<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_15_169227</id>
	<title>Bing Gaining Market Share Faster</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263576360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>sopssa sends along a TechCrunch report on comScore qSearch numbers indicating that <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/15/bing-search-market-share-december-2009/">Bing is currently gaining market share faster than ever before</a>. <i>"In December, Microsoft's search engine gained another 0.4 percent to capture 10.7 percent of US search queries. That makes five straight months of steady share gains for Bing since it launched &mdash; Bing's share is up 2.7 percent in total since May, 2009. Google gained only 0.2 percent to end the month with 65.7 percent market share. What is even more interesting is if you look at year-over-year query growth rates for each search engine. Bing's growth is actually accelerating. Its growth rate in query volume was 49.4 percent in December."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>sopssa sends along a TechCrunch report on comScore qSearch numbers indicating that Bing is currently gaining market share faster than ever before .
" In December , Microsoft 's search engine gained another 0.4 percent to capture 10.7 percent of US search queries .
That makes five straight months of steady share gains for Bing since it launched    Bing 's share is up 2.7 percent in total since May , 2009 .
Google gained only 0.2 percent to end the month with 65.7 percent market share .
What is even more interesting is if you look at year-over-year query growth rates for each search engine .
Bing 's growth is actually accelerating .
Its growth rate in query volume was 49.4 percent in December .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sopssa sends along a TechCrunch report on comScore qSearch numbers indicating that Bing is currently gaining market share faster than ever before.
"In December, Microsoft's search engine gained another 0.4 percent to capture 10.7 percent of US search queries.
That makes five straight months of steady share gains for Bing since it launched — Bing's share is up 2.7 percent in total since May, 2009.
Google gained only 0.2 percent to end the month with 65.7 percent market share.
What is even more interesting is if you look at year-over-year query growth rates for each search engine.
Bing's growth is actually accelerating.
Its growth rate in query volume was 49.4 percent in December.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782248</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>unusual\_id</author>
	<datestamp>1263585900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the case with Google as well. All the default homepages with Firefox installs have surely helped?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the case with Google as well .
All the default homepages with Firefox installs have surely helped ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the case with Google as well.
All the default homepages with Firefox installs have surely helped?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782166</id>
	<title>pr0n - the other white meat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didnt see anyone mention it, but porn searching is one thing Bing seems to do better than Google.  Less crap, and mouseover previews (with sound).  Definitely makes finding things easier (rather than just seeing a thumbnail and trying to guess if she's ugly or not based on a single screen cap).</p><p>I search everything else in Google, but Bing has won my porn searches for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt see anyone mention it , but porn searching is one thing Bing seems to do better than Google .
Less crap , and mouseover previews ( with sound ) .
Definitely makes finding things easier ( rather than just seeing a thumbnail and trying to guess if she 's ugly or not based on a single screen cap ) .I search everything else in Google , but Bing has won my porn searches for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt see anyone mention it, but porn searching is one thing Bing seems to do better than Google.
Less crap, and mouseover previews (with sound).
Definitely makes finding things easier (rather than just seeing a thumbnail and trying to guess if she's ugly or not based on a single screen cap).I search everything else in Google, but Bing has won my porn searches for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781502</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>dfxk</author>
	<datestamp>1263582780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I call astroturfing!



Go ahead and type in "heart attack symptoms" &#246;r "Heimlich maneuver" and watch the useless information it brings up. MS sets Bing as default search and thereby kills people in need of vital information fast. You read it here first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call astroturfing !
Go ahead and type in " heart attack symptoms "   r " Heimlich maneuver " and watch the useless information it brings up .
MS sets Bing as default search and thereby kills people in need of vital information fast .
You read it here first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call astroturfing!
Go ahead and type in "heart attack symptoms" ör "Heimlich maneuver" and watch the useless information it brings up.
MS sets Bing as default search and thereby kills people in need of vital information fast.
You read it here first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781572</id>
	<title>Bing Privacy Policy  Google Privacy Policy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better search results and a better privacy policy made me switch from Google to Bing.  I do not have anything to hide but I prefer to use tools and services that value my privacy as much as I do.  For example, Bing will remove the entire IP associated with the log after 18 months:</p><p> <i>Further, we have built-in technological and procedural safeguards designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data. We take additional steps to protect the privacy of stored search information by removing the entirety of the IP address, cookies and other cross session identifiers, after 18 months(more info <a href="http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/bing.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [microsoft.com]).</i></p><p>On the other hand Google will remove at most last octet from the IP address from <a href="http://searchengineland.com/anonymizing-googles-server-log-data-hows-it-going-15036" title="searchengineland.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [searchengineland.com]article:</p><p> <i>We are removing the last octet of the IP address. In other words, we put zeros into the last eight bits of a 32-bit IP address. Technically speaking, there can be one to three digits in the last octet, when it is written in decimal notation.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better search results and a better privacy policy made me switch from Google to Bing .
I do not have anything to hide but I prefer to use tools and services that value my privacy as much as I do .
For example , Bing will remove the entire IP associated with the log after 18 months : Further , we have built-in technological and procedural safeguards designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data .
We take additional steps to protect the privacy of stored search information by removing the entirety of the IP address , cookies and other cross session identifiers , after 18 months ( more info here [ microsoft.com ] ) .On the other hand Google will remove at most last octet from the IP address from this [ searchengineland.com ] article : We are removing the last octet of the IP address .
In other words , we put zeros into the last eight bits of a 32-bit IP address .
Technically speaking , there can be one to three digits in the last octet , when it is written in decimal notation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better search results and a better privacy policy made me switch from Google to Bing.
I do not have anything to hide but I prefer to use tools and services that value my privacy as much as I do.
For example, Bing will remove the entire IP associated with the log after 18 months: Further, we have built-in technological and procedural safeguards designed to prevent the unauthorized correlation of this data.
We take additional steps to protect the privacy of stored search information by removing the entirety of the IP address, cookies and other cross session identifiers, after 18 months(more info here [microsoft.com]).On the other hand Google will remove at most last octet from the IP address from this [searchengineland.com]article: We are removing the last octet of the IP address.
In other words, we put zeros into the last eight bits of a 32-bit IP address.
Technically speaking, there can be one to three digits in the last octet, when it is written in decimal notation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782980</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1263589080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. I expected to see this, since the same thing is posted every time Bing market share is brought up.. but how do you explain the growth accelerating? I can see it accelerating due to those explanations for a week, maybe 2, but months? That's just nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I expected to see this , since the same thing is posted every time Bing market share is brought up.. but how do you explain the growth accelerating ?
I can see it accelerating due to those explanations for a week , maybe 2 , but months ?
That 's just nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I expected to see this, since the same thing is posted every time Bing market share is brought up.. but how do you explain the growth accelerating?
I can see it accelerating due to those explanations for a week, maybe 2, but months?
That's just nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781526</id>
	<title>But Google didn't lose - it gained!</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1263582840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, when I look at the graph in TFA the Search Share for Google increased just as much as Bing did!  In Dec-08, MS sites were at 8.3\%, up to 10.7\% in Dec-09.  During that same timespan, Google went from 63.5\% to 65.7\%.<br> <br>

