingboing.net">anus constricting book</a> [boingboing.net].  However, that was FIVE YEARS ago.  You'd think that Google would eventually figure out that these products are long-dead, and purge them from their index.

</p><p>Or does Google keep things around forever?  Psychologists have discovered that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting" title="wikipedia.org">forgetting old memories</a> [wikipedia.org] is actually useful.  Maybe Google should follow suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At one point , Target had mirrored Amazon 's product pages [ boingboing.net ] , which resulted in Target appearing to sell marijuana [ boingboing.net ] and an anus constricting book [ boingboing.net ] .
However , that was FIVE YEARS ago .
You 'd think that Google would eventually figure out that these products are long-dead , and purge them from their index .
Or does Google keep things around forever ?
Psychologists have discovered that forgetting old memories [ wikipedia.org ] is actually useful .
Maybe Google should follow suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one point, Target had mirrored Amazon's product pages [boingboing.net], which resulted in Target appearing to sell marijuana [boingboing.net] and an anus constricting book [boingboing.net].
However, that was FIVE YEARS ago.
You'd think that Google would eventually figure out that these products are long-dead, and purge them from their index.
Or does Google keep things around forever?
Psychologists have discovered that forgetting old memories [wikipedia.org] is actually useful.
Maybe Google should follow suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534594</id>
	<title>The Slashdot effect</title>
	<author>Lillebo</author>
	<datestamp>1259765220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"exercise bike clearance" is apparently the second hottest search query right now...<br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X&amp;oi=prbx\_hot\_trends&amp;ct=more-results" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X&amp;oi=prbx\_hot\_trends&amp;ct=more-results</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" exercise bike clearance " is apparently the second hottest search query right now.. . http : //www.google.com/trends/hottrends ? sa = X&amp;oi = prbx \ _hot \ _trends&amp;ct = more-results [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"exercise bike clearance" is apparently the second hottest search query right now...
http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X&amp;oi=prbx\_hot\_trends&amp;ct=more-results [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535606</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If it were intentional, Target would be providing decent landing pages." Not necessarily. As a previous poster pointed out, Target has about 14 million of these links. Let's say the plan was to spam the search engines, so that target.com shows up at the top for any of 14 million or so search terms. They don't care about really helping the person find what they were looking for, they just want to get them on the site. So they're not going to make custom landing pages for 14 million search terms.</p><p>For example, I visited a site that came up in the search results for "Natalie Portman naked and covered in hot grits". But they didn't have any sort of naked grits-covered Natalie Portman landing page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If it were intentional , Target would be providing decent landing pages .
" Not necessarily .
As a previous poster pointed out , Target has about 14 million of these links .
Let 's say the plan was to spam the search engines , so that target.com shows up at the top for any of 14 million or so search terms .
They do n't care about really helping the person find what they were looking for , they just want to get them on the site .
So they 're not going to make custom landing pages for 14 million search terms.For example , I visited a site that came up in the search results for " Natalie Portman naked and covered in hot grits " .
But they did n't have any sort of naked grits-covered Natalie Portman landing page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If it were intentional, Target would be providing decent landing pages.
" Not necessarily.
As a previous poster pointed out, Target has about 14 million of these links.
Let's say the plan was to spam the search engines, so that target.com shows up at the top for any of 14 million or so search terms.
They don't care about really helping the person find what they were looking for, they just want to get them on the site.
So they're not going to make custom landing pages for 14 million search terms.For example, I visited a site that came up in the search results for "Natalie Portman naked and covered in hot grits".
But they didn't have any sort of naked grits-covered Natalie Portman landing page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534794</id>
	<title>Money, money, money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259766900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing SEM research the other day I did find it surprising that Target had taken over as the #1 spender at almost $500k per day according to spyfu.com.</p><p>1 target.com $423,581.84<br>2 ebay.com $395,401.14<br>3 amazon.com $341,729.78<br>4 expedia.com $328,923.27<br>5 google.com $326,629.21</p><p>Why would Google do anything about Target when they are spending so much money? I guess you can just pay your way to the top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing SEM research the other day I did find it surprising that Target had taken over as the # 1 spender at almost $ 500k per day according to spyfu.com.1 target.com $ 423,581.842 ebay.com $ 395,401.143 amazon.com $ 341,729.784 expedia.com $ 328,923.275 google.com $ 326,629.21Why would Google do anything about Target when they are spending so much money ?
I guess you can just pay your way to the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing SEM research the other day I did find it surprising that Target had taken over as the #1 spender at almost $500k per day according to spyfu.com.1 target.com $423,581.842 ebay.com $395,401.143 amazon.com $341,729.784 expedia.com $328,923.275 google.com $326,629.21Why would Google do anything about Target when they are spending so much money?
I guess you can just pay your way to the top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534920</id>
	<title>Re:Target, or Amazon?</title>
	<author>interiot</author>
	<datestamp>1259767680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/12/03/targetcom-no-blowjob.html" title="boingboing.net">"When a guest logs on to Target.com and searches for a particular word, that search includes Amazon.com's millions of books, music and (movie) titles," Target said in its statement. "Target.com is currently working with Amazon.com to suppress certain titles from the Amazon.com catalog from appearing on the Target.com web site."</a> [boingboing.net]

