<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_2255210</id>
	<title>Half of Google News Users Browse But Don't Click</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263986400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times: <i>"Nearly half of the users of Google News <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100120/nearly-half-google-news-users-just-skim-headlines.htm">skim the headlines at the news aggregator site without clicking through</a> to the publisher, according to new research. ... Outsell analyst Ken Doctor said in a statement that 'among the aggregators, Google's effect on the newspaper industry is particularly striking.' 'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. 'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.' ... With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times : " Nearly half of the users of Google News skim the headlines at the news aggregator site without clicking through to the publisher , according to new research .
... Outsell analyst Ken Doctor said in a statement that 'among the aggregators , Google 's effect on the newspaper industry is particularly striking .
' 'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers , it 's also taking a significant share away , " Doctor said .
'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers ' individual sites .
' ... With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online , Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times: "Nearly half of the users of Google News skim the headlines at the news aggregator site without clicking through to the publisher, according to new research.
... Outsell analyst Ken Doctor said in a statement that 'among the aggregators, Google's effect on the newspaper industry is particularly striking.
' 'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said.
'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.
' ... With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840222</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>mustafap</author>
	<datestamp>1263992760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad news for us hacks who are paid by the word</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad news for us hacks who are paid by the word</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad news for us hacks who are paid by the word</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839818</id>
	<title>Not that bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know of a lot of advertisers who would kill for a 44\% clickthru rate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hell, I know a lot of advertisers who would kill for a 1/10th of that clickthru.</p><p>Fine, if newspapers are finally waking up to the 21st century, and wish to put content behind a paywall, then they should go for it. And Google should send them a huge bill every month for referrals to paid content.</p><p>In fact, if Google did this for all paywall sites, maybe there'd be less useless crap in the results. Tired of seeing search results for pages that when you clickthru to them, turn out to be behind a paywall / login page.</p><p>Isn't this cheating anyway, presenting one version of the page to Googlebots, but putting a wall in place for regular users ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of a lot of advertisers who would kill for a 44 \ % clickthru rate ... hell , I know a lot of advertisers who would kill for a 1/10th of that clickthru.Fine , if newspapers are finally waking up to the 21st century , and wish to put content behind a paywall , then they should go for it .
And Google should send them a huge bill every month for referrals to paid content.In fact , if Google did this for all paywall sites , maybe there 'd be less useless crap in the results .
Tired of seeing search results for pages that when you clickthru to them , turn out to be behind a paywall / login page.Is n't this cheating anyway , presenting one version of the page to Googlebots , but putting a wall in place for regular users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of a lot of advertisers who would kill for a 44\% clickthru rate ... hell, I know a lot of advertisers who would kill for a 1/10th of that clickthru.Fine, if newspapers are finally waking up to the 21st century, and wish to put content behind a paywall, then they should go for it.
And Google should send them a huge bill every month for referrals to paid content.In fact, if Google did this for all paywall sites, maybe there'd be less useless crap in the results.
Tired of seeing search results for pages that when you clickthru to them, turn out to be behind a paywall / login page.Isn't this cheating anyway, presenting one version of the page to Googlebots, but putting a wall in place for regular users ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840586</id>
	<title>Re:Google could actually fix this if they wanted t</title>
	<author>socz</author>
	<datestamp>1263994800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i reply because I like your name, I like the band and I do the same. I actually was very weary of one news provider, The Christian Science Monitor - because with a name like that, how could they NOT be skewed right? Well, I took a chance one day just to check it out and sure enough, it was good reporting. So I did some investigating, and what people told the woman who started it sure enough still affects them. But like she said, the content will overcome that problem. So I look out for preferred sources of news as well as those as I try to avoid.
<br> <br>
I like to tell this story because #1 It's really about giving other ideas a chance - in this case it was worth finding out that the name does not make the company. #2 Maybe someday someone will remember this and give a company a chance and be greatly satisfied with their product - such as Hans-G who is now known as Hans Spree?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i reply because I like your name , I like the band and I do the same .
I actually was very weary of one news provider , The Christian Science Monitor - because with a name like that , how could they NOT be skewed right ?
Well , I took a chance one day just to check it out and sure enough , it was good reporting .
So I did some investigating , and what people told the woman who started it sure enough still affects them .
But like she said , the content will overcome that problem .
So I look out for preferred sources of news as well as those as I try to avoid .