And in that timespan, Yahoo dropped from 20.5\% to 17.3\%.  AOL also dropped from 3.8\% to 2.6\%.  Guess what - MSN isn't stealing Google's shares yet.  It's stealing from Google's competitors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , when I look at the graph in TFA the Search Share for Google increased just as much as Bing did !
In Dec-08 , MS sites were at 8.3 \ % , up to 10.7 \ % in Dec-09 .
During that same timespan , Google went from 63.5 \ % to 65.7 \ % .
And in that timespan , Yahoo dropped from 20.5 \ % to 17.3 \ % .
AOL also dropped from 3.8 \ % to 2.6 \ % .
Guess what - MSN is n't stealing Google 's shares yet .
It 's stealing from Google 's competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, when I look at the graph in TFA the Search Share for Google increased just as much as Bing did!
In Dec-08, MS sites were at 8.3\%, up to 10.7\% in Dec-09.
During that same timespan, Google went from 63.5\% to 65.7\%.
And in that timespan, Yahoo dropped from 20.5\% to 17.3\%.
AOL also dropped from 3.8\% to 2.6\%.
Guess what - MSN isn't stealing Google's shares yet.
It's stealing from Google's competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781606</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Work for Microsoft? I thought they HAD to have Bing as their default... or else</htmltext>
<tokenext>Work for Microsoft ?
I thought they HAD to have Bing as their default... or else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Work for Microsoft?
I thought they HAD to have Bing as their default... or else</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780918</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod that up - dead on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod that up - dead on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod that up - dead on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782018</id>
	<title>Good for Microsoft</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1263584820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At some point, after many failed attempts, Microsoft is bound to get something right. At the core of all of this debate, remember that Google and Microsoft are both publicly traded companies and their only obligation is to make a profit for shareholders. Historically the difference between the two has been that Google has been a smooth Las Vegas hooker taking your money while Microsoft has been more like a crackhead in Atlantic City taking  your money with a lead pipe. Google has something like 80\% of the search market and the time for backlash is past due. Bing isn't all that bad. They do need credit where credit is due.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , after many failed attempts , Microsoft is bound to get something right .
At the core of all of this debate , remember that Google and Microsoft are both publicly traded companies and their only obligation is to make a profit for shareholders .
Historically the difference between the two has been that Google has been a smooth Las Vegas hooker taking your money while Microsoft has been more like a crackhead in Atlantic City taking your money with a lead pipe .
Google has something like 80 \ % of the search market and the time for backlash is past due .
Bing is n't all that bad .
They do need credit where credit is due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, after many failed attempts, Microsoft is bound to get something right.
At the core of all of this debate, remember that Google and Microsoft are both publicly traded companies and their only obligation is to make a profit for shareholders.
Historically the difference between the two has been that Google has been a smooth Las Vegas hooker taking your money while Microsoft has been more like a crackhead in Atlantic City taking  your money with a lead pipe.
Google has something like 80\% of the search market and the time for backlash is past due.
Bing isn't all that bad.
They do need credit where credit is due.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780970</id>
	<title>For IE users, Bing lockin is assured</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the default search engine, when IE is upgraded/installed, and very difficult to get rid of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the default search engine , when IE is upgraded/installed , and very difficult to get rid of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the default search engine, when IE is upgraded/installed, and very difficult to get rid of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781986</id>
	<title>I'll admit it, I like the pretty pictures.</title>
	<author>PinchDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1263584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the info-boxes inside them.<br>An interesting co-trend: Firefox market share is increasing. So we should have a tiny overlap and have an increasing number of firefox users switching to Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the info-boxes inside them.An interesting co-trend : Firefox market share is increasing .
So we should have a tiny overlap and have an increasing number of firefox users switching to Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the info-boxes inside them.An interesting co-trend: Firefox market share is increasing.
So we should have a tiny overlap and have an increasing number of firefox users switching to Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780902</id>
	<title>Strange..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i look after quite a few sites in  the UK and Bing is nowhere, less than 1\% for most of them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i look after quite a few sites in the UK and Bing is nowhere , less than 1 \ % for most of them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i look after quite a few sites in  the UK and Bing is nowhere, less than 1\% for most of them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781046</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome + Bing has made my life easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome + Bing has made my life easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome + Bing has made my life easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781926</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1263584400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you and your child go to the doctor does he give you your heights in separate units of measure, or does he compare them to you on an all-inclusive pie chart?</p><p>Also, have you heard of Cuil?  Wikia search?  Yauba?  Those search engines started at zero as well.  Why isn't their fame acclaimed the way you insist Bing's is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you and your child go to the doctor does he give you your heights in separate units of measure , or does he compare them to you on an all-inclusive pie chart ? Also , have you heard of Cuil ?
Wikia search ?
Yauba ? Those search engines started at zero as well .
Why is n't their fame acclaimed the way you insist Bing 's is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you and your child go to the doctor does he give you your heights in separate units of measure, or does he compare them to you on an all-inclusive pie chart?Also, have you heard of Cuil?
Wikia search?
Yauba?  Those search engines started at zero as well.
Why isn't their fame acclaimed the way you insist Bing's is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781056</id>
	<title>Strange..</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1263581040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strange right! An advertisement about the growth of Bing trumpeting the growth of Bing! And on an unrelated note, can we stop slashvertising Microsoft shit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange right !
An advertisement about the growth of Bing trumpeting the growth of Bing !
And on an unrelated note , can we stop slashvertising Microsoft shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange right!
An advertisement about the growth of Bing trumpeting the growth of Bing!
And on an unrelated note, can we stop slashvertising Microsoft shit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842</id>
	<title>Market Variety</title>
	<author>Thunderstruck</author>
	<datestamp>1263580200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we should probably be happy to see more than one viable candidate for the search engine market, none seem to address privacy very well.  Both Bing/Yahoo and Google are quite happy to tell you that they'll track user activity and use it to make a profit.  Are there any viable alternatives left with more favorable privacy policies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we should probably be happy to see more than one viable candidate for the search engine market , none seem to address privacy very well .
Both Bing/Yahoo and Google are quite happy to tell you that they 'll track user activity and use it to make a profit .
Are there any viable alternatives left with more favorable privacy policies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we should probably be happy to see more than one viable candidate for the search engine market, none seem to address privacy very well.
Both Bing/Yahoo and Google are quite happy to tell you that they'll track user activity and use it to make a profit.
Are there any viable alternatives left with more favorable privacy policies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781540</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1263582900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
However, your case is not quite analogous.  As TFS says, Bing gained 0.4\% while Google gained 0.2\%.  Presumably Bing is gaining market share from search engines other than Google, and doing so faster because it has such a small share and is being massively promoted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , your case is not quite analogous .
As TFS says , Bing gained 0.4 \ % while Google gained 0.2 \ % .
Presumably Bing is gaining market share from search engines other than Google , and doing so faster because it has such a small share and is being massively promoted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
However, your case is not quite analogous.
As TFS says, Bing gained 0.4\% while Google gained 0.2\%.
Presumably Bing is gaining market share from search engines other than Google, and doing so faster because it has such a small share and is being massively promoted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782986</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1263589140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google is a publicly owned company, and if they stick around long enough, it's a statistical certainty that their leadership roles will eventually be filled by someone less competent and/or less ethical than the current incumbents.</p></div></blockquote><p>But according to Raymond Kurzweil it's an <b>exponential</b> certainty that we'll long have forgotten about Google by then, in favour of the next big thing.  Conquest ain't what it used to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is a publicly owned company , and if they stick around long enough , it 's a statistical certainty that their leadership roles will eventually be filled by someone less competent and/or less ethical than the current incumbents.But according to Raymond Kurzweil it 's an exponential certainty that we 'll long have forgotten about Google by then , in favour of the next big thing .
Conquest ai n't what it used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is a publicly owned company, and if they stick around long enough, it's a statistical certainty that their leadership roles will eventually be filled by someone less competent and/or less ethical than the current incumbents.But according to Raymond Kurzweil it's an exponential certainty that we'll long have forgotten about Google by then, in favour of the next big thing.
Conquest ain't what it used to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787484</id>
	<title>it is personal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263573720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after recent comments made by E.Schmidt, I reconfigured all my default search engines to bing.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... only to find out I'm happier with image &amp; maps searches... I'm still evaluating the web search<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...as this is only a temporary change, until I explore my options for breaking free of google, I'm sticking with Microsoft (coming from a person who is happy with linux both on desktop and laptop)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after recent comments made by E.Schmidt , I reconfigured all my default search engines to bing.com ... only to find out I 'm happier with image &amp; maps searches... I 'm still evaluating the web search ...as this is only a temporary change , until I explore my options for breaking free of google , I 'm sticking with Microsoft ( coming from a person who is happy with linux both on desktop and laptop )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after recent comments made by E.Schmidt, I reconfigured all my default search engines to bing.com ... only to find out I'm happier with image &amp; maps searches... I'm still evaluating the web search ...as this is only a temporary change, until I explore my options for breaking free of google, I'm sticking with Microsoft (coming from a person who is happy with linux both on desktop and laptop)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786602</id>
	<title>Re:Once again a misleading story about Bing</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263565200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious as to if there was actually anyone on slashdot who was so out of touch that they thought that MS used something OTHER than Bing for its sites search.</p><p>Do these same people find it shocking that you use Google when search on the various Google sites?</p><p>I don't really think anyone needed it pointed out to them that this was the case.</p><p>Let me modify that, I'm sure someone wasn't aware of that fact, but they problem aren't important anyway since they must have been living in a deep dark cave in the bottom of some ocean trench.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious as to if there was actually anyone on slashdot who was so out of touch that they thought that MS used something OTHER than Bing for its sites search.Do these same people find it shocking that you use Google when search on the various Google sites ? I do n't really think anyone needed it pointed out to them that this was the case.Let me modify that , I 'm sure someone was n't aware of that fact , but they problem are n't important anyway since they must have been living in a deep dark cave in the bottom of some ocean trench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious as to if there was actually anyone on slashdot who was so out of touch that they thought that MS used something OTHER than Bing for its sites search.Do these same people find it shocking that you use Google when search on the various Google sites?I don't really think anyone needed it pointed out to them that this was the case.Let me modify that, I'm sure someone wasn't aware of that fact, but they problem aren't important anyway since they must have been living in a deep dark cave in the bottom of some ocean trench.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>clampolo</author>
	<datestamp>1263580800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's not bad.  My main gripe with it, is having to wait for the download of their daily picture.  It makes using Bing pretty sluggish as opposed to google which pops up very quickly thanks to the minimalistic page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's not bad .
My main gripe with it , is having to wait for the download of their daily picture .
It makes using Bing pretty sluggish as opposed to google which pops up very quickly thanks to the minimalistic page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's not bad.
My main gripe with it, is having to wait for the download of their daily picture.
It makes using Bing pretty sluggish as opposed to google which pops up very quickly thanks to the minimalistic page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781730</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1263583680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...
The mighty Google has stagnated on its search engine like MS did on IE6 for too long, I'm glad to see some competition, and glad to see Microsoft trying again (as they are with IE8/9 and Windows 7).</p></div><p>I would like you to support your arguments with proof, instead of just saying things like those. And I'm talking about REAL and MEANINGFUL proof. Also, check <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512316&amp;cid=30780998" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512316&amp;cid=30780998</a> [slashdot.org]
 for the best comment to this article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. . The mighty Google has stagnated on its search engine like MS did on IE6 for too long , I 'm glad to see some competition , and glad to see Microsoft trying again ( as they are with IE8/9 and Windows 7 ) .I would like you to support your arguments with proof , instead of just saying things like those .
And I 'm talking about REAL and MEANINGFUL proof .
Also , check http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1512316&amp;cid = 30780998 [ slashdot.org ] for the best comment to this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...
The mighty Google has stagnated on its search engine like MS did on IE6 for too long, I'm glad to see some competition, and glad to see Microsoft trying again (as they are with IE8/9 and Windows 7).I would like you to support your arguments with proof, instead of just saying things like those.
And I'm talking about REAL and MEANINGFUL proof.
Also, check http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512316&amp;cid=30780998 [slashdot.org]
 for the best comment to this article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782358</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263586320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
You need to upgrade to a smarter mother. Mine's fine with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to upgrade to a smarter mother .
Mine 's fine with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You need to upgrade to a smarter mother.
Mine's fine with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781796</id>
	<title>And...?</title>
	<author>zztong</author>
	<datestamp>1263583920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but the story seems to be trying to sensationalize things. Look at the numbers they cite. You can see the following changes from Dec 08 to Dec 09.</p><p>Bing +2.4\%<br>Google +2.2\%</p><p>Yahoo -3.3\%<br>AOL -1.2\%<br>Ask -0.2\%</p><p>So it looks to me like Bing and Google are just gobbling up market share from the weak. Google grew at approximately the same rate as Bing. Yet the article seized on relative growth, which of course is going to favor growing new services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm missing the obvious , but the story seems to be trying to sensationalize things .
Look at the numbers they cite .
You can see the following changes from Dec 08 to Dec 09.Bing + 2.4 \ % Google + 2.2 \ % Yahoo -3.3 \ % AOL -1.2 \ % Ask -0.2 \ % So it looks to me like Bing and Google are just gobbling up market share from the weak .
Google grew at approximately the same rate as Bing .
Yet the article seized on relative growth , which of course is going to favor growing new services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but the story seems to be trying to sensationalize things.
Look at the numbers they cite.
You can see the following changes from Dec 08 to Dec 09.Bing +2.4\%Google +2.2\%Yahoo -3.3\%AOL -1.2\%Ask -0.2\%So it looks to me like Bing and Google are just gobbling up market share from the weak.
Google grew at approximately the same rate as Bing.
Yet the article seized on relative growth, which of course is going to favor growing new services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781536</id>
	<title>Re:Possible explanation for Bing's results...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My father in law does that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My father in law does that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father in law does that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783414</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Amorymeltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1263547980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, I'm a bit confused by your post there.  It sounds like you just implied the Zune was something done well.</p><p>Yeah, I'm lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , I 'm a bit confused by your post there .
It sounds like you just implied the Zune was something done well.Yeah , I 'm lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, I'm a bit confused by your post there.
It sounds like you just implied the Zune was something done well.Yeah, I'm lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781638</id>
	<title>Google will win anyway</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1263583320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is excluding the best technical talent from their search group.  Google isn't.  Pretty wallpaper only goes so far in search.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is excluding the best technical talent from their search group .
Google is n't .
Pretty wallpaper only goes so far in search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is excluding the best technical talent from their search group.
Google isn't.
Pretty wallpaper only goes so far in search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781122</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Defaults to Bing on Fresh Install</title>
	<author>caffeinejolt</author>
	<datestamp>1263581340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes me wonder how much if this is due to people switching from Google vs just buying a new PC (at least when I set up my Dad's PC it did). <a href="http://www.statowl.com/search\_engine\_market\_share\_trend.php?1=1&amp;timeframe=last\_6&amp;interval=month&amp;chart\_id=13&amp;fltr\_br=&amp;fltr\_os=&amp;fltr\_se=&amp;fltr\_cn=&amp;chart\_id=11" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">Bing market share growth</a> [statowl.com] follows a very similar trend to <a href="http://www.statowl.com/operating\_system\_market\_share\_by\_os\_version\_trend.php?1=1&amp;timeframe=last\_6&amp;interval=month&amp;chart\_id=13&amp;fltr\_br=&amp;fltr\_os=&amp;fltr\_se=&amp;fltr\_cn=&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=windows&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=mac&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=linux&amp;chart\_id=11" title="statowl.com" rel="nofollow">Windows 7 market share growth</a> [statowl.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me wonder how much if this is due to people switching from Google vs just buying a new PC ( at least when I set up my Dad 's PC it did ) .
Bing market share growth [ statowl.com ] follows a very similar trend to Windows 7 market share growth [ statowl.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me wonder how much if this is due to people switching from Google vs just buying a new PC (at least when I set up my Dad's PC it did).
Bing market share growth [statowl.com] follows a very similar trend to Windows 7 market share growth [statowl.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781694</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1263583560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half use Bing, and half use Google? That's a 100\%! Where are the AltaVista users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half use Bing , and half use Google ?
That 's a 100 \ % !
Where are the AltaVista users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half use Bing, and half use Google?
That's a 100\%!
Where are the AltaVista users?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781362</id>
	<title>Hitwise</title>
	<author>DollyTheSheep</author>
	<datestamp>1263582300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Market research fiirm Hitwise <a href="blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/187736.asp" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">thinks</a> [slashdot.org], that Bing's market share is (was?) actually falling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Market research fiirm Hitwise thinks [ slashdot.org ] , that Bing 's market share is ( was ?
) actually falling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Market research fiirm Hitwise thinks [slashdot.org], that Bing's market share is (was?
) actually falling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782100</id>
	<title>Re:Once again a misleading story about Bing</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1263585180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Live, MSN, and Bing all use the Bing search engine, though.  Try it yourself.  Live.com redirects to Bing, and MSN.com and its subdomains use the Bing searhc engine.  They're all exactly the same service.  Why should they be broken apart?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Live , MSN , and Bing all use the Bing search engine , though .
Try it yourself .
Live.com redirects to Bing , and MSN.com and its subdomains use the Bing searhc engine .
They 're all exactly the same service .
Why should they be broken apart ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live, MSN, and Bing all use the Bing search engine, though.
Try it yourself.
Live.com redirects to Bing, and MSN.com and its subdomains use the Bing searhc engine.
They're all exactly the same service.
Why should they be broken apart?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783366</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263547740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, the standards are low.  A pithy and inaccurate phrase and you're somehow insightful.</p><p>Slashdot has become the yahoo group of tech sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , the standards are low .
A pithy and inaccurate phrase and you 're somehow insightful.Slashdot has become the yahoo group of tech sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, the standards are low.
A pithy and inaccurate phrase and you're somehow insightful.Slashdot has become the yahoo group of tech sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781820</id>
	<title>My search engine is beating both!</title>
	<author>cain</author>
	<datestamp>1263583980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My search engine went from 1 user month year to 2 users this month. My \%100 growth rate smashes the piddling growth of all others!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My search engine went from 1 user month year to 2 users this month .
My \ % 100 growth rate smashes the piddling growth of all others !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My search engine went from 1 user month year to 2 users this month.
My \%100 growth rate smashes the piddling growth of all others!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784422</id>
	<title>Bing pays people to use it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263552120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course a search engine that pays people to use it is to to increase its queries. Cashback is the only reason I ever use Bing. Once they stop that, queries will level out or fall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course a search engine that pays people to use it is to to increase its queries .
Cashback is the only reason I ever use Bing .
Once they stop that , queries will level out or fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course a search engine that pays people to use it is to to increase its queries.
Cashback is the only reason I ever use Bing.
Once they stop that, queries will level out or fall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786512</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1263564600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you considered the possibility that Bing might actually be better for her (or at least just as good), and forcing the switch actually hindered her just so you could take a stand against Microsoft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you considered the possibility that Bing might actually be better for her ( or at least just as good ) , and forcing the switch actually hindered her just so you could take a stand against Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you considered the possibility that Bing might actually be better for her (or at least just as good), and forcing the switch actually hindered her just so you could take a stand against Microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781386</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  I have used it several times, as its the default on IE and I don't use IE often enough to care about changing it..  But every time I searched for something, I got frustrated and had to go to Google instead to find what I was looking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I have used it several times , as its the default on IE and I do n't use IE often enough to care about changing it.. But every time I searched for something , I got frustrated and had to go to Google instead to find what I was looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I have used it several times, as its the default on IE and I don't use IE often enough to care about changing it..  But every time I searched for something, I got frustrated and had to go to Google instead to find what I was looking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781478</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>farlukar</author>
	<datestamp>1263582660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News at eleven:slashdot editor posts non-story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News at eleven : slashdot editor posts non-story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News at eleven:slashdot editor posts non-story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782578</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263587340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed Bing is annoying as hell, seems the only way to get people to use it is to tie the proverbial pork-chop around it's neck to make the neighborhood dog tear it's throat out (oh wait, was supposed to like it)...</p><p>Since they bought Verizon's default (and now only) search service for their entire smart phone lineup, can't imagine why their search numbers might be going up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed Bing is annoying as hell , seems the only way to get people to use it is to tie the proverbial pork-chop around it 's neck to make the neighborhood dog tear it 's throat out ( oh wait , was supposed to like it ) ...Since they bought Verizon 's default ( and now only ) search service for their entire smart phone lineup , ca n't imagine why their search numbers might be going up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed Bing is annoying as hell, seems the only way to get people to use it is to tie the proverbial pork-chop around it's neck to make the neighborhood dog tear it's throat out (oh wait, was supposed to like it)...Since they bought Verizon's default (and now only) search service for their entire smart phone lineup, can't imagine why their search numbers might be going up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781736</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>PaulMeigh</author>
	<datestamp>1263583740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Internet search is too important to be so dominated by a single corporation. Would love to see someone else mount a viable challenge to Google, but if it has to be MS for now, so be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Internet search is too important to be so dominated by a single corporation .
Would love to see someone else mount a viable challenge to Google , but if it has to be MS for now , so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Internet search is too important to be so dominated by a single corporation.
Would love to see someone else mount a viable challenge to Google, but if it has to be MS for now, so be it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782724</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263588000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought I heard a chair being thrown, is there someone named Steve in the same room with you? Say something bad about Linux for "yes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought I heard a chair being thrown , is there someone named Steve in the same room with you ?
Say something bad about Linux for " yes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought I heard a chair being thrown, is there someone named Steve in the same room with you?
Say something bad about Linux for "yes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781382</id>
	<title>Re:Market Variety</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.ixquick.com claims to be a privacy friendly search engine. The search results are not up to google standards, but good for searching things like: "flowering time for Kali Mist"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.ixquick.com claims to be a privacy friendly search engine .
The search results are not up to google standards , but good for searching things like : " flowering time for Kali Mist "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.ixquick.com claims to be a privacy friendly search engine.
The search results are not up to google standards, but good for searching things like: "flowering time for Kali Mist"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782710</id>
	<title>Re:Market Variety</title>
	<author>wukka</author>
	<datestamp>1263587940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IXquick/StartPage don't use tracking nonsense.