</p><p>For a while, Target appeared to be selling marijuana, MDMA, crack, blowjobs, etc.  Those have since been removed from Target.com, but Google is apparently still indexing those product searches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When a guest logs on to Target.com and searches for a particular word , that search includes Amazon.com 's millions of books , music and ( movie ) titles , " Target said in its statement .
" Target.com is currently working with Amazon.com to suppress certain titles from the Amazon.com catalog from appearing on the Target.com web site .
" [ boingboing.net ] For a while , Target appeared to be selling marijuana , MDMA , crack , blowjobs , etc .
Those have since been removed from Target.com , but Google is apparently still indexing those product searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "When a guest logs on to Target.com and searches for a particular word, that search includes Amazon.com's millions of books, music and (movie) titles," Target said in its statement.
"Target.com is currently working with Amazon.com to suppress certain titles from the Amazon.com catalog from appearing on the Target.com web site.
" [boingboing.net]

For a while, Target appeared to be selling marijuana, MDMA, crack, blowjobs, etc.
Those have since been removed from Target.com, but Google is apparently still indexing those product searches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533950</id>
	<title>Google problem only - not Bing</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1259755260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chalk one up for Bing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chalk one up for Bing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chalk one up for Bing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534056</id>
	<title>SEO spams Google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259757420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that the whole point of SEO? If your site has useful content and you want good pagerank, just write well-structured, accessible HTML with a sitemap and spread the news. If your site is spam, use SEO. "But", <a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=35291" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">says</a> [google.com], "you can also risk damage to your site and reputation".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that the whole point of SEO ?
If your site has useful content and you want good pagerank , just write well-structured , accessible HTML with a sitemap and spread the news .
If your site is spam , use SEO .
" But " , says [ google.com ] , " you can also risk damage to your site and reputation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that the whole point of SEO?
If your site has useful content and you want good pagerank, just write well-structured, accessible HTML with a sitemap and spread the news.
If your site is spam, use SEO.
"But", says [google.com], "you can also risk damage to your site and reputation".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536420</id>
	<title>Calm down Francis.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259776860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, Target just generates a page when a search has no results. Big Deal. It's not a game, and many places do this.</p><p>BTW, targets page was the third one when I search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance' .</p><p>I'm not sure how this 'breaks googles rules'. Which is a stupid statement because it assumes Goggle is some sort of authority of what people can do on the web; which they are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , Target just generates a page when a search has no results .
Big Deal .
It 's not a game , and many places do this.BTW , targets page was the third one when I search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance ' .I 'm not sure how this 'breaks googles rules' .
Which is a stupid statement because it assumes Goggle is some sort of authority of what people can do on the web ; which they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, Target just generates a page when a search has no results.
Big Deal.
It's not a game, and many places do this.BTW, targets page was the third one when I search for 'Exercise Bike Clearance' .I'm not sure how this 'breaks googles rules'.
Which is a stupid statement because it assumes Goggle is some sort of authority of what people can do on the web; which they are not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533890</id>
	<title>Search engines should be more interchangeable</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1259753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is a great search engine that is liked by a lot of people. However, too much power in the hands of one company is undesirable, as we all know.<br>For example, when the service starts to break down, like in this instance.</p><p>Therefore, I believe that search engines should be made more interchangeable, just like other products, e.g., email programs (gmail vs. yahoo), processors (Intel vs AMD), etc.<br>Google is commoditizing the software world, which is a good thing (well not for some developers), but search engines should be just as interchangeable. In some respect, search engines are already interchangeable, since you can just go to any other search site (yahoo, etc.). However, it turns out that users do not easily make the switch. This has to do (mostly, I think) with user-experience.</p><p>So how can we improve the situation? By allowing the user to have the same (or almost the same) experience independent of the chosen search engine.<br>This can be achieved by having an open search API that can be accessed by web-browsers (or third-party websites), so that the user-interface is decoupled from the search-engine. Such an API should implement things like "give me the first 10 search results for some query", "give me a cached version", "give me similar links", etc.</p><p>Of course, major search engines would not easily switch to such a method, since their influence on the user would be restricted by that (they cannot anymore control the placement of ads, other than in the search result list). However, the smaller search engines (altavista, yahoo, bing) could start to support such a scheme, and cooperate with browser implementors (mozilla), to gain more market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is a great search engine that is liked by a lot of people .
However , too much power in the hands of one company is undesirable , as we all know.For example , when the service starts to break down , like in this instance.Therefore , I believe that search engines should be made more interchangeable , just like other products , e.g. , email programs ( gmail vs. yahoo ) , processors ( Intel vs AMD ) , etc.Google is commoditizing the software world , which is a good thing ( well not for some developers ) , but search engines should be just as interchangeable .
In some respect , search engines are already interchangeable , since you can just go to any other search site ( yahoo , etc. ) .
However , it turns out that users do not easily make the switch .
This has to do ( mostly , I think ) with user-experience.So how can we improve the situation ?
By allowing the user to have the same ( or almost the same ) experience independent of the chosen search engine.This can be achieved by having an open search API that can be accessed by web-browsers ( or third-party websites ) , so that the user-interface is decoupled from the search-engine .
Such an API should implement things like " give me the first 10 search results for some query " , " give me a cached version " , " give me similar links " , etc.Of course , major search engines would not easily switch to such a method , since their influence on the user would be restricted by that ( they can not anymore control the placement of ads , other than in the search result list ) .