I like to tell this story because # 1 It 's really about giving other ideas a chance - in this case it was worth finding out that the name does not make the company .
# 2 Maybe someday someone will remember this and give a company a chance and be greatly satisfied with their product - such as Hans-G who is now known as Hans Spree ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i reply because I like your name, I like the band and I do the same.
I actually was very weary of one news provider, The Christian Science Monitor - because with a name like that, how could they NOT be skewed right?
Well, I took a chance one day just to check it out and sure enough, it was good reporting.
So I did some investigating, and what people told the woman who started it sure enough still affects them.
But like she said, the content will overcome that problem.
So I look out for preferred sources of news as well as those as I try to avoid.
I like to tell this story because #1 It's really about giving other ideas a chance - in this case it was worth finding out that the name does not make the company.
#2 Maybe someday someone will remember this and give a company a chance and be greatly satisfied with their product - such as Hans-G who is now known as Hans Spree?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843306</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1264106820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.</p></div><p>Heh.</p><p>Thing is, we don't know know how many people do the same with printed newspapers. I know I probably skim the headlines on at least half of the (paid) newspapers I buy. But of late I have begun to realise that most if now all "news" you read is next to meaningless anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.Heh.Thing is , we do n't know know how many people do the same with printed newspapers .
I know I probably skim the headlines on at least half of the ( paid ) newspapers I buy .
But of late I have begun to realise that most if now all " news " you read is next to meaningless anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.Heh.Thing is, we don't know know how many people do the same with printed newspapers.
I know I probably skim the headlines on at least half of the (paid) newspapers I buy.
But of late I have begun to realise that most if now all "news" you read is next to meaningless anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840078</id>
	<title>Google could actually fix this if they wanted to</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1263992100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If for some inexplicable reason, the news industry starts going insane and declares that they are putting up pay-walls everywhere, then Google could head 'em off at the pass by agreeing to split <i>their</i> advertising revenue from news.google.com to the publishers whose article blurb's are shown for a given page view. Of course, the assumption here is that news publishers could be made profitable with just <i>a bit more</i> advertising revenue. If they are out by an order of magnitude, then this "solution" won't save them either.</p><p>As an aside, I'm a keen Google news lurker, however I will sometimes click on a link belonging to a news publisher <i>other</i> than the main one whose article blurb is shown. That's because I choose to boycott certain publishers. I'm not sure if gNews is adaptive or not (I read while logged in) however so far it doesn't seem like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If for some inexplicable reason , the news industry starts going insane and declares that they are putting up pay-walls everywhere , then Google could head 'em off at the pass by agreeing to split their advertising revenue from news.google.com to the publishers whose article blurb 's are shown for a given page view .
Of course , the assumption here is that news publishers could be made profitable with just a bit more advertising revenue .
If they are out by an order of magnitude , then this " solution " wo n't save them either.As an aside , I 'm a keen Google news lurker , however I will sometimes click on a link belonging to a news publisher other than the main one whose article blurb is shown .
That 's because I choose to boycott certain publishers .
I 'm not sure if gNews is adaptive or not ( I read while logged in ) however so far it does n't seem like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If for some inexplicable reason, the news industry starts going insane and declares that they are putting up pay-walls everywhere, then Google could head 'em off at the pass by agreeing to split their advertising revenue from news.google.com to the publishers whose article blurb's are shown for a given page view.
Of course, the assumption here is that news publishers could be made profitable with just a bit more advertising revenue.
If they are out by an order of magnitude, then this "solution" won't save them either.As an aside, I'm a keen Google news lurker, however I will sometimes click on a link belonging to a news publisher other than the main one whose article blurb is shown.
That's because I choose to boycott certain publishers.
I'm not sure if gNews is adaptive or not (I read while logged in) however so far it doesn't seem like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839662</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.  There isn't a need to click through in this case.</p></div><p>So this proves that !RTFA is a viable and profitable strategy. Why criticize?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , for the rest of you who never RTFA , the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA .
There is n't a need to click through in this case.So this proves that ! RTFA is a viable and profitable strategy .
Why criticize ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.
There isn't a need to click through in this case.So this proves that !RTFA is a viable and profitable strategy.