<a href="http://ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">http://ixquick.com/</a> [ixquick.com]
<a href="http://startpage.com/" title="startpage.com" rel="nofollow">http://startpage.com/</a> [startpage.com]

cheers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>IXquick/StartPage do n't use tracking nonsense .
http : //ixquick.com/ [ ixquick.com ] http : //startpage.com/ [ startpage.com ] cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IXquick/StartPage don't use tracking nonsense.
http://ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]
http://startpage.com/ [startpage.com]

cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781830</id>
	<title>That's not market share.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263584040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Percentage of queries is not market share: it's user share.  Market share would be percentage of advertising revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Percentage of queries is not market share : it 's user share .
Market share would be percentage of advertising revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Percentage of queries is not market share: it's user share.
Market share would be percentage of advertising revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782498</id>
	<title>misleading numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263586980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you really call it 'search engine market share' when people find the product they want with google, and then search bing for the same item to get cashback?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you really call it 'search engine market share ' when people find the product they want with google , and then search bing for the same item to get cashback ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you really call it 'search engine market share' when people find the product they want with google, and then search bing for the same item to get cashback?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782872</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263588600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You work at Microsoft's Bing Department?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You work at Microsoft 's Bing Department ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You work at Microsoft's Bing Department?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781152</id>
	<title>Do you YAHOO!?</title>
	<author>Sebilrazen</author>
	<datestamp>1263581400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the answer is a resounding "NO."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the answer is a resounding " NO .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the answer is a resounding "NO.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782484</id>
	<title>Buying the stairway to market-share</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263586920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen promotional crap for Bing all over the place. Any website remotely connected to Microsoft smooshes your face in Bing ads, deals, and prize contests. MS is practically bribing people to use Bing. Whether they will keep their market-share when they run out of ad money remains to be seen. Google is still better in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen promotional crap for Bing all over the place .
Any website remotely connected to Microsoft smooshes your face in Bing ads , deals , and prize contests .
MS is practically bribing people to use Bing .
Whether they will keep their market-share when they run out of ad money remains to be seen .
Google is still better in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen promotional crap for Bing all over the place.
Any website remotely connected to Microsoft smooshes your face in Bing ads, deals, and prize contests.
MS is practically bribing people to use Bing.
Whether they will keep their market-share when they run out of ad money remains to be seen.
Google is still better in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781788</id>
	<title>Club Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be because when you play games on clubbing.com it searches bing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be because when you play games on clubbing.com it searches bing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be because when you play games on clubbing.com it searches bing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781176</id>
	<title>Re:Market Variety</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Goatse Search Beta</a> [goatse.fr], you can find anything there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goatse Search Beta [ goatse.fr ] , you can find anything there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goatse Search Beta [goatse.fr], you can find anything there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781162</id>
	<title>How much would you pay for it?</title>
	<author>grahamsz</author>
	<datestamp>1263581460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the costs of operating a search engine are pretty significant and the market for people who'd pay for privacy is quite small. I suspect it'd need to be in the $20-50/month range, and i think that would deter a lot of people.</p><p>Little in life is free, and businesses that run on millions of dollars of hardware and fast internet connections are going to need to finance that.</p><p>In any event, if i'm going to have to deal with ads online then i'd PREFER that they were tailored to things i'm interested in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the costs of operating a search engine are pretty significant and the market for people who 'd pay for privacy is quite small .
I suspect it 'd need to be in the $ 20-50/month range , and i think that would deter a lot of people.Little in life is free , and businesses that run on millions of dollars of hardware and fast internet connections are going to need to finance that.In any event , if i 'm going to have to deal with ads online then i 'd PREFER that they were tailored to things i 'm interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the costs of operating a search engine are pretty significant and the market for people who'd pay for privacy is quite small.
I suspect it'd need to be in the $20-50/month range, and i think that would deter a lot of people.Little in life is free, and businesses that run on millions of dollars of hardware and fast internet connections are going to need to finance that.In any event, if i'm going to have to deal with ads online then i'd PREFER that they were tailored to things i'm interested in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781504</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I suspect the increased search traffic is due to BCB, or Bing Cash Back if you're not into deals websites.  Almost every single <a href="http://www.slickdeals.net/" title="slickdeals.net">slickdeal</a> [slickdeals.net] post in the month of December had BCB as part of their slick prices.  I used it myself for several purchases I was planning on making anyway.</p><p>Basically when I wanted to get 20\% cash back on a purchase at Walmart I went to bing and searched "Walmart Bluray" and it returned an ad offering cash back at Walmart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I suspect the increased search traffic is due to BCB , or Bing Cash Back if you 're not into deals websites .
Almost every single slickdeal [ slickdeals.net ] post in the month of December had BCB as part of their slick prices .
I used it myself for several purchases I was planning on making anyway.Basically when I wanted to get 20 \ % cash back on a purchase at Walmart I went to bing and searched " Walmart Bluray " and it returned an ad offering cash back at Walmart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I suspect the increased search traffic is due to BCB, or Bing Cash Back if you're not into deals websites.
Almost every single slickdeal [slickdeals.net] post in the month of December had BCB as part of their slick prices.
I used it myself for several purchases I was planning on making anyway.Basically when I wanted to get 20\% cash back on a purchase at Walmart I went to bing and searched "Walmart Bluray" and it returned an ad offering cash back at Walmart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30799460</id>
	<title>Re:How much would you pay for it?</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1263753240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about ads, it's about where the data goes after they're done showing you ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about ads , it 's about where the data goes after they 're done showing you ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about ads, it's about where the data goes after they're done showing you ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781118</id>
	<title>bing = disease</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other day I opened a fortune cookie..."Learn chinese: bing = disease".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day I opened a fortune cookie... " Learn chinese : bing = disease " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day I opened a fortune cookie..."Learn chinese: bing = disease".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782062</id>
	<title>CTRL+ENTER</title>
	<author>crevistontj</author>
	<datestamp>1263585000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before Bing went live, CTRL+ENTER in Internet Explorer was a shortcut to surround the text in the address field with "www." and ".com" and then go. So I could type "amazon" then hit CTRL+ENTER and it would go to www.amazon.com. I used that shortcut all the time.

After Bing went live, this shortcut magically changed from a useful tool to a Bing query for "amazon".

I know it's possible to change it back with a reg hack or something but 95\% of IE users aren't going to do this. Instead they'll just use Bing and click the first link, gaining ad revenue and perceived market share for MS.

This is the kind of underhand crap that MS does that ticks me off. The fact that they were able to remotely change my keyboard shortcut without asking me or notifying me or telling me how to change it back is pretty shade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before Bing went live , CTRL + ENTER in Internet Explorer was a shortcut to surround the text in the address field with " www .
" and " .com " and then go .
So I could type " amazon " then hit CTRL + ENTER and it would go to www.amazon.com .
I used that shortcut all the time .
After Bing went live , this shortcut magically changed from a useful tool to a Bing query for " amazon " .
I know it 's possible to change it back with a reg hack or something but 95 \ % of IE users are n't going to do this .
Instead they 'll just use Bing and click the first link , gaining ad revenue and perceived market share for MS . This is the kind of underhand crap that MS does that ticks me off .
The fact that they were able to remotely change my keyboard shortcut without asking me or notifying me or telling me how to change it back is pretty shade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before Bing went live, CTRL+ENTER in Internet Explorer was a shortcut to surround the text in the address field with "www.
" and ".com" and then go.
So I could type "amazon" then hit CTRL+ENTER and it would go to www.amazon.com.
I used that shortcut all the time.
After Bing went live, this shortcut magically changed from a useful tool to a Bing query for "amazon".
I know it's possible to change it back with a reg hack or something but 95\% of IE users aren't going to do this.
Instead they'll just use Bing and click the first link, gaining ad revenue and perceived market share for MS.

This is the kind of underhand crap that MS does that ticks me off.
The fact that they were able to remotely change my keyboard shortcut without asking me or notifying me or telling me how to change it back is pretty shade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781320</id>
	<title>Course they are, they are paying people to use it!</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1263582060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use bing.  When I go to buy something.  I've collected hundreds of dollars from their cash back program.  Outside of that, google is superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use bing .
When I go to buy something .
I 've collected hundreds of dollars from their cash back program .
Outside of that , google is superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use bing.
When I go to buy something.
I've collected hundreds of dollars from their cash back program.
Outside of that, google is superior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782924</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1263588780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If i was to try this with my manager at work(laptops are fairly autonomous at our work), it would have progressed no further than  'I want you to change your IE search engine from Bing to Google.'.  Manager tests are like the mom test without the advantage that thee are born of thine mother, and hence have a bit more grace period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If i was to try this with my manager at work ( laptops are fairly autonomous at our work ) , it would have progressed no further than 'I want you to change your IE search engine from Bing to Google.' .
Manager tests are like the mom test without the advantage that thee are born of thine mother , and hence have a bit more grace period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If i was to try this with my manager at work(laptops are fairly autonomous at our work), it would have progressed no further than  'I want you to change your IE search engine from Bing to Google.'.
Manager tests are like the mom test without the advantage that thee are born of thine mother, and hence have a bit more grace period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784568</id>
	<title>Wait, Microsoft lets you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263552780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft lets you use one of their products on Linux?</p><p>How can this be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft lets you use one of their products on Linux ? How can this be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft lets you use one of their products on Linux?How can this be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782002</id>
	<title>I just don't get it.. Bing should be LOSING market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should have started at zero and immediately moved into enormous negative numbers.. it is Microsoft $hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should have started at zero and immediately moved into enormous negative numbers.. it is Microsoft $ hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should have started at zero and immediately moved into enormous negative numbers.. it is Microsoft $hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781308</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1263582000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't there a story about results in Bing being manipulated <a href="http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1334225/Bing-Search-Tainted-By-Pro-Microsoft-Results?from=rss" title="slashdot.org">not too long ago?</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't there a story about results in Bing being manipulated not too long ago ?
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't there a story about results in Bing being manipulated not too long ago?
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783762</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1263549360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is also something going on with browsers these days.. As a support person, I have a heck of a time getting people to actually browse to a URL.. 9 times out of 10 they enter it in, and they end up doing a search for it... It's annoying.. So the fact that all these people can't just go where they want and end up searching for everything they type, and there is a corresponding increase in Bing usage is not surprising at all to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also something going on with browsers these days.. As a support person , I have a heck of a time getting people to actually browse to a URL.. 9 times out of 10 they enter it in , and they end up doing a search for it... It 's annoying.. So the fact that all these people ca n't just go where they want and end up searching for everything they type , and there is a corresponding increase in Bing usage is not surprising at all to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also something going on with browsers these days.. As a support person, I have a heck of a time getting people to actually browse to a URL.. 9 times out of 10 they enter it in, and they end up doing a search for it... It's annoying.. So the fact that all these people can't just go where they want and end up searching for everything they type, and there is a corresponding increase in Bing usage is not surprising at all to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</id>
	<title>Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1263580200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing is actually pretty darn good.  They don't have the countless integrated features that Google has, but for good, solid search results, in some cases, Bing returns better results than Google.  Where I work, people there have set about half of the desktops' home pages to Bing, with the other half being Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is actually pretty darn good .
They do n't have the countless integrated features that Google has , but for good , solid search results , in some cases , Bing returns better results than Google .
Where I work , people there have set about half of the desktops ' home pages to Bing , with the other half being Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is actually pretty darn good.
They don't have the countless integrated features that Google has, but for good, solid search results, in some cases, Bing returns better results than Google.
Where I work, people there have set about half of the desktops' home pages to Bing, with the other half being Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782648</id>
	<title>Bing is ok</title>
	<author>Front Line Assembly</author>
	<datestamp>1263587640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see no problem with bing, it is actually quite good.<br>Used it because it was the default in windows 7 at least.</p><p>Bing maps also was much better for my town (the aerial views). They apparently used Navtec data which was superior to googles blurry views.</p><p>Luckily it's easy to use whatever search engine you like, no costs in changing between them or using both or whatever.</p><p>I normally use Google because bing search doesn't offer anything better, just out of habit I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see no problem with bing , it is actually quite good.Used it because it was the default in windows 7 at least.Bing maps also was much better for my town ( the aerial views ) .
They apparently used Navtec data which was superior to googles blurry views.Luckily it 's easy to use whatever search engine you like , no costs in changing between them or using both or whatever.I normally use Google because bing search does n't offer anything better , just out of habit I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see no problem with bing, it is actually quite good.Used it because it was the default in windows 7 at least.Bing maps also was much better for my town (the aerial views).
They apparently used Navtec data which was superior to googles blurry views.Luckily it's easy to use whatever search engine you like, no costs in changing between them or using both or whatever.I normally use Google because bing search doesn't offer anything better, just out of habit I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781200</id>
	<title>Possible explanation for Bing's results...</title>
	<author>gklinger</author>
	<datestamp>1263581640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to know what percentage of non-technical people use IE's integrated Bing search function to search for "Google" and then click on the first link which takes them to Google where they make their actual query. Laugh if you will but I have observed this behaviour on more than one occasion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to know what percentage of non-technical people use IE 's integrated Bing search function to search for " Google " and then click on the first link which takes them to Google where they make their actual query .
Laugh if you will but I have observed this behaviour on more than one occasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to know what percentage of non-technical people use IE's integrated Bing search function to search for "Google" and then click on the first link which takes them to Google where they make their actual query.
Laugh if you will but I have observed this behaviour on more than one occasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780858</id>
	<title>My first reaction...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>lolwut?</htmltext>
<tokenext>lolwut ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lolwut?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782260</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1263585960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just entered Bing and the daily picture today is <a href="http://www.bing.com/fd/hpk2/LasseterHighway\_EN-US916588989.jpg" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [bing.com].</p><p>According to Firefox the file size is 81.98 KB (83950 bytes). Which would take a whole 15 seconds to download on a 56k modem. Using the average <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news170447728.html" title="physorg.com" rel="nofollow">5.1 mbps</a> [physorg.com] connection speed in the US it would take far less than 1 second. Does the image really make it that much slower?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just entered Bing and the daily picture today is this [ bing.com ] .According to Firefox the file size is 81.98 KB ( 83950 bytes ) .
Which would take a whole 15 seconds to download on a 56k modem .
Using the average 5.1 mbps [ physorg.com ] connection speed in the US it would take far less than 1 second .
Does the image really make it that much slower ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just entered Bing and the daily picture today is this [bing.com].According to Firefox the file size is 81.98 KB (83950 bytes).
Which would take a whole 15 seconds to download on a 56k modem.
Using the average 5.1 mbps [physorg.com] connection speed in the US it would take far less than 1 second.
Does the image really make it that much slower?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785500</id>
	<title>Foxfire...</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1263557820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I usually give up about the time I hear that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually give up about the time I hear that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually give up about the time I hear that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</id>
	<title>Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run all OSes, Linux, Mac, Windows, and I set Bing as my default browser where ever I can.

I can accept when Microsoft does something well (I also have a Zune HD).  Bing is a great search engine, I find for specific queries, especially academic searches, it provides more accurate, as well as seperated results.  Go ahead, type in "Honda Civic", and watch how it divides it based on more specific topics related to the car.

The mighty Google has stagnated on its search engine like MS did on IE6 for too long, I'm glad to see some competition, and glad to see Microsoft trying again (as they are with IE8/9 and Windows 7).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run all OSes , Linux , Mac , Windows , and I set Bing as my default browser where ever I can .
I can accept when Microsoft does something well ( I also have a Zune HD ) .
Bing is a great search engine , I find for specific queries , especially academic searches , it provides more accurate , as well as seperated results .
Go ahead , type in " Honda Civic " , and watch how it divides it based on more specific topics related to the car .
The mighty Google has stagnated on its search engine like MS did on IE6 for too long , I 'm glad to see some competition , and glad to see Microsoft trying again ( as they are with IE8/9 and Windows 7 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run all OSes, Linux, Mac, Windows, and I set Bing as my default browser where ever I can.
I can accept when Microsoft does something well (I also have a Zune HD).
Bing is a great search engine, I find for specific queries, especially academic searches, it provides more accurate, as well as seperated results.
Go ahead, type in "Honda Civic", and watch how it divides it based on more specific topics related to the car.
The mighty Google has stagnated on its search engine like MS did on IE6 for too long, I'm glad to see some competition, and glad to see Microsoft trying again (as they are with IE8/9 and Windows 7).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781648</id>
	<title>Looked at differently...Who is converting more?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1263583320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the TFA, Google had about 65.6\% of searches in November, and gained 0.2\% additional in December; Microsoft had 10.3\% in November, and gained 0.4\% additional in December. So who is doing better? Well, if you operationalize that question as "who is converting a greater share of the searches that they don't already have?":</p><p>Google gained 0.2\% of searches in December, out of the 34.4\% of searches that weren't already being done on Google sites -- converting just about 0.58\% of non-Google searches.</p><p>Microsoft gained 0.4\% of searches in December, out of the 89.7\% of searches that weren't already being done on Microsoft sites -- converting 0.45\% of non-Microsoft searches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the TFA , Google had about 65.6 \ % of searches in November , and gained 0.2 \ % additional in December ; Microsoft had 10.3 \ % in November , and gained 0.4 \ % additional in December .
So who is doing better ?
Well , if you operationalize that question as " who is converting a greater share of the searches that they do n't already have ?
" : Google gained 0.2 \ % of searches in December , out of the 34.4 \ % of searches that were n't already being done on Google sites -- converting just about 0.58 \ % of non-Google searches.Microsoft gained 0.4 \ % of searches in December , out of the 89.7 \ % of searches that were n't already being done on Microsoft sites -- converting 0.45 \ % of non-Microsoft searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the TFA, Google had about 65.6\% of searches in November, and gained 0.2\% additional in December; Microsoft had 10.3\% in November, and gained 0.4\% additional in December.
So who is doing better?
Well, if you operationalize that question as "who is converting a greater share of the searches that they don't already have?
":Google gained 0.2\% of searches in December, out of the 34.4\% of searches that weren't already being done on Google sites -- converting just about 0.58\% of non-Google searches.Microsoft gained 0.4\% of searches in December, out of the 89.7\% of searches that weren't already being done on Microsoft sites -- converting 0.45\% of non-Microsoft searches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782540</id>
	<title>Seems mostly to be at yahoo's expense</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1263587220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chart in TFA seems to reflect (to my untrained eyes) a rise in MS/bing-le's market share mostly as a matter of eroding that of yahoo!</p><p>The chart also seems to show google(-site-)'s share growing as much as MS/bing-le's over the same period.</p><p>Maybe I'm missing something . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chart in TFA seems to reflect ( to my untrained eyes ) a rise in MS/bing-le 's market share mostly as a matter of eroding that of yahoo ! The chart also seems to show google ( -site- ) 's share growing as much as MS/bing-le 's over the same period.Maybe I 'm missing something .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chart in TFA seems to reflect (to my untrained eyes) a rise in MS/bing-le's market share mostly as a matter of eroding that of yahoo!The chart also seems to show google(-site-)'s share growing as much as MS/bing-le's over the same period.Maybe I'm missing something .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781210</id>
	<title>Contradicting numbers</title>
	<author>trazan</author>
	<datestamp>1263581700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This completely contradicts two other reports from the last few days, which has Bing losing market share in December.<br> <br>