However , the smaller search engines ( altavista , yahoo , bing ) could start to support such a scheme , and cooperate with browser implementors ( mozilla ) , to gain more market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is a great search engine that is liked by a lot of people.
However, too much power in the hands of one company is undesirable, as we all know.For example, when the service starts to break down, like in this instance.Therefore, I believe that search engines should be made more interchangeable, just like other products, e.g., email programs (gmail vs. yahoo), processors (Intel vs AMD), etc.Google is commoditizing the software world, which is a good thing (well not for some developers), but search engines should be just as interchangeable.
In some respect, search engines are already interchangeable, since you can just go to any other search site (yahoo, etc.).
However, it turns out that users do not easily make the switch.
This has to do (mostly, I think) with user-experience.So how can we improve the situation?
By allowing the user to have the same (or almost the same) experience independent of the chosen search engine.This can be achieved by having an open search API that can be accessed by web-browsers (or third-party websites), so that the user-interface is decoupled from the search-engine.
Such an API should implement things like "give me the first 10 search results for some query", "give me a cached version", "give me similar links", etc.Of course, major search engines would not easily switch to such a method, since their influence on the user would be restricted by that (they cannot anymore control the placement of ads, other than in the search result list).
However, the smaller search engines (altavista, yahoo, bing) could start to support such a scheme, and cooperate with browser implementors (mozilla), to gain more market share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533496</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it is easy, but before we all do this, we should consider who the article writer is.  The article is written by an SEO'er, and I can only guess that they are trying to compete on some terms for which Target currently outranks them.  Why would we work to hinder one company's SEO work just to help another SEO'er?</p><p>The entire article is just the complaining of a butthurt SEO'er because they couldn't get their own terms to rank.  This shouldn't have even made Slashdot, since this isn't supposed to be the trolling ground for Internet Marketers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is easy , but before we all do this , we should consider who the article writer is .
The article is written by an SEO'er , and I can only guess that they are trying to compete on some terms for which Target currently outranks them .
Why would we work to hinder one company 's SEO work just to help another SEO'er ? The entire article is just the complaining of a butthurt SEO'er because they could n't get their own terms to rank .
This should n't have even made Slashdot , since this is n't supposed to be the trolling ground for Internet Marketers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is easy, but before we all do this, we should consider who the article writer is.
The article is written by an SEO'er, and I can only guess that they are trying to compete on some terms for which Target currently outranks them.
Why would we work to hinder one company's SEO work just to help another SEO'er?The entire article is just the complaining of a butthurt SEO'er because they couldn't get their own terms to rank.
This shouldn't have even made Slashdot, since this isn't supposed to be the trolling ground for Internet Marketers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534262</id>
	<title>Re:haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259761740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe in some cases people are linking, but 6 links should not make it to the top of google's first page. Furthermore, Target pay for top placement, nothing wrong in that in itself, but Target claim to contain almost everything you search for, including famous dead people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe in some cases people are linking , but 6 links should not make it to the top of google 's first page .
Furthermore , Target pay for top placement , nothing wrong in that in itself , but Target claim to contain almost everything you search for , including famous dead people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe in some cases people are linking, but 6 links should not make it to the top of google's first page.
Furthermore, Target pay for top placement, nothing wrong in that in itself, but Target claim to contain almost everything you search for, including famous dead people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534850</id>
	<title>Blog is Down</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1259767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was actually going to read the blog, but it is down.  Why is this on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. frontpage when the url about why this is happening does not work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was actually going to read the blog , but it is down .
Why is this on the / .
frontpage when the url about why this is happening does not work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was actually going to read the blog, but it is down.
Why is this on the /.
frontpage when the url about why this is happening does not work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533852</id>
	<title>Re:Easy response</title>
	<author>LtCol Burrito</author>
	<datestamp>1259752560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>

(Sorry, my friend, I just have to go here)<br> <br>  OK, so you want us to stick it to the big monopolistic corporation by using....Bing?? Way to fight for the little guy!! Stickin it to the man!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Sorry , my friend , I just have to go here ) OK , so you want us to stick it to the big monopolistic corporation by using....Bing ? ?
Way to fight for the little guy ! !
Stickin it to the man !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

(Sorry, my friend, I just have to go here)   OK, so you want us to stick it to the big monopolistic corporation by using....Bing??
Way to fight for the little guy!!
Stickin it to the man!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535268</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously not intentional</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence."</p><p>But punish both to deter others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence .
" But punish both to deter others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by incompetence.
"But punish both to deter others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30540764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30540102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_0040252_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533734
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30540102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30535478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30540764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_0040252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30538732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30536040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30533496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_0040252.30534728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