Why criticize?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842558</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that you only use [sic] when quoting someone else, right?<br>Not when you want to explain to the reader that you are making a deliberate mistake.<br>No? Well now you do.  It's even more annoying than when people explain their puns.</p><p>Furthermore, I don't even understand why you're trying to draw so much attention to it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that you only use [ sic ] when quoting someone else , right ? Not when you want to explain to the reader that you are making a deliberate mistake.No ?
Well now you do .
It 's even more annoying than when people explain their puns.Furthermore , I do n't even understand why you 're trying to draw so much attention to it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that you only use [sic] when quoting someone else, right?Not when you want to explain to the reader that you are making a deliberate mistake.No?
Well now you do.
It's even more annoying than when people explain their puns.Furthermore, I don't even understand why you're trying to draw so much attention to it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840142</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1263992340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So.. I go to google news, search "hamburger".<br>
I find all the summaries boring, except an article about the hamburger festival in Abkhazia, which is what I was *actually* looking for. I then proceed to click on that article. <br> <br>I had no intention of reading the other articles, I wasn't looking for them, so why would it be expected that I click on them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So.. I go to google news , search " hamburger " .
I find all the summaries boring , except an article about the hamburger festival in Abkhazia , which is what I was * actually * looking for .
I then proceed to click on that article .
I had no intention of reading the other articles , I was n't looking for them , so why would it be expected that I click on them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.. I go to google news, search "hamburger".
I find all the summaries boring, except an article about the hamburger festival in Abkhazia, which is what I was *actually* looking for.
I then proceed to click on that article.
I had no intention of reading the other articles, I wasn't looking for them, so why would it be expected that I click on them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840742</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1263995820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly right.  It's not that often that I see an article I really want to carefully read the full text of; most of the time I just end up skimming stuff because it's not hard to open a bunch of articles in separate tabs, then skim and close each one.  Off the top of my head, it seems like only astronomy or astrophysics-type articles are the ones I read carefully.  Most "news" stories just aren't very interesting, and even if they might be interesting, the "journalists" do such a crummy job of writing and reporting that I'm left with more questions than answers.</p><p>Any company that thinks they're going to be successful in charging individuals for access to news is utterly insane or stupid.</p><p>On the website that carries news local to my city (azcentral.com), I only click on the articles so that I can make snarky or rude comments.  I'd never actually pay for access to that crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right .
It 's not that often that I see an article I really want to carefully read the full text of ; most of the time I just end up skimming stuff because it 's not hard to open a bunch of articles in separate tabs , then skim and close each one .
Off the top of my head , it seems like only astronomy or astrophysics-type articles are the ones I read carefully .
Most " news " stories just are n't very interesting , and even if they might be interesting , the " journalists " do such a crummy job of writing and reporting that I 'm left with more questions than answers.Any company that thinks they 're going to be successful in charging individuals for access to news is utterly insane or stupid.On the website that carries news local to my city ( azcentral.com ) , I only click on the articles so that I can make snarky or rude comments .
I 'd never actually pay for access to that crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right.
It's not that often that I see an article I really want to carefully read the full text of; most of the time I just end up skimming stuff because it's not hard to open a bunch of articles in separate tabs, then skim and close each one.
Off the top of my head, it seems like only astronomy or astrophysics-type articles are the ones I read carefully.
Most "news" stories just aren't very interesting, and even if they might be interesting, the "journalists" do such a crummy job of writing and reporting that I'm left with more questions than answers.Any company that thinks they're going to be successful in charging individuals for access to news is utterly insane or stupid.On the website that carries news local to my city (azcentral.com), I only click on the articles so that I can make snarky or rude comments.
I'd never actually pay for access to that crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842798</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264013700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.</i></p><p>Well, we used to, back in the days when we had no internet and only 3 TV channels. Then we got USA Today, which brought us the "you should be able to read each individual story in less than a minute" school of journalism, which threw in "write at 7th grade level because they're all stupid" just for fun.</p><p>Apparently, we all liked it that way and now we think we're informed if we read a whole paragraph. As newspapers are still trying a "pay-per-view" approach, I guess we ought to get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.Well , we used to , back in the days when we had no internet and only 3 TV channels .
Then we got USA Today , which brought us the " you should be able to read each individual story in less than a minute " school of journalism , which threw in " write at 7th grade level because they 're all stupid " just for fun.Apparently , we all liked it that way and now we think we 're informed if we read a whole paragraph .