<a href="http://searchengineland.com/nielsen-yahoo-bing-down-google-up-in-december-33464" title="searchengineland.com" rel="nofollow">http://searchengineland.com/nielsen-yahoo-bing-down-google-up-in-december-33464</a> [searchengineland.com] <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/" title="hitwise.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/</a> [hitwise.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This completely contradicts two other reports from the last few days , which has Bing losing market share in December .
http : //searchengineland.com/nielsen-yahoo-bing-down-google-up-in-december-33464 [ searchengineland.com ] http : //www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/ [ hitwise.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This completely contradicts two other reports from the last few days, which has Bing losing market share in December.
http://searchengineland.com/nielsen-yahoo-bing-down-google-up-in-december-33464 [searchengineland.com]  

http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/ [hitwise.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781234</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>BuckaBooBob</author>
	<datestamp>1263581760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Setting Bing as your default browser?</p><p>Hmm.. Are you for real? Bing is a search engine... Firefox/IE/Opera/Safari ect are browsers..</p><p>So before your first sentence is complete I have deducted that you have nothing of value to say what so ever since you seem to be unable to differentiate between a browser and a search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Setting Bing as your default browser ? Hmm.. Are you for real ?
Bing is a search engine... Firefox/IE/Opera/Safari ect are browsers..So before your first sentence is complete I have deducted that you have nothing of value to say what so ever since you seem to be unable to differentiate between a browser and a search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setting Bing as your default browser?Hmm.. Are you for real?
Bing is a search engine... Firefox/IE/Opera/Safari ect are browsers..So before your first sentence is complete I have deducted that you have nothing of value to say what so ever since you seem to be unable to differentiate between a browser and a search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783044</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263546240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What market are you in? For the US version I get:</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=Honda+Civic&amp;mkt=en-us" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/search?q=Honda+Civic&amp;mkt=en-us</a> [bing.com]</p><p>1) An infocard showing: summary, price range, MPG, reviews and specs</p><p>2) The link to the official Honda Civic page<br>3) The wikipedia article<br>4) Image thumbnails</p><p>5) SECTION of results related to Used Honda Civics<br>6) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Accessories<br>7) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Parts<br>8) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Manuals</p><p>It's spot on in all respects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What market are you in ?
For the US version I get : http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = Honda + Civic&amp;mkt = en-us [ bing.com ] 1 ) An infocard showing : summary , price range , MPG , reviews and specs2 ) The link to the official Honda Civic page3 ) The wikipedia article4 ) Image thumbnails5 ) SECTION of results related to Used Honda Civics6 ) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Accessories7 ) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Parts8 ) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic ManualsIt 's spot on in all respects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What market are you in?
For the US version I get:http://www.bing.com/search?q=Honda+Civic&amp;mkt=en-us [bing.com]1) An infocard showing: summary, price range, MPG, reviews and specs2) The link to the official Honda Civic page3) The wikipedia article4) Image thumbnails5) SECTION of results related to Used Honda Civics6) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Accessories7) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic Parts8) SECTION of results related to Honda Civic ManualsIt's spot on in all respects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782068</id>
	<title>In other breaking news, Bing Drops, Google Grows</title>
	<author>alteran</author>
	<datestamp>1263585060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saw this a few days ago, never can tell what to believe.</p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506\_3-10434099-17.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-20" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506\_3-10434099-17.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-20</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw this a few days ago , never can tell what to believe.http : //news.cnet.com/8301-13506 \ _3-10434099-17.html ? part = rss&amp;subj = news&amp;tag = 2547-1 \ _3-0-20 [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw this a few days ago, never can tell what to believe.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506\_3-10434099-17.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-20 [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781488</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263582720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is the answer? Make the interface to only allow Google to be added? Seems a bit unfair on the other search engines out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the answer ?
Make the interface to only allow Google to be added ?
Seems a bit unfair on the other search engines out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the answer?
Make the interface to only allow Google to be added?
Seems a bit unfair on the other search engines out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784920</id>
	<title>Full of it</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1263554640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just for fun, I tried Honda Civic as a search. Actually, Bing sucks. Where the results differ, Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields, or an ungodly list of used car sites</i> </p><p>I have to call BS on this one.</p><p>Making the same search I saw - in this order:</p><p>2010 Honda Civic: Links To Specs-Safety-Reliability-Reviews<br>Link To Local Dealer and Service Listings<br>2010 Honda Civic Sedan - Honda Site<br>Honda Civic Wikipedia<br>Honda Civic Family - Honda Site<br>Images</p><p>And then a breakdown into subcategories:</p><p>Used Honda Civic<br>Civic Parts<br>Acessories<br>Manuals</p><p>Everything is accessible from the first page and very attractively presented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for fun , I tried Honda Civic as a search .
Actually , Bing sucks .
Where the results differ , Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields , or an ungodly list of used car sites I have to call BS on this one.Making the same search I saw - in this order : 2010 Honda Civic : Links To Specs-Safety-Reliability-ReviewsLink To Local Dealer and Service Listings2010 Honda Civic Sedan - Honda SiteHonda Civic WikipediaHonda Civic Family - Honda SiteImagesAnd then a breakdown into subcategories : Used Honda CivicCivic PartsAcessoriesManualsEverything is accessible from the first page and very attractively presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for fun, I tried Honda Civic as a search.
Actually, Bing sucks.
Where the results differ, Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields, or an ungodly list of used car sites I have to call BS on this one.Making the same search I saw - in this order:2010 Honda Civic: Links To Specs-Safety-Reliability-ReviewsLink To Local Dealer and Service Listings2010 Honda Civic Sedan - Honda SiteHonda Civic WikipediaHonda Civic Family - Honda SiteImagesAnd then a breakdown into subcategories:Used Honda CivicCivic PartsAcessoriesManualsEverything is accessible from the first page and very attractively presented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782588</id>
	<title>Blackberrys</title>
	<author>bl968</author>
	<datestamp>1263587400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is not noted as well is the contract with RIM which made all Blackberries default to using Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is not noted as well is the contract with RIM which made all Blackberries default to using Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is not noted as well is the contract with RIM which made all Blackberries default to using Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781404</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1263582420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing I noticed was when you get something from Windows live including MSN messenger, movie maker or like 15 other products. Is that towards the end of the install it offers to make bing the default search provider and ("make it impossible for this to be changed back"). Which seemed a bit worrisome. I mean, it was easy to un-check but still.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I noticed was when you get something from Windows live including MSN messenger , movie maker or like 15 other products .
Is that towards the end of the install it offers to make bing the default search provider and ( " make it impossible for this to be changed back " ) .
Which seemed a bit worrisome .
I mean , it was easy to un-check but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I noticed was when you get something from Windows live including MSN messenger, movie maker or like 15 other products.
Is that towards the end of the install it offers to make bing the default search provider and ("make it impossible for this to be changed back").
Which seemed a bit worrisome.
I mean, it was easy to un-check but still.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</id>
	<title>Easy to do</title>
	<author>Smidge204</author>
	<datestamp>1263580440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gaining market share for Bing is easy when you:</p><p>1) Already have the market for browsers (IE)</p><p>2) Make Bing the default search for said browsers</p><p>3) Direct all search traffic from all sites even remotely Microsoft affiliated through Bing</p><p>So what we would expect is everyone who just uses whatever is in front of them to start using Bing, because that's what Microsoft is putting in front of them.<br>=Smidge=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaining market share for Bing is easy when you : 1 ) Already have the market for browsers ( IE ) 2 ) Make Bing the default search for said browsers3 ) Direct all search traffic from all sites even remotely Microsoft affiliated through BingSo what we would expect is everyone who just uses whatever is in front of them to start using Bing , because that 's what Microsoft is putting in front of them. = Smidge =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaining market share for Bing is easy when you:1) Already have the market for browsers (IE)2) Make Bing the default search for said browsers3) Direct all search traffic from all sites even remotely Microsoft affiliated through BingSo what we would expect is everyone who just uses whatever is in front of them to start using Bing, because that's what Microsoft is putting in front of them.=Smidge=</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781470</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1263582660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I'm remotely a fan of Microsoft or their business practices, but to the extent that they do compete on their merits, they don't always suck, and Google could certainly use some competition. I haven't tried Bing yet, but I'll get around to it eventually, and if it's better than Google, at least for some things, I'll use it. And quite frankly, I have been increasingly dismayed by Google's search results lately, which seem to be slanted more and more to driving sales. That would be fine if the only thing I used search engines for was finding products, but I'm often looking for actual information.</p><p>In any case, market competition is usually beneficial to the consumer, and having a market overwhelmingly dominated by a single player is usually bad for the consumer. Even when the dominant player is reasonably ethical, as Google is, you end up with the same situation that arises in monarchies: the current king may be a wise and just ruler, but all bets are off on his heirs. Google is a publicly owned company, and if they stick around long enough, it's a statistical certainty that their leadership roles will eventually be filled by someone less competent and/or less ethical than the current incumbents. When that happens, it would be a lot better to have many competitors ready to take their place. (And certainly, we can't count on <i>Microsoft</i> to play the enlightened despot role.)</p><p>As far as the present goes, though, I don't think it really matters a lot whether people find their porn and other, less popular products through Bing or Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm remotely a fan of Microsoft or their business practices , but to the extent that they do compete on their merits , they do n't always suck , and Google could certainly use some competition .
I have n't tried Bing yet , but I 'll get around to it eventually , and if it 's better than Google , at least for some things , I 'll use it .
And quite frankly , I have been increasingly dismayed by Google 's search results lately , which seem to be slanted more and more to driving sales .
That would be fine if the only thing I used search engines for was finding products , but I 'm often looking for actual information.In any case , market competition is usually beneficial to the consumer , and having a market overwhelmingly dominated by a single player is usually bad for the consumer .
Even when the dominant player is reasonably ethical , as Google is , you end up with the same situation that arises in monarchies : the current king may be a wise and just ruler , but all bets are off on his heirs .
Google is a publicly owned company , and if they stick around long enough , it 's a statistical certainty that their leadership roles will eventually be filled by someone less competent and/or less ethical than the current incumbents .
When that happens , it would be a lot better to have many competitors ready to take their place .
( And certainly , we ca n't count on Microsoft to play the enlightened despot role .
) As far as the present goes , though , I do n't think it really matters a lot whether people find their porn and other , less popular products through Bing or Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm remotely a fan of Microsoft or their business practices, but to the extent that they do compete on their merits, they don't always suck, and Google could certainly use some competition.
I haven't tried Bing yet, but I'll get around to it eventually, and if it's better than Google, at least for some things, I'll use it.
And quite frankly, I have been increasingly dismayed by Google's search results lately, which seem to be slanted more and more to driving sales.
That would be fine if the only thing I used search engines for was finding products, but I'm often looking for actual information.In any case, market competition is usually beneficial to the consumer, and having a market overwhelmingly dominated by a single player is usually bad for the consumer.
Even when the dominant player is reasonably ethical, as Google is, you end up with the same situation that arises in monarchies: the current king may be a wise and just ruler, but all bets are off on his heirs.
Google is a publicly owned company, and if they stick around long enough, it's a statistical certainty that their leadership roles will eventually be filled by someone less competent and/or less ethical than the current incumbents.
When that happens, it would be a lot better to have many competitors ready to take their place.
(And certainly, we can't count on Microsoft to play the enlightened despot role.
)As far as the present goes, though, I don't think it really matters a lot whether people find their porn and other, less popular products through Bing or Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google needs the competition at this point. Google search has become the Windows of search engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google needs the competition at this point .
Google search has become the Windows of search engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google needs the competition at this point.
Google search has become the Windows of search engines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782494</id>
	<title>only because of googles CEO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263586980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If googles ceo wasn't arrogant and didn't say what he did. ("If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.")  I probably would still be using google as my primary search engine.<br>Someday when he understands current political environments and can predict future political environments maybe he will change his stance.<br>Until than what may be acceptable today could be tomorrows dissident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If googles ceo was n't arrogant and did n't say what he did .
( " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" ) I probably would still be using google as my primary search engine.Someday when he understands current political environments and can predict future political environments maybe he will change his stance.Until than what may be acceptable today could be tomorrows dissident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If googles ceo wasn't arrogant and didn't say what he did.
("If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
")  I probably would still be using google as my primary search engine.Someday when he understands current political environments and can predict future political environments maybe he will change his stance.Until than what may be acceptable today could be tomorrows dissident.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Androclese</author>
	<datestamp>1263583920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did the "Mom Test"; it has been pretty reliable for testing tech things.<br> <br>

Here is the exact conversation:<br>
me : 'Mom, I want you to change your IE search engine from Bing to Google.'<br>
Mom: 'Why?  What's the difference?'<br>
me : 'Google is better.'<br>
Mom: 'Nah, it doesn't matter to me, I just type what I want in there and the results show'<br>
me : 'Can you at least try?'<br>
Mom: 'Fine, where do I do it?'<br>
me : '(start explaining)'<br>
Mom: 'No, no, no, forget it, that's too complicated.  Stop with the geek talk; I'm still confused on how Foxfire (sic) can use the same Internet as Windows... how do you expect me to figure this out?'<br>
me :<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the " Mom Test " ; it has been pretty reliable for testing tech things .
Here is the exact conversation : me : 'Mom , I want you to change your IE search engine from Bing to Google .
' Mom : 'Why ?
What 's the difference ?
' me : 'Google is better .
' Mom : 'Nah , it does n't matter to me , I just type what I want in there and the results show ' me : 'Can you at least try ?
' Mom : 'Fine , where do I do it ?
' me : ' ( start explaining ) ' Mom : 'No , no , no , forget it , that 's too complicated .
Stop with the geek talk ; I 'm still confused on how Foxfire ( sic ) can use the same Internet as Windows... how do you expect me to figure this out ?
' me : .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the "Mom Test"; it has been pretty reliable for testing tech things.
Here is the exact conversation:
me : 'Mom, I want you to change your IE search engine from Bing to Google.
'
Mom: 'Why?
What's the difference?
'
me : 'Google is better.
'
Mom: 'Nah, it doesn't matter to me, I just type what I want in there and the results show'
me : 'Can you at least try?
'
Mom: 'Fine, where do I do it?
'
me : '(start explaining)'
Mom: 'No, no, no, forget it, that's too complicated.
Stop with the geek talk; I'm still confused on how Foxfire (sic) can use the same Internet as Windows... how do you expect me to figure this out?
'
me : ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782222</id>
	<title>It's just the U.S. market share that went up</title>
	<author>fadir</author>
	<datestamp>1263585780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Globally Bing is turning the other direction. Microsoft was always a bit stronger in the U.S., so nothing too exciting here.</p><p>And of course it went up in December when you see all the Windows 7 boxes that got sold before Christmas. They all default to Bing until the user changes it to something sane, which usually takes a bit. Wait for the January/February numbers and you'll probably see a nice dent in that curve again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Globally Bing is turning the other direction .
Microsoft was always a bit stronger in the U.S. , so nothing too exciting here.And of course it went up in December when you see all the Windows 7 boxes that got sold before Christmas .
They all default to Bing until the user changes it to something sane , which usually takes a bit .
Wait for the January/February numbers and you 'll probably see a nice dent in that curve again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Globally Bing is turning the other direction.
Microsoft was always a bit stronger in the U.S., so nothing too exciting here.And of course it went up in December when you see all the Windows 7 boxes that got sold before Christmas.
They all default to Bing until the user changes it to something sane, which usually takes a bit.
Wait for the January/February numbers and you'll probably see a nice dent in that curve again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30792742</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263633360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure if you're being purposely obtuse, but what that anecdote showed to me was how effective a default choice can be in a browser search box for a certain class of users.  In other words, it shows how much leverage Microsoft has in default settings within their operating system.  But, I'll concede that it can also show that for most folks, there isn't a huge difference in search engines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if you 're being purposely obtuse , but what that anecdote showed to me was how effective a default choice can be in a browser search box for a certain class of users .
In other words , it shows how much leverage Microsoft has in default settings within their operating system .
But , I 'll concede that it can also show that for most folks , there is n't a huge difference in search engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if you're being purposely obtuse, but what that anecdote showed to me was how effective a default choice can be in a browser search box for a certain class of users.
In other words, it shows how much leverage Microsoft has in default settings within their operating system.
But, I'll concede that it can also show that for most folks, there isn't a huge difference in search engines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782320</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263586140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pic can be turned off, it's just that the option to do so is tucked away in the most unintuitive place: open the main Bing page, and click on "Help".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pic can be turned off , it 's just that the option to do so is tucked away in the most unintuitive place : open the main Bing page , and click on " Help " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pic can be turned off, it's just that the option to do so is tucked away in the most unintuitive place: open the main Bing page, and click on "Help".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784084</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>PPCAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1263550680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I've only used Bing a few times as I see no compelling reason to not use Google but your Honda Civic test sounded odd to me so I decided to reproduce it myself.</p><p>
&nbsp; I typed Honda Civic into Google in one tab and then opened Bing in another and typed Honda Civic. You are correct in that it does provide information about the Honda Civic, Used Civics, Manuals, etc.. but the way you presented the information leads one to believe that Bing is providing a mish mash of links/data but that's not what's happening at all.</p><p>
&nbsp; Google provides results in the flat way that everybody knows, it simply presents what it thinks are the most relevant links based on your search query. It then presents other possibly relevant search queries as a footer to the search results.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Bing takes the approach of providing the user with what it deems are the most relevant categorized search results based on the original query. In other words, it's not just jumbling used cars and manuals in with product information, it clearly categorized the results into Used Civics, Manuals, Product information, etc.. and provided a link to see more results like those after the top hits in each category.</p><p>
&nbsp; I didn't spend much time on this comparing each specific category result on each engine but they seemed to provide similar results in each category based on a quick glance at the top hits.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Bing, Google, whatever.  They all find information. Pick the layout you like best, the one you think provides you with better results or the one from the company you hate the least.</p><p>
&nbsp; Personally, I'll stick with Google just because it seems smarter and has more conveniences. The ability to quickly solve a math equation or get a word definition with just a single search query, for example. Then there's the awesome freebies like 411-GOOG; I used that when my battery died one day to call around for quotes to decide if I should just get a jump or buy a new one from AAA.</p><p>
&nbsp; Google is better at figuring out what you meant when you misspell. I typed in the name of a local pizza joint to see if they'd both find it. I inserted a simple misspelling (one letter added) on Bing and it couldn't find any results. I then typed the same misspelling into Google and it gave me the result I wanted with the misspelling as well as providing me a "did you mean?" link with the proper spelling.</p><p>
&nbsp; Bing did find it when I provided the proper spelling but the place has an odd name that's easy to get wrong. Google would have found exactly what I wanted where Bing would essentially be useless unless I manually played with alternate spellings.</p><p>
&nbsp; Bing wins on pointless visual fluff but Google is just smarter about helping you find what you want as quickly as possible, IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only used Bing a few times as I see no compelling reason to not use Google but your Honda Civic test sounded odd to me so I decided to reproduce it myself .
  I typed Honda Civic into Google in one tab and then opened Bing in another and typed Honda Civic .
You are correct in that it does provide information about the Honda Civic , Used Civics , Manuals , etc.. but the way you presented the information leads one to believe that Bing is providing a mish mash of links/data but that 's not what 's happening at all .
  Google provides results in the flat way that everybody knows , it simply presents what it thinks are the most relevant links based on your search query .
It then presents other possibly relevant search queries as a footer to the search results .
    Bing takes the approach of providing the user with what it deems are the most relevant categorized search results based on the original query .
In other words , it 's not just jumbling used cars and manuals in with product information , it clearly categorized the results into Used Civics , Manuals , Product information , etc.. and provided a link to see more results like those after the top hits in each category .
  I did n't spend much time on this comparing each specific category result on each engine but they seemed to provide similar results in each category based on a quick glance at the top hits .
    Bing , Google , whatever .
They all find information .
Pick the layout you like best , the one you think provides you with better results or the one from the company you hate the least .
  Personally , I 'll stick with Google just because it seems smarter and has more conveniences .
The ability to quickly solve a math equation or get a word definition with just a single search query , for example .
Then there 's the awesome freebies like 411-GOOG ; I used that when my battery died one day to call around for quotes to decide if I should just get a jump or buy a new one from AAA .
  Google is better at figuring out what you meant when you misspell .
I typed in the name of a local pizza joint to see if they 'd both find it .
I inserted a simple misspelling ( one letter added ) on Bing and it could n't find any results .
I then typed the same misspelling into Google and it gave me the result I wanted with the misspelling as well as providing me a " did you mean ?
" link with the proper spelling .
  Bing did find it when I provided the proper spelling but the place has an odd name that 's easy to get wrong .
Google would have found exactly what I wanted where Bing would essentially be useless unless I manually played with alternate spellings .
  Bing wins on pointless visual fluff but Google is just smarter about helping you find what you want as quickly as possible , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I've only used Bing a few times as I see no compelling reason to not use Google but your Honda Civic test sounded odd to me so I decided to reproduce it myself.
  I typed Honda Civic into Google in one tab and then opened Bing in another and typed Honda Civic.
You are correct in that it does provide information about the Honda Civic, Used Civics, Manuals, etc.. but the way you presented the information leads one to believe that Bing is providing a mish mash of links/data but that's not what's happening at all.
  Google provides results in the flat way that everybody knows, it simply presents what it thinks are the most relevant links based on your search query.
It then presents other possibly relevant search queries as a footer to the search results.
    Bing takes the approach of providing the user with what it deems are the most relevant categorized search results based on the original query.
In other words, it's not just jumbling used cars and manuals in with product information, it clearly categorized the results into Used Civics, Manuals, Product information, etc.. and provided a link to see more results like those after the top hits in each category.
  I didn't spend much time on this comparing each specific category result on each engine but they seemed to provide similar results in each category based on a quick glance at the top hits.
    Bing, Google, whatever.
They all find information.
Pick the layout you like best, the one you think provides you with better results or the one from the company you hate the least.
  Personally, I'll stick with Google just because it seems smarter and has more conveniences.
The ability to quickly solve a math equation or get a word definition with just a single search query, for example.
Then there's the awesome freebies like 411-GOOG; I used that when my battery died one day to call around for quotes to decide if I should just get a jump or buy a new one from AAA.
  Google is better at figuring out what you meant when you misspell.
I typed in the name of a local pizza joint to see if they'd both find it.
I inserted a simple misspelling (one letter added) on Bing and it couldn't find any results.
I then typed the same misspelling into Google and it gave me the result I wanted with the misspelling as well as providing me a "did you mean?
" link with the proper spelling.
  Bing did find it when I provided the proper spelling but the place has an odd name that's easy to get wrong.
Google would have found exactly what I wanted where Bing would essentially be useless unless I manually played with alternate spellings.
  Bing wins on pointless visual fluff but Google is just smarter about helping you find what you want as quickly as possible, IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781662</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263583380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also helps if you don't have much market share to begin with.  It's easier to make gains when you have nowhere to go but up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also helps if you do n't have much market share to begin with .
It 's easier to make gains when you have nowhere to go but up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also helps if you don't have much market share to begin with.
It's easier to make gains when you have nowhere to go but up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781196</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263581580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your analogy is flawed. It only works if you and your son share a pool of height, and the gain of one could induce a reduction in the other. As it stands, your respective heights are completely unrelated, unlike Google and Bing's share of the market. I agree with most of the rest of your statement, except that the interesting point in the article is not necessarily the gaining of market share, but the rate at which it did so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is flawed .
It only works if you and your son share a pool of height , and the gain of one could induce a reduction in the other .
As it stands , your respective heights are completely unrelated , unlike Google and Bing 's share of the market .
I agree with most of the rest of your statement , except that the interesting point in the article is not necessarily the gaining of market share , but the rate at which it did so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy is flawed.
It only works if you and your son share a pool of height, and the gain of one could induce a reduction in the other.
As it stands, your respective heights are completely unrelated, unlike Google and Bing's share of the market.
I agree with most of the rest of your statement, except that the interesting point in the article is not necessarily the gaining of market share, but the rate at which it did so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781538</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow, microsoft let's half their users use google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , microsoft let 's half their users use google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, microsoft let's half their users use google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782522</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263587100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, you're trying to push your agenda without listening to the person with the 'problem'.

You even quoted her: "Why? What's the difference? I just type what I want in there and the results show".

So you want to take a system that works fine for your mother, and have her conform to the way you do things? Why? It's better? Would your mom *really* notice a difference in the results?