As newspapers are still trying a " pay-per-view " approach , I guess we ought to get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.Well, we used to, back in the days when we had no internet and only 3 TV channels.
Then we got USA Today, which brought us the "you should be able to read each individual story in less than a minute" school of journalism, which threw in "write at 7th grade level because they're all stupid" just for fun.Apparently, we all liked it that way and now we think we're informed if we read a whole paragraph.
As newspapers are still trying a "pay-per-view" approach, I guess we ought to get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696</id>
	<title>Next up!  Cover up magazines at stores!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, 99\% of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but don't buy the paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , 99 \ % of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but do n't buy the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, 99\% of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but don't buy the paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841946</id>
	<title>Re:Next up! Cover up magazines at stores!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other news, 99\% of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but don't buy the paper.</p></div><p>I thought the publications in the checkout lines are for reading while you wait. People actually buy these?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , 99 \ % of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but do n't buy the paper.I thought the publications in the checkout lines are for reading while you wait .
People actually buy these ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, 99\% of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but don't buy the paper.I thought the publications in the checkout lines are for reading while you wait.
People actually buy these?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839880</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1263991260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>how many people read or skin the slashdot summary[?]</i> </p><p>Very few of us find the summary big enough to skin.  It would be like skinning a vole - too small to be worth the effort.  However, <i>skimming</i> the summary is a tact[sic] usually taken by Slashdot readers, many of whom cannot seem to write a reasonable sentence (i.e., using capitalization, proper spelling, using the words they mean, plausible grammatical construction, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how many people read or skin the slashdot summary [ ?
] Very few of us find the summary big enough to skin .
It would be like skinning a vole - too small to be worth the effort .
However , skimming the summary is a tact [ sic ] usually taken by Slashdot readers , many of whom can not seem to write a reasonable sentence ( i.e. , using capitalization , proper spelling , using the words they mean , plausible grammatical construction , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many people read or skin the slashdot summary[?
] Very few of us find the summary big enough to skin.
It would be like skinning a vole - too small to be worth the effort.
However, skimming the summary is a tact[sic] usually taken by Slashdot readers, many of whom cannot seem to write a reasonable sentence (i.e., using capitalization, proper spelling, using the words they mean, plausible grammatical construction, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840186</id>
	<title>"...according to new research..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263992580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What research?  All I see are a bunch of arbitrary claims made by a marketing company with no citation to the actual research done.  Was the study peer reviewed and published in a journal?  Was it double blind?  How did the researchers handle statistical aberrations in their calculations?   Until any of these questions are answered, this story has about as much credibility as anything coming out of Fox News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What research ?
All I see are a bunch of arbitrary claims made by a marketing company with no citation to the actual research done .
Was the study peer reviewed and published in a journal ?
Was it double blind ?
How did the researchers handle statistical aberrations in their calculations ?
Until any of these questions are answered , this story has about as much credibility as anything coming out of Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What research?
All I see are a bunch of arbitrary claims made by a marketing company with no citation to the actual research done.
Was the study peer reviewed and published in a journal?
Was it double blind?
How did the researchers handle statistical aberrations in their calculations?
Until any of these questions are answered, this story has about as much credibility as anything coming out of Fox News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839756</id>
	<title>Gimme news worth reading</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263990720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make them worth my time and I will click through and read them. That's essentially the problem. Let's take a look at the current international news: "New quake in Haiti." Ok. Whatever. "Obama signals he's ready to compromise on reforms." I already knew that and I might read it when we have a compromise, 'til then it's hot air. "Killing spree murderer in Virginia turns himself in." Don't care. "Geert Wilders in court." Don't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either. "Obama's first year" wake me when it's been his third, 'til then I can't do jack about it anyway (not that I could anything either then 'cause, well, I can't vote in the US). "Weapon lobbyist's testimonial threatening CSU" Duh. Who'd have though... Not interesting enough to click, though. "Italy's senate passing 'Lex Berlusconi'" He got promoted from King to God? He gets his way in Italy any way he pleases, how is this news? "Poland puts Patriot missiles to Russian border" Ok, that might be interesting enough to actually read it.</p><p>So, after reading all the "news", only one story was actually interesting enough (and could have some sort of impact on me) that it's something I might read. Everything else is either drivel, opinion or just plain pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make them worth my time and I will click through and read them .
That 's essentially the problem .
Let 's take a look at the current international news : " New quake in Haiti .