I don't see a problem here, other than fanboyism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you 're trying to push your agenda without listening to the person with the 'problem' .
You even quoted her : " Why ?
What 's the difference ?
I just type what I want in there and the results show " .
So you want to take a system that works fine for your mother , and have her conform to the way you do things ?
Why ? It 's better ?
Would your mom * really * notice a difference in the results ?
I do n't see a problem here , other than fanboyism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you're trying to push your agenda without listening to the person with the 'problem'.
You even quoted her: "Why?
What's the difference?
I just type what I want in there and the results show".
So you want to take a system that works fine for your mother, and have her conform to the way you do things?
Why? It's better?
Would your mom *really* notice a difference in the results?
I don't see a problem here, other than fanboyism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787546</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Ritontor</author>
	<datestamp>1263574500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing results pretty good? Sure, if you don't mind them actively filtering search results to remove anti-MS content: <a href="http://advice.cio.com/shane\_oneill/bing\_search\_tainted\_by\_pro\_microsoft\_results" title="cio.com" rel="nofollow">http://advice.cio.com/shane\_oneill/bing\_search\_tainted\_by\_pro\_microsoft\_results</a> [cio.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing results pretty good ?
Sure , if you do n't mind them actively filtering search results to remove anti-MS content : http : //advice.cio.com/shane \ _oneill/bing \ _search \ _tainted \ _by \ _pro \ _microsoft \ _results [ cio.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing results pretty good?
Sure, if you don't mind them actively filtering search results to remove anti-MS content: http://advice.cio.com/shane\_oneill/bing\_search\_tainted\_by\_pro\_microsoft\_results [cio.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781100</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> (I also have a Zune HD)</p></div><p>OK, now we KNOW you're a troll. XD</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I also have a Zune HD ) OK , now we KNOW you 're a troll .
XD</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (I also have a Zune HD)OK, now we KNOW you're a troll.
XD
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783002</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263546000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't try the alternatives, you can't know what's "best".</p><p>I agree that in this case it may not make much of a difference, but if he was trying to move her from IE6 to any other major browser (including IE7), can you really say it wouldn't be best for her to move, even though IE6 "works"?</p><p>Just because something isn't "broken" doesn't mean there aren't better ways to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't try the alternatives , you ca n't know what 's " best " .I agree that in this case it may not make much of a difference , but if he was trying to move her from IE6 to any other major browser ( including IE7 ) , can you really say it would n't be best for her to move , even though IE6 " works " ? Just because something is n't " broken " does n't mean there are n't better ways to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't try the alternatives, you can't know what's "best".I agree that in this case it may not make much of a difference, but if he was trying to move her from IE6 to any other major browser (including IE7), can you really say it wouldn't be best for her to move, even though IE6 "works"?Just because something isn't "broken" doesn't mean there aren't better ways to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787306</id>
	<title>Re:Full of it</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263571860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note the part "where results differ". Bing and Google return a significant number of the same sites in the same ranking. But what Bing adds is stuff I don't need. Google's specific results, on the other hand, help me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note the part " where results differ " .
Bing and Google return a significant number of the same sites in the same ranking .
But what Bing adds is stuff I do n't need .
Google 's specific results , on the other hand , help me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note the part "where results differ".
Bing and Google return a significant number of the same sites in the same ranking.
But what Bing adds is stuff I don't need.
Google's specific results, on the other hand, help me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781548</id>
	<title>Fortune cookie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like a fortune cookie I had once. On the back the learn Chinese word was:</p><p>Bing - disease</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like a fortune cookie I had once .
On the back the learn Chinese word was : Bing - disease</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like a fortune cookie I had once.
On the back the learn Chinese word was:Bing - disease</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780982</id>
	<title>Ebay cashback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ebay cash back is the main reason anyone uses it.</p><p>I still like the old "Why is Microsoft so expensive?" search (which in case you didn't know, the top returns are "why Apple is so expensive")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ebay cash back is the main reason anyone uses it.I still like the old " Why is Microsoft so expensive ?
" search ( which in case you did n't know , the top returns are " why Apple is so expensive " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ebay cash back is the main reason anyone uses it.I still like the old "Why is Microsoft so expensive?
" search (which in case you didn't know, the top returns are "why Apple is so expensive")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781048</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... (I also have a Zune HD)....</p></div><p>Talk about presenting a good case and then shooting yourself in the foot....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... ( I also have a Zune HD ) ....Talk about presenting a good case and then shooting yourself in the foot... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... (I also have a Zune HD)....Talk about presenting a good case and then shooting yourself in the foot....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782012</id>
	<title>Re:For IE users, Bing lockin is assured</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1263584820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE keeps your previous default search engine when you upgrade it, actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE keeps your previous default search engine when you upgrade it , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE keeps your previous default search engine when you upgrade it, actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</id>
	<title>Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1263580500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, my 1-year-old child has gained massive weight and height, while I, unfortunately, have not gotten even a millimeter taller.
</p><p> Google is the established leader, with a massive market share that is unlikely to grow much further.  Bing is the new kid on the block, starting at zero.  <b>Of course Bing is going to grow.</b> There is nothing else for it to do.  Even if it's lousy, it is impossible for it to <b>not</b> gain share. This is like comparing the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/389668/zune-hits-2-million-sales-drinks-creatives-milkshake" title="gizmodo.com">Zune marketshare</a> [gizmodo.com] with the iPod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , my 1-year-old child has gained massive weight and height , while I , unfortunately , have not gotten even a millimeter taller .
Google is the established leader , with a massive market share that is unlikely to grow much further .
Bing is the new kid on the block , starting at zero .
Of course Bing is going to grow .
There is nothing else for it to do .
Even if it 's lousy , it is impossible for it to not gain share .
This is like comparing the Zune marketshare [ gizmodo.com ] with the iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, my 1-year-old child has gained massive weight and height, while I, unfortunately, have not gotten even a millimeter taller.
Google is the established leader, with a massive market share that is unlikely to grow much further.
Bing is the new kid on the block, starting at zero.
Of course Bing is going to grow.
There is nothing else for it to do.
Even if it's lousy, it is impossible for it to not gain share.
This is like comparing the Zune marketshare [gizmodo.com] with the iPod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782694</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263587880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4) Over 1 million people downloading the Bing search engine <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10434" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">add-on for Firefox</a> [mozilla.org] (I have a hard time believing Microsoft manipulated them/me).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Over 1 million people downloading the Bing search engine add-on for Firefox [ mozilla.org ] ( I have a hard time believing Microsoft manipulated them/me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Over 1 million people downloading the Bing search engine add-on for Firefox [mozilla.org] (I have a hard time believing Microsoft manipulated them/me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783094</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>AdmiralWeirdbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1263546540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems to me to be the key issue here: do you know how to search for what you want, or do you not? Do you want a decision engine or a search engine? I'm actually sort of surprised that more hasnt been made of the 'decision engine' business.  Microsoft seems pretty up front about their 'we're making this search engine for people who either dont know how or are too lazy to properly seek out the information they want' strategy.  And in a way, i actually support this.  I was back home over christmas, helpin dad with some internets, and watching him fail to use google properly was really quite painful. he should be using bing.  However, I, too, will continue using the search engine that both works and respects my intelligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to me to be the key issue here : do you know how to search for what you want , or do you not ?
Do you want a decision engine or a search engine ?
I 'm actually sort of surprised that more hasnt been made of the 'decision engine ' business .
Microsoft seems pretty up front about their 'we 're making this search engine for people who either dont know how or are too lazy to properly seek out the information they want ' strategy .
And in a way , i actually support this .
I was back home over christmas , helpin dad with some internets , and watching him fail to use google properly was really quite painful .
he should be using bing .
However , I , too , will continue using the search engine that both works and respects my intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to me to be the key issue here: do you know how to search for what you want, or do you not?
Do you want a decision engine or a search engine?
I'm actually sort of surprised that more hasnt been made of the 'decision engine' business.
Microsoft seems pretty up front about their 'we're making this search engine for people who either dont know how or are too lazy to properly seek out the information they want' strategy.
And in a way, i actually support this.
I was back home over christmas, helpin dad with some internets, and watching him fail to use google properly was really quite painful.
he should be using bing.
However, I, too, will continue using the search engine that both works and respects my intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781068</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here's how that goes down with Joe Sixpack, and why it works.</p><p>"It's actually pretty easy to change providers in IE - you just click on the drop down beside the search field and select 'Find more providers'. Brings up a page with numerous other sea- Bah too complicated."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here 's how that goes down with Joe Sixpack , and why it works .
" It 's actually pretty easy to change providers in IE - you just click on the drop down beside the search field and select 'Find more providers' .
Brings up a page with numerous other sea- Bah too complicated .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here's how that goes down with Joe Sixpack, and why it works.
"It's actually pretty easy to change providers in IE - you just click on the drop down beside the search field and select 'Find more providers'.
Brings up a page with numerous other sea- Bah too complicated.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782218</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other news, my 1-year-old child has gained massive weight and height, while I, unfortunately, have not gotten even a millimeter taller.</p><p> Google is the established leader, with a massive market share that is unlikely to grow much further.  Bing is the new kid on the block, starting at zero.  <b>Of course Bing is going to grow.</b> There is nothing else for it to do.  Even if it's lousy, it is impossible for it to <b>not</b> gain share. This is like comparing the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/389668/zune-hits-2-million-sales-drinks-creatives-milkshake" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">Zune marketshare</a> [gizmodo.com] with the iPod.</p></div><p>Or like comparing Linux marketshare with Windows?  Oh wait, around here that means the underdog's growth is significant...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , my 1-year-old child has gained massive weight and height , while I , unfortunately , have not gotten even a millimeter taller .
Google is the established leader , with a massive market share that is unlikely to grow much further .
Bing is the new kid on the block , starting at zero .
Of course Bing is going to grow .
There is nothing else for it to do .
Even if it 's lousy , it is impossible for it to not gain share .
This is like comparing the Zune marketshare [ gizmodo.com ] with the iPod.Or like comparing Linux marketshare with Windows ?
Oh wait , around here that means the underdog 's growth is significant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, my 1-year-old child has gained massive weight and height, while I, unfortunately, have not gotten even a millimeter taller.
Google is the established leader, with a massive market share that is unlikely to grow much further.
Bing is the new kid on the block, starting at zero.
Of course Bing is going to grow.
There is nothing else for it to do.
Even if it's lousy, it is impossible for it to not gain share.
This is like comparing the Zune marketshare [gizmodo.com] with the iPod.Or like comparing Linux marketshare with Windows?
Oh wait, around here that means the underdog's growth is significant...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782384</id>
	<title>Verizon Wireless set Bing to default.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1263586440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MSFT has been paying companies like Verizon to make Bing the default search on their devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MSFT has been paying companies like Verizon to make Bing the default search on their devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MSFT has been paying companies like Verizon to make Bing the default search on their devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784266</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Russianspi</author>
	<datestamp>1263551520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bing is actually pretty darn good.  They don't have the countless integrated features that Google has, but for good, solid search results, in some cases, Bing returns better results than Google.  Where I work, people there have set about half of the desktops' home pages to Bing, with the other half being Google.</p></div><p>Wait, you work for Microsoft!?  **ducks**</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is actually pretty darn good .
They do n't have the countless integrated features that Google has , but for good , solid search results , in some cases , Bing returns better results than Google .
Where I work , people there have set about half of the desktops ' home pages to Bing , with the other half being Google.Wait , you work for Microsoft ! ?
* * ducks * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is actually pretty darn good.
They don't have the countless integrated features that Google has, but for good, solid search results, in some cases, Bing returns better results than Google.
Where I work, people there have set about half of the desktops' home pages to Bing, with the other half being Google.Wait, you work for Microsoft!?
**ducks**
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781846</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>loudmax</author>
	<datestamp>1263584100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that competition is good.  The analogy with Window's isn't quite accurate though, since Google doesn't (or can't) lock out competitors the way Microsoft can.</p><p>Ideally, Bing and other search engines will continue will continue to improve and gain market share at Google's expense, and Google Chrome and other OS's will also gain market share at Window's expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that competition is good .
The analogy with Window 's is n't quite accurate though , since Google does n't ( or ca n't ) lock out competitors the way Microsoft can.Ideally , Bing and other search engines will continue will continue to improve and gain market share at Google 's expense , and Google Chrome and other OS 's will also gain market share at Window 's expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that competition is good.
The analogy with Window's isn't quite accurate though, since Google doesn't (or can't) lock out competitors the way Microsoft can.Ideally, Bing and other search engines will continue will continue to improve and gain market share at Google's expense, and Google Chrome and other OS's will also gain market share at Window's expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783796</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263549540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isnt the point of search engines to manipulate the results?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Isnt the point of search engines to manipulate the results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isnt the point of search engines to manipulate the results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782644</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263587640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Slashdot, so I'll assume you're a bit technical.</p><p>If you take a look at Bing's Javascript, you'll see that the background image and mouseovers only get loaded *after* the rest of the site is fully loaded and functional. It's not affecting load time at all, in a practical sense.</p><p>That said, you might have highlighted a usability flaw: because of the way the background image is loaded, people might *think* that the page isn't fully loaded until it appears. I'm not sure if that's the case with your experience-- and I doubt there's anything Bing could do to fix it, short of *actually* slowing down load times by adding some kind of placeholder image.</p><p>That also said, most people are going to use Bing from a toolbar or search box and it's a moot point for them anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot , so I 'll assume you 're a bit technical.If you take a look at Bing 's Javascript , you 'll see that the background image and mouseovers only get loaded * after * the rest of the site is fully loaded and functional .
It 's not affecting load time at all , in a practical sense.That said , you might have highlighted a usability flaw : because of the way the background image is loaded , people might * think * that the page is n't fully loaded until it appears .
I 'm not sure if that 's the case with your experience-- and I doubt there 's anything Bing could do to fix it , short of * actually * slowing down load times by adding some kind of placeholder image.That also said , most people are going to use Bing from a toolbar or search box and it 's a moot point for them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot, so I'll assume you're a bit technical.If you take a look at Bing's Javascript, you'll see that the background image and mouseovers only get loaded *after* the rest of the site is fully loaded and functional.
It's not affecting load time at all, in a practical sense.That said, you might have highlighted a usability flaw: because of the way the background image is loaded, people might *think* that the page isn't fully loaded until it appears.
I'm not sure if that's the case with your experience-- and I doubt there's anything Bing could do to fix it, short of *actually* slowing down load times by adding some kind of placeholder image.That also said, most people are going to use Bing from a toolbar or search box and it's a moot point for them anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263583800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for fun, I tried Honda Civic as a search. Actually, Bing sucks. Where the results differ, Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields, or an ungodly list of used car sites. The one bonus item: it actually has sites that show the manuals for various Honda/Acura cars. Here's the deal though: if I type in "Honda Civic", I want information about the car, not about a manual for it, and I don't want to buy one. Especially not a used one. Google on the other hand presents me with sites that have information about the car - edmunds review, price comparisons, guide sites, etc. Stuff that will help me know more about the car.</p><p>If I want specific topics, I'll search for them, thank you very much.</p><p>I found similar issues with the maps site: directions are easier to manipulate in Google, and Google lets me search by public transit, or by walking. One good feature in Bing: get directions based on traffic. Google does something similar with "avoid highways", but it's not the same thing.</p><p>You are right, Google hasn't evolved much in its core business of search - but that's good, because there isn't much that can happen, until the semantic web (ha!) comes along. Bing tries to pretend it can do semantics, but it really can't. It's just faking it fairly badly. Oh, and final gripe: the stuff it does to wikipedia pages is nasty, and on its own a reason to avoid it like a plague. Yes, I don't have to use the readability feature, but I can't turn off the side bar where that option sits. If I go to a site, I either run my own scripts, or I want to see the page as the site creators intended. Not what MS thinks would be a good version.</p><p>In tl;dr format: Google gets out of my way. Bing is and stays in my face. Google wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for fun , I tried Honda Civic as a search .
Actually , Bing sucks .
Where the results differ , Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields , or an ungodly list of used car sites .
The one bonus item : it actually has sites that show the manuals for various Honda/Acura cars .
Here 's the deal though : if I type in " Honda Civic " , I want information about the car , not about a manual for it , and I do n't want to buy one .
Especially not a used one .
Google on the other hand presents me with sites that have information about the car - edmunds review , price comparisons , guide sites , etc .
Stuff that will help me know more about the car.If I want specific topics , I 'll search for them , thank you very much.I found similar issues with the maps site : directions are easier to manipulate in Google , and Google lets me search by public transit , or by walking .
One good feature in Bing : get directions based on traffic .
Google does something similar with " avoid highways " , but it 's not the same thing.You are right , Google has n't evolved much in its core business of search - but that 's good , because there is n't much that can happen , until the semantic web ( ha !
) comes along .
Bing tries to pretend it can do semantics , but it really ca n't .
It 's just faking it fairly badly .
Oh , and final gripe : the stuff it does to wikipedia pages is nasty , and on its own a reason to avoid it like a plague .
Yes , I do n't have to use the readability feature , but I ca n't turn off the side bar where that option sits .
If I go to a site , I either run my own scripts , or I want to see the page as the site creators intended .
Not what MS thinks would be a good version.In tl ; dr format : Google gets out of my way .
Bing is and stays in my face .
Google wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for fun, I tried Honda Civic as a search.
Actually, Bing sucks.
Where the results differ, Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields, or an ungodly list of used car sites.
The one bonus item: it actually has sites that show the manuals for various Honda/Acura cars.
Here's the deal though: if I type in "Honda Civic", I want information about the car, not about a manual for it, and I don't want to buy one.
Especially not a used one.
Google on the other hand presents me with sites that have information about the car - edmunds review, price comparisons, guide sites, etc.
Stuff that will help me know more about the car.If I want specific topics, I'll search for them, thank you very much.I found similar issues with the maps site: directions are easier to manipulate in Google, and Google lets me search by public transit, or by walking.
One good feature in Bing: get directions based on traffic.
Google does something similar with "avoid highways", but it's not the same thing.You are right, Google hasn't evolved much in its core business of search - but that's good, because there isn't much that can happen, until the semantic web (ha!
) comes along.
Bing tries to pretend it can do semantics, but it really can't.
It's just faking it fairly badly.
Oh, and final gripe: the stuff it does to wikipedia pages is nasty, and on its own a reason to avoid it like a plague.
Yes, I don't have to use the readability feature, but I can't turn off the side bar where that option sits.
If I go to a site, I either run my own scripts, or I want to see the page as the site creators intended.
Not what MS thinks would be a good version.In tl;dr format: Google gets out of my way.
Bing is and stays in my face.
Google wins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781178</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, on the Internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Random websites are being <a href="http://blogs.perl.org/users/cpan\_testers/2010/01/msnbot-must-die.html" title="perl.org" rel="nofollow">mysteriously slaughtered</a> [perl.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Random websites are being mysteriously slaughtered [ perl.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Random websites are being mysteriously slaughtered [perl.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781644</id>
	<title>The only place I use Bing is on my mobile phone</title>
	<author>ohithere</author>
	<datestamp>1263583320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, since Danger/Microsoft now own the Sidekick, Bing is now the default GPS/location search program on my device.  While I have changed my mobile internet options to search Google rather than Bing, Google does not have a free application that will identify stores and their locations effectively.  Navigating to maps.google.com will not work on my device, even on the mobile version.  Whether this was intentionally broken by MSFT or is just a failure of mobile internet remains to be seen.<br> <br>
Bing isn't ridiculously terrible, but I really hate Microsoft.  I can't wait for my contract to end so that I can get a different phone (that isn't a Microsoft POS).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , since Danger/Microsoft now own the Sidekick , Bing is now the default GPS/location search program on my device .
While I have changed my mobile internet options to search Google rather than Bing , Google does not have a free application that will identify stores and their locations effectively .
Navigating to maps.google.com will not work on my device , even on the mobile version .
Whether this was intentionally broken by MSFT or is just a failure of mobile internet remains to be seen .
Bing is n't ridiculously terrible , but I really hate Microsoft .
I ca n't wait for my contract to end so that I can get a different phone ( that is n't a Microsoft POS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, since Danger/Microsoft now own the Sidekick, Bing is now the default GPS/location search program on my device.
While I have changed my mobile internet options to search Google rather than Bing, Google does not have a free application that will identify stores and their locations effectively.
Navigating to maps.google.com will not work on my device, even on the mobile version.
Whether this was intentionally broken by MSFT or is just a failure of mobile internet remains to be seen.
Bing isn't ridiculously terrible, but I really hate Microsoft.
I can't wait for my contract to end so that I can get a different phone (that isn't a Microsoft POS).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785056</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1263555420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget searching ON Microsoft site is also hitting bing in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget searching ON Microsoft site is also hitting bing in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget searching ON Microsoft site is also hitting bing in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781630</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263583260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've failed to take into consideration that your 8-month-old child's year-over-year growth is accelerating.  He exhibited no visible growth at all two years ago, and in the last year his growth has been phenomenal!</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/605/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Before long, he'll be a giant.</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've failed to take into consideration that your 8-month-old child 's year-over-year growth is accelerating .
He exhibited no visible growth at all two years ago , and in the last year his growth has been phenomenal ! Before long , he 'll be a giant .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've failed to take into consideration that your 8-month-old child's year-over-year growth is accelerating.
He exhibited no visible growth at all two years ago, and in the last year his growth has been phenomenal!Before long, he'll be a giant.
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785836</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was your family that gave inspiration to the makers of Idiocracy ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was your family that gave inspiration to the makers of Idiocracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was your family that gave inspiration to the makers of Idiocracy ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781460</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must work for MS$...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I won't use Bing..In fact, I will continue to boycott their product  because I don't want Microsoft to kill off all competition which is their ultimate goal    Imagine a world where MS$ controls all search content.  They will make sure you only find what their sponsors want and choke off all independent developers, blogers and anything else they can control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must work for MS $ .. .       I wo n't use Bing..In fact , I will continue to boycott their product because I do n't want Microsoft to kill off all competition which is their ultimate goal Imagine a world where MS $ controls all search content .
They will make sure you only find what their sponsors want and choke off all independent developers , blogers and anything else they can control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must work for MS$...
      I won't use Bing..In fact, I will continue to boycott their product  because I don't want Microsoft to kill off all competition which is their ultimate goal    Imagine a world where MS$ controls all search content.
They will make sure you only find what their sponsors want and choke off all independent developers, blogers and anything else they can control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781562</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>Radhruin</author>
	<datestamp>1263582960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found that bing is useful in specific circumstances. For example, try searching for a restaurant in Bing. I find the interface much better, and the conglomeration of reviews to be far more helpful and interesting. This goes for most product searches as well. Bing maps also has a cool feature where you can get directions based on current traffic conditions. Handy for when you want to get someplace when the city is gridlocked in rush hour.

</p><p>Searching for programming related questions, though, it's next to worthless for some reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that bing is useful in specific circumstances .
For example , try searching for a restaurant in Bing .
I find the interface much better , and the conglomeration of reviews to be far more helpful and interesting .
This goes for most product searches as well .
Bing maps also has a cool feature where you can get directions based on current traffic conditions .
Handy for when you want to get someplace when the city is gridlocked in rush hour .
Searching for programming related questions , though , it 's next to worthless for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that bing is useful in specific circumstances.
For example, try searching for a restaurant in Bing.
I find the interface much better, and the conglomeration of reviews to be far more helpful and interesting.
This goes for most product searches as well.
Bing maps also has a cool feature where you can get directions based on current traffic conditions.
Handy for when you want to get someplace when the city is gridlocked in rush hour.
Searching for programming related questions, though, it's next to worthless for some reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783998</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Tarsir</author>
	<datestamp>1263550380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, this diagnostic test is useless without knowing the contents of '(start explaining)'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , this diagnostic test is useless without knowing the contents of ' ( start explaining ) ' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, this diagnostic test is useless without knowing the contents of '(start explaining)'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783040</id>
	<title>Re:CTRL+ENTER</title>
	<author>Duncan J Murray</author>
	<datestamp>1263546240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the kind of stuff that finally made me move to linux!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of stuff that finally made me move to linux !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of stuff that finally made me move to linux!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782064</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like they say, the apple never falls far from the tree...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like they say , the apple never falls far from the tree.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like they say, the apple never falls far from the tree...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780974</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me know when the Chinese attack it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me know when the Chinese attack it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me know when the Chinese attack it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781250</id>
	<title>Do More Evil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263581820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing, from the Evil Empire who's slogan takes you to the dark side of searching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing , from the Evil Empire who 's slogan takes you to the dark side of searching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing, from the Evil Empire who's slogan takes you to the dark side of searching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782538</id>
	<title>Re:Once again a misleading story about Bing</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263587220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites. This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft's search boxes: Bing, Live, microsoft.com, etc etc.</i></p><p>Uh, all of those use Bing, though.</p><p>If you're trying to report on Bing usage, you'd obviously include all domains that use Bing... right? I mean... duh? I'd also expect that if they were counting Google usage, they'd throw in (for example) Mozilla.org's search box, which uses Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites .
This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft 's search boxes : Bing , Live , microsoft.com , etc etc.Uh , all of those use Bing , though.If you 're trying to report on Bing usage , you 'd obviously include all domains that use Bing... right ? I mean... duh ? I 'd also expect that if they were counting Google usage , they 'd throw in ( for example ) Mozilla.org 's search box , which uses Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites.
This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft's search boxes: Bing, Live, microsoft.com, etc etc.Uh, all of those use Bing, though.If you're trying to report on Bing usage, you'd obviously include all domains that use Bing... right? I mean... duh? I'd also expect that if they were counting Google usage, they'd throw in (for example) Mozilla.org's search box, which uses Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781424</id>
	<title>EU Browsers Antitrust will fix this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing is the default search engine on install.<br>MS have had a massing increase in new installs because of windows 7 gaining so much momentum.</p><p>Once the EU anti trust ruling is implements in March, forcing them to offer various search engines on start up, they will get to feel what competing feels like.<br>See here:<br>http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/16/eu-microsoft-antitrust/</p><p>i expect that the results will start flowing the other way then, unless MS spend even more money on inducements / advertising to induce people to use Bing.</p><p>Ged</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing is the default search engine on install.MS have had a massing increase in new installs because of windows 7 gaining so much momentum.Once the EU anti trust ruling is implements in March , forcing them to offer various search engines on start up , they will get to feel what competing feels like.See here : http : //www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/16/eu-microsoft-antitrust/i expect that the results will start flowing the other way then , unless MS spend even more money on inducements / advertising to induce people to use Bing.Ged</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing is the default search engine on install.MS have had a massing increase in new installs because of windows 7 gaining so much momentum.Once the EU anti trust ruling is implements in March, forcing them to offer various search engines on start up, they will get to feel what competing feels like.See here:http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/16/eu-microsoft-antitrust/i expect that the results will start flowing the other way then, unless MS spend even more money on inducements / advertising to induce people to use Bing.Ged</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782188</id>
	<title>Meaningless Analysis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's another take, just as meaningless:<br> <br>

Using bing to find "google search" yields 121,000,000 results.<br>

Using google to find "bing search" yields 41,300,000.<br> <br>

Google wins hands down!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another take , just as meaningless : Using bing to find " google search " yields 121,000,000 results .
Using google to find " bing search " yields 41,300,000 .
Google wins hands down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another take, just as meaningless: 

Using bing to find "google search" yields 121,000,000 results.
Using google to find "bing search" yields 41,300,000.
Google wins hands down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782510</id>
	<title>21+ Bing links on MSN home page</title>
	<author>DodgeRules</author>
	<datestamp>1263587040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I looked at the homepage of MSN (which many IE browsers use as the default home page), I found a minimum of 21 links that you thought were links to articles but were only links to Bing searches.  This is why they are gaining ground, not because of a better search engine but because of the sneaky way they get people to use their search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I looked at the homepage of MSN ( which many IE browsers use as the default home page ) , I found a minimum of 21 links that you thought were links to articles but were only links to Bing searches .
This is why they are gaining ground , not because of a better search engine but because of the sneaky way they get people to use their search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I looked at the homepage of MSN (which many IE browsers use as the default home page), I found a minimum of 21 links that you thought were links to articles but were only links to Bing searches.
This is why they are gaining ground, not because of a better search engine but because of the sneaky way they get people to use their search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781510</id>
	<title>Advertising!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263582780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No just the reporter resembles a fanboy, but also the statistics shown are hollow. Growth rate, as said in other comments from 1 to 2 is 200\%  while form bigger numbers this percentage is MUCH lower. If you want to speak about traffic, real traffic, then put a big fat window whenever you start IE for the first time, suggesting which Search engine to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No just the reporter resembles a fanboy , but also the statistics shown are hollow .
Growth rate , as said in other comments from 1 to 2 is 200 \ % while form bigger numbers this percentage is MUCH lower .
If you want to speak about traffic , real traffic , then put a big fat window whenever you start IE for the first time , suggesting which Search engine to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No just the reporter resembles a fanboy, but also the statistics shown are hollow.
Growth rate, as said in other comments from 1 to 2 is 200\%  while form bigger numbers this percentage is MUCH lower.
If you want to speak about traffic, real traffic, then put a big fat window whenever you start IE for the first time, suggesting which Search engine to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785028</id>
	<title>Bing Adware</title>
	<author>dkre</author>
	<datestamp>1263555300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've just finished a marathon effort to remove some nasty adware. It was never identified/found by several antivirus apps and a fresh install was the only remedy. It was written specifically to target firefox (IE worked fine), hijacking links randomly and not so randomly (ie anything with 'virus' and 'removal' on the page would be redirected to one of a few ad pages. Love calculators etc). I first noticed the infection because it was randomly sending me to bing.com.

Not just links off google or other search forms but internal website links (for different sections etc). Seemed pretty strange at the time given I hadn't realised the infection had occured but I think it troubles me more now. I'm assuming adware authors wouldn't bother to do this unless there was a financial benefit, unless they really have alot of love for bing? heh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just finished a marathon effort to remove some nasty adware .
It was never identified/found by several antivirus apps and a fresh install was the only remedy .
It was written specifically to target firefox ( IE worked fine ) , hijacking links randomly and not so randomly ( ie anything with 'virus ' and 'removal ' on the page would be redirected to one of a few ad pages .
Love calculators etc ) .
I first noticed the infection because it was randomly sending me to bing.com .
Not just links off google or other search forms but internal website links ( for different sections etc ) .
Seemed pretty strange at the time given I had n't realised the infection had occured but I think it troubles me more now .
I 'm assuming adware authors would n't bother to do this unless there was a financial benefit , unless they really have alot of love for bing ?
heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just finished a marathon effort to remove some nasty adware.
It was never identified/found by several antivirus apps and a fresh install was the only remedy.
It was written specifically to target firefox (IE worked fine), hijacking links randomly and not so randomly (ie anything with 'virus' and 'removal' on the page would be redirected to one of a few ad pages.
Love calculators etc).
I first noticed the infection because it was randomly sending me to bing.com.
Not just links off google or other search forms but internal website links (for different sections etc).
Seemed pretty strange at the time given I hadn't realised the infection had occured but I think it troubles me more now.
I'm assuming adware authors wouldn't bother to do this unless there was a financial benefit, unless they really have alot of love for bing?
heh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780836</id>
	<title>...it is set as default</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no wonder... it's set as default on all the IE 8 and windows 7 installations i have made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no wonder... it 's set as default on all the IE 8 and windows 7 installations i have made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no wonder... it's set as default on all the IE 8 and windows 7 installations i have made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783856</id>
	<title>Re:Bing is pretty good</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1263549780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What was that?  I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you with Bill Gates's dick in your mouth like that.</p><p>Want to provide some ACTUAL examples for us, or did you just want to shill today?</p><p>Remember to swallow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What was that ?
I 'm sorry , I could n't hear you with Bill Gates 's dick in your mouth like that.Want to provide some ACTUAL examples for us , or did you just want to shill today ? Remember to swallow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was that?
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you with Bill Gates's dick in your mouth like that.Want to provide some ACTUAL examples for us, or did you just want to shill today?Remember to swallow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783334</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>Lendrick</author>
	<datestamp>1263547560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5) Fake search traffic by loading sites with referrer spam.</p><p>I'm serious.  Do a google search for "Bing referrer spam" and see how many results you come up with.  My semi-popular website was getting Bing hits for really generic terms like "art" and "audio".  The number of these fake hits eclipsed the number of legitimate Bing searches, by a factor of at least a hundred to one.  Every single one of these hits came from a Microsoft IP address, and even more maddeningly, every single one of them sent a browser ID string of IE6, thus inflating my IE6 numbers (I've since stopped officially supporting IE6 on my site, although it's possible that it still works.  I just don't care enough to check, as *real* IE6 usage is less than 2\%).</p><p>tl;dr: in one fell swoop, Microsoft is spamming websites and making it look like both Bing and IE6 are being used far more than they actually are.  Any numbers about Bing usage are suspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 ) Fake search traffic by loading sites with referrer spam.I 'm serious .
Do a google search for " Bing referrer spam " and see how many results you come up with .
My semi-popular website was getting Bing hits for really generic terms like " art " and " audio " .
The number of these fake hits eclipsed the number of legitimate Bing searches , by a factor of at least a hundred to one .
Every single one of these hits came from a Microsoft IP address , and even more maddeningly , every single one of them sent a browser ID string of IE6 , thus inflating my IE6 numbers ( I 've since stopped officially supporting IE6 on my site , although it 's possible that it still works .
I just do n't care enough to check , as * real * IE6 usage is less than 2 \ % ) .tl ; dr : in one fell swoop , Microsoft is spamming websites and making it look like both Bing and IE6 are being used far more than they actually are .
Any numbers about Bing usage are suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5) Fake search traffic by loading sites with referrer spam.I'm serious.
Do a google search for "Bing referrer spam" and see how many results you come up with.
My semi-popular website was getting Bing hits for really generic terms like "art" and "audio".
The number of these fake hits eclipsed the number of legitimate Bing searches, by a factor of at least a hundred to one.
Every single one of these hits came from a Microsoft IP address, and even more maddeningly, every single one of them sent a browser ID string of IE6, thus inflating my IE6 numbers (I've since stopped officially supporting IE6 on my site, although it's possible that it still works.
I just don't care enough to check, as *real* IE6 usage is less than 2\%).tl;dr: in one fell swoop, Microsoft is spamming websites and making it look like both Bing and IE6 are being used far more than they actually are.
Any numbers about Bing usage are suspect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781534</id>
	<title>It's the first page.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263582900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people I know that like Bing, like the Bing picture on the 1st page. It was well market researched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people I know that like Bing , like the Bing picture on the 1st page .
It was well market researched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people I know that like Bing, like the Bing picture on the 1st page.
It was well market researched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785000</id>
	<title>Via Fraud</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1263555120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has in place a 'pay to bing' program where you are paid to switch over your companies default search engine to bing.</p><p>That will be helping their stats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has in place a 'pay to bing ' program where you are paid to switch over your companies default search engine to bing.That will be helping their stats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has in place a 'pay to bing' program where you are paid to switch over your companies default search engine to bing.That will be helping their stats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781682</id>
	<title>Re:Once again a misleading story about Bing</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263583500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would give you mod points if I had 'em. Thanks for the info.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would give you mod points if I had 'em .
Thanks for the info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would give you mod points if I had 'em.
Thanks for the info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>kjart</author>
	<datestamp>1263580680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually pretty easy to change providers in IE - you just click on the drop down beside the search field and select 'Find more providers'. Brings up a page with numerous other search providers you can add (Google, ebay, etc). Also, I think if you go to google manually in IE, there is a prompt in the top right to switch (or at least there used to be - not sure if they killed this).

</p><p>Also, if you were to apply the same logic, the marketshare gains by google would be non-trivial since they are the default homepage/provider in Firefox. Personally, while I do think the defaults do influence things, I also think you are overstating them slightly. Google's brand alone assures that a lot of non-savvy computer users will still go there despite defaults in their browser, simply because 'google' has become synonymous with 'search' to a large extent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually pretty easy to change providers in IE - you just click on the drop down beside the search field and select 'Find more providers' .
Brings up a page with numerous other search providers you can add ( Google , ebay , etc ) .
Also , I think if you go to google manually in IE , there is a prompt in the top right to switch ( or at least there used to be - not sure if they killed this ) .
Also , if you were to apply the same logic , the marketshare gains by google would be non-trivial since they are the default homepage/provider in Firefox .
Personally , while I do think the defaults do influence things , I also think you are overstating them slightly .
Google 's brand alone assures that a lot of non-savvy computer users will still go there despite defaults in their browser , simply because 'google ' has become synonymous with 'search ' to a large extent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually pretty easy to change providers in IE - you just click on the drop down beside the search field and select 'Find more providers'.
Brings up a page with numerous other search providers you can add (Google, ebay, etc).
Also, I think if you go to google manually in IE, there is a prompt in the top right to switch (or at least there used to be - not sure if they killed this).
Also, if you were to apply the same logic, the marketshare gains by google would be non-trivial since they are the default homepage/provider in Firefox.
Personally, while I do think the defaults do influence things, I also think you are overstating them slightly.
Google's brand alone assures that a lot of non-savvy computer users will still go there despite defaults in their browser, simply because 'google' has become synonymous with 'search' to a large extent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786242</id>
	<title>Re:Easy to do</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263562980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we just had a post not too long ago about how FireFox was more popular than IE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So if thats the case, whats the excuse now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we just had a post not too long ago about how FireFox was more popular than IE ... So if thats the case , whats the excuse now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we just had a post not too long ago about how FireFox was more popular than IE ... So if thats the case, whats the excuse now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781980</id>
	<title>Another bad search engine.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1263584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have made a webpage, that is just a js withouth html, and it score the first, and second on bing movile, and first for normal devices.</p><p><a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=fotos+de+perritos&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all" title="bing.com">http://www.bing.com/search?q=fotos+de+perritos&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all</a> [bing.com]</p><p>this page:<br><a href="http://www.servicios-dpi.com/fun/perritos.htm" title="servicios-dpi.com">http://www.servicios-dpi.com/fun/perritos.htm</a> [servicios-dpi.com]</p><p>It used to score well in Yahoo too.  It seems these primitive search engine ( Bing, Yahoo, ) are more confident on meta data like title, than in the actual data of the website.  AND/OR these search engines are easy cheated because use \%, so if the 100\% of your webpage is relevant, your page is awesome, so your page made of only the search term will be the best page.</p><p>The algorithm of Bing is poor.</p><p>The algorithm of Google started as rather good, and Is getting better and better, because is good, and because is need to fight spam.  Any other search engine is way behing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have made a webpage , that is just a js withouth html , and it score the first , and second on bing movile , and first for normal devices.http : //www.bing.com/search ? q = fotos + de + perritos&amp;go = &amp;form = QBRE&amp;filt = all [ bing.com ] this page : http : //www.servicios-dpi.com/fun/perritos.htm [ servicios-dpi.com ] It used to score well in Yahoo too .
It seems these primitive search engine ( Bing , Yahoo , ) are more confident on meta data like title , than in the actual data of the website .
AND/OR these search engines are easy cheated because use \ % , so if the 100 \ % of your webpage is relevant , your page is awesome , so your page made of only the search term will be the best page.The algorithm of Bing is poor.The algorithm of Google started as rather good , and Is getting better and better , because is good , and because is need to fight spam .
Any other search engine is way behing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have made a webpage, that is just a js withouth html, and it score the first, and second on bing movile, and first for normal devices.http://www.bing.com/search?q=fotos+de+perritos&amp;go=&amp;form=QBRE&amp;filt=all [bing.com]this page:http://www.servicios-dpi.com/fun/perritos.htm [servicios-dpi.com]It used to score well in Yahoo too.
It seems these primitive search engine ( Bing, Yahoo, ) are more confident on meta data like title, than in the actual data of the website.
AND/OR these search engines are easy cheated because use \%, so if the 100\% of your webpage is relevant, your page is awesome, so your page made of only the search term will be the best page.The algorithm of Bing is poor.The algorithm of Google started as rather good, and Is getting better and better, because is good, and because is need to fight spam.
Any other search engine is way behing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782462</id>
	<title>Of course it's up</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1263586800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it's been up every month.  Bing is replacing Live/MSN/etc, and Yahoo is now using it as their search engine.  It's gone from 0\% to replacing 2 of the top 3 search engines.  Of course this seems like rapid growth.  How much of these users are NEW users being attracted from the competition?  Probably not as interesting a story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's been up every month .
Bing is replacing Live/MSN/etc , and Yahoo is now using it as their search engine .
It 's gone from 0 \ % to replacing 2 of the top 3 search engines .
Of course this seems like rapid growth .
How much of these users are NEW users being attracted from the competition ?
Probably not as interesting a story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's been up every month.
Bing is replacing Live/MSN/etc, and Yahoo is now using it as their search engine.
It's gone from 0\% to replacing 2 of the top 3 search engines.
Of course this seems like rapid growth.
How much of these users are NEW users being attracted from the competition?
Probably not as interesting a story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782204</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263585720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it's not. Compare:</p><p>IE: No change in years. Never used to consider standards, still doesn't care about them enough. Was a bitch to work with. Only reason it wasn't switched out this far was because corporate hq had invested in a intranet site that only runs on IE6, so they forbade you to install any other.</p><p>Windows: No competition, basically the old product with new UI sold as new (with $300 price tag to match). Still needs to be replaced, sufficient good competitors now coming up. Win7 is a lame attempt at changing the UI to hope nobody notices the underlying gaps in the by now completely obsolete API with sufficient patches on it to make a quilt. Corporate software doesn't work without it.</p><p>Google: Search engine that was market leader, and then added maps, local services, mail and about 20 other things that I've now forgotten. As a search engine it was always ok and seemed to get good results on the first few pages, so there's no real reason to switch to anything else. Nobody's requiring you to use it at all (although some websites are strongly motivating you by including a website-search based on google).</p><p>So, why would Google be the Windows of search engines?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not .
Compare : IE : No change in years .
Never used to consider standards , still does n't care about them enough .
Was a bitch to work with .
Only reason it was n't switched out this far was because corporate hq had invested in a intranet site that only runs on IE6 , so they forbade you to install any other.Windows : No competition , basically the old product with new UI sold as new ( with $ 300 price tag to match ) .
Still needs to be replaced , sufficient good competitors now coming up .
Win7 is a lame attempt at changing the UI to hope nobody notices the underlying gaps in the by now completely obsolete API with sufficient patches on it to make a quilt .
Corporate software does n't work without it.Google : Search engine that was market leader , and then added maps , local services , mail and about 20 other things that I 've now forgotten .
As a search engine it was always ok and seemed to get good results on the first few pages , so there 's no real reason to switch to anything else .
Nobody 's requiring you to use it at all ( although some websites are strongly motivating you by including a website-search based on google ) .So , why would Google be the Windows of search engines ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not.
Compare:IE: No change in years.
Never used to consider standards, still doesn't care about them enough.
Was a bitch to work with.
Only reason it wasn't switched out this far was because corporate hq had invested in a intranet site that only runs on IE6, so they forbade you to install any other.Windows: No competition, basically the old product with new UI sold as new (with $300 price tag to match).
Still needs to be replaced, sufficient good competitors now coming up.
Win7 is a lame attempt at changing the UI to hope nobody notices the underlying gaps in the by now completely obsolete API with sufficient patches on it to make a quilt.
Corporate software doesn't work without it.Google: Search engine that was market leader, and then added maps, local services, mail and about 20 other things that I've now forgotten.
As a search engine it was always ok and seemed to get good results on the first few pages, so there's no real reason to switch to anything else.
Nobody's requiring you to use it at all (although some websites are strongly motivating you by including a website-search based on google).So, why would Google be the Windows of search engines?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784730</id>
	<title>in more pressing news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263553680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson posted what actually appears to be a positive news story relating to microsoft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson posted what actually appears to be a positive news story relating to microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson posted what actually appears to be a positive news story relating to microsoft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781948</id>
	<title>Let's get one thing straight</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1263584580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing wasn't 'Launched' it was INSTALLED *. There's a huge difference.
<p>
*Yes, I realise that some  people have actually switched to it - but I'm sure that 98\% of Bing users upgraded IE or are turning on Win7 for the first time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing was n't 'Launched ' it was INSTALLED * .
There 's a huge difference .
* Yes , I realise that some people have actually switched to it - but I 'm sure that 98 \ % of Bing users upgraded IE or are turning on Win7 for the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing wasn't 'Launched' it was INSTALLED *.
There's a huge difference.
*Yes, I realise that some  people have actually switched to it - but I'm sure that 98\% of Bing users upgraded IE or are turning on Win7 for the first time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374</id>
	<title>Once again a misleading story about Bing</title>
	<author>pdboddy</author>
	<datestamp>1263582300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites.  This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft's search boxes: Bing, Live, microsoft.com, etc etc.<br> <br>
If you look at the Nielsen report here: <a href="http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online\_mobile/nielsen-reports-december-u-s-search-rankings/" title="nielsen.com">http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online\_mobile/nielsen-reports-december-u-s-search-rankings/</a> [nielsen.com] <br> <br>

You'll see that they list Microsofts search sites as "MSN/Windows Live/Bing Search", which is a bit more explanatory I would say.<br> <br>

And if you check Hitwise, where they list searches BY domain name, www.bing.com LOST 4\%. (http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites .
This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft 's search boxes : Bing , Live , microsoft.com , etc etc .
If you look at the Nielsen report here : http : //blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online \ _mobile/nielsen-reports-december-u-s-search-rankings/ [ nielsen.com ] You 'll see that they list Microsofts search sites as " MSN/Windows Live/Bing Search " , which is a bit more explanatory I would say .
And if you check Hitwise , where they list searches BY domain name , www.bing.com LOST 4 \ % .
( http : //www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites.
This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft's search boxes: Bing, Live, microsoft.com, etc etc.
If you look at the Nielsen report here: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online\_mobile/nielsen-reports-december-u-s-search-rankings/ [nielsen.com]  

You'll see that they list Microsofts search sites as "MSN/Windows Live/Bing Search", which is a bit more explanatory I would say.
And if you check Hitwise, where they list searches BY domain name, www.bing.com LOST 4\%.
(http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781452</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>GerardAtJob</author>
	<datestamp>1263582540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you know how to change the default search engine... but I can garantee you that 75\% (AT LEAST) of all computer users DOESN'T KNOW HOW... Even if the buttons/options are correctly labeled...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you know how to change the default search engine... but I can garantee you that 75 \ % ( AT LEAST ) of all computer users DOES N'T KNOW HOW... Even if the buttons/options are correctly labeled.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you know how to change the default search engine... but I can garantee you that 75\% (AT LEAST) of all computer users DOESN'T KNOW HOW... Even if the buttons/options are correctly labeled...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30814612</id>
	<title>My site data is what I care about</title>
	<author>smagruder</author>
	<datestamp>1263820680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the most popular website I run, 90.5\% of the organic hits continue to come from Google, with only 4.0\% coming from Bing.  Until I see \_these\_ numbers change significantly, I don't care what the overall market shares of these search engines are.  In short, I only care about the data that relates to my own sites, and it should behoove everyone to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the most popular website I run , 90.5 \ % of the organic hits continue to come from Google , with only 4.0 \ % coming from Bing .
Until I see \ _these \ _ numbers change significantly , I do n't care what the overall market shares of these search engines are .
In short , I only care about the data that relates to my own sites , and it should behoove everyone to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the most popular website I run, 90.5\% of the organic hits continue to come from Google, with only 4.0\% coming from Bing.
Until I see \_these\_ numbers change significantly, I don't care what the overall market shares of these search engines are.
In short, I only care about the data that relates to my own sites, and it should behoove everyone to do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781406</id>
	<title>How Many Real?</title>
	<author>notnAP</author>
	<datestamp>1263582420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to check on the configuration of one of my switches using its built in html interface, I entered 10.0.0.101<br>Switch somehow had gone back to its default IP address, so it didn't respond.<br>Moments later, I was given a very helpful list of search queries for 10.0.0.101 by Bing.<br>Thank you Bing!!! Thank you for reminding me why I prefer Firefox over IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to check on the configuration of one of my switches using its built in html interface , I entered 10.0.0.101Switch somehow had gone back to its default IP address , so it did n't respond.Moments later , I was given a very helpful list of search queries for 10.0.0.101 by Bing.Thank you Bing ! ! !
Thank you for reminding me why I prefer Firefox over IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to check on the configuration of one of my switches using its built in html interface, I entered 10.0.0.101Switch somehow had gone back to its default IP address, so it didn't respond.Moments later, I was given a very helpful list of search queries for 10.0.0.101 by Bing.Thank you Bing!!!
Thank you for reminding me why I prefer Firefox over IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784276</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263551580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it would be news if you got an inch shorter for every inch your 1-year old gained.  Bing gaining market share is obviously taking it away from someone ( though it does not seem it is Google in this case ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it would be news if you got an inch shorter for every inch your 1-year old gained .
Bing gaining market share is obviously taking it away from someone ( though it does not seem it is Google in this case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it would be news if you got an inch shorter for every inch your 1-year old gained.
Bing gaining market share is obviously taking it away from someone ( though it does not seem it is Google in this case ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781842</id>
	<title>Re:Look, it's actually not bad</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263584100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just search for honda civic on both.  The only difference I can see is that Bing incorporates MSN auto into the mix and allows you to see some of the categories on MSN.</p><p>I also compared Google and Bing maps.   In my location, they are identical.</p><p>If I go to a location that I know has been photographed from the air for surveying purposes I find that Google has higher res images, but there is no Birds-Eye view option on Bing.  So all you've found here is that Google has some arial photographs that Bing doesn't have and vice-versa, which pretty much everyone already knew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just search for honda civic on both .
The only difference I can see is that Bing incorporates MSN auto into the mix and allows you to see some of the categories on MSN.I also compared Google and Bing maps .
In my location , they are identical.If I go to a location that I know has been photographed from the air for surveying purposes I find that Google has higher res images , but there is no Birds-Eye view option on Bing .
So all you 've found here is that Google has some arial photographs that Bing does n't have and vice-versa , which pretty much everyone already knew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just search for honda civic on both.
The only difference I can see is that Bing incorporates MSN auto into the mix and allows you to see some of the categories on MSN.I also compared Google and Bing maps.
In my location, they are identical.If I go to a location that I know has been photographed from the air for surveying purposes I find that Google has higher res images, but there is no Birds-Eye view option on Bing.
So all you've found here is that Google has some arial photographs that Bing doesn't have and vice-versa, which pretty much everyone already knew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781758</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid reporting</title>
	<author>hondo77</author>
	<datestamp>1263583800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your analogy is flawed.</p></div><p>-1 Whoosh!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is flawed.-1 Whoosh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy is flawed.-1 Whoosh!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263580080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when you make your search engine the default one for your web browser as well as make it difficult for someone to add or change this option.</p><p>Duh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you make your search engine the default one for your web browser as well as make it difficult for someone to add or change this option.Duh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you make your search engine the default one for your web browser as well as make it difficult for someone to add or change this option.Duh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30792742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30799460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_15_169227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30784266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30787546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30786512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30785836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782522
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783002
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30792742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30780842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30799460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_15_169227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30781846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30782204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_15_169227.30783366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