" Ok. Whatever. " Obama signals he 's ready to compromise on reforms .
" I already knew that and I might read it when we have a compromise , 'til then it 's hot air .
" Killing spree murderer in Virginia turns himself in .
" Do n't care .
" Geert Wilders in court .
" Do n't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either .
" Obama 's first year " wake me when it 's been his third , 'til then I ca n't do jack about it anyway ( not that I could anything either then 'cause , well , I ca n't vote in the US ) .
" Weapon lobbyist 's testimonial threatening CSU " Duh .
Who 'd have though... Not interesting enough to click , though .
" Italy 's senate passing 'Lex Berlusconi ' " He got promoted from King to God ?
He gets his way in Italy any way he pleases , how is this news ?
" Poland puts Patriot missiles to Russian border " Ok , that might be interesting enough to actually read it.So , after reading all the " news " , only one story was actually interesting enough ( and could have some sort of impact on me ) that it 's something I might read .
Everything else is either drivel , opinion or just plain pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make them worth my time and I will click through and read them.
That's essentially the problem.
Let's take a look at the current international news: "New quake in Haiti.
" Ok. Whatever. "Obama signals he's ready to compromise on reforms.
" I already knew that and I might read it when we have a compromise, 'til then it's hot air.
"Killing spree murderer in Virginia turns himself in.
" Don't care.
"Geert Wilders in court.
" Don't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either.
"Obama's first year" wake me when it's been his third, 'til then I can't do jack about it anyway (not that I could anything either then 'cause, well, I can't vote in the US).
"Weapon lobbyist's testimonial threatening CSU" Duh.
Who'd have though... Not interesting enough to click, though.
"Italy's senate passing 'Lex Berlusconi'" He got promoted from King to God?
He gets his way in Italy any way he pleases, how is this news?
"Poland puts Patriot missiles to Russian border" Ok, that might be interesting enough to actually read it.So, after reading all the "news", only one story was actually interesting enough (and could have some sort of impact on me) that it's something I might read.
Everything else is either drivel, opinion or just plain pointless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840840</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1263996480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like turtles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like turtles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like turtles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839822</id>
	<title>I think Google News</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1263991020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>may hurt some of the big sites but most sites are probably helped out. I visit the CNN homepage less since Google News came out, but there are dozens of other sites that I've visited that would never have heard of if they didn't show up on Google News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>may hurt some of the big sites but most sites are probably helped out .
I visit the CNN homepage less since Google News came out , but there are dozens of other sites that I 've visited that would never have heard of if they did n't show up on Google News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>may hurt some of the big sites but most sites are probably helped out.
I visit the CNN homepage less since Google News came out, but there are dozens of other sites that I've visited that would never have heard of if they didn't show up on Google News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842114</id>
	<title>Would those people even bother otherwise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it weren't for Google's News aggregation, would any of these people have bothered to look at their headlines in the first place?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't for Google 's News aggregation , would any of these people have bothered to look at their headlines in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't for Google's News aggregation, would any of these people have bothered to look at their headlines in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842100</id>
	<title>What about RSS readers?</title>
	<author>dartarrow</author>
	<datestamp>1264007700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those can't be much worse (Of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ embeds ads into the damn thing). But still, I'm here now aren't I?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those ca n't be much worse ( Of course ./ embeds ads into the damn thing ) .
But still , I 'm here now are n't I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those can't be much worse (Of course ./ embeds ads into the damn thing).
But still, I'm here now aren't I?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841852</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1264005480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's no different than reading the paper. You scan the titles and spend time on the few articles that seem worth reading or pique your interest. This just changes the front page into something that more resembles a table of contents.</p><p>Papers can complain that these indexing services are taking half of their traffic. In reality, far fewer people would go to their site specifically to scan for those same headlines. Half of all aggregator readers clicking through to a story seems astonishingly high - I'd have expected closer to 10-20\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's no different than reading the paper .
You scan the titles and spend time on the few articles that seem worth reading or pique your interest .
This just changes the front page into something that more resembles a table of contents.Papers can complain that these indexing services are taking half of their traffic .
In reality , far fewer people would go to their site specifically to scan for those same headlines .
Half of all aggregator readers clicking through to a story seems astonishingly high - I 'd have expected closer to 10-20 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's no different than reading the paper.
You scan the titles and spend time on the few articles that seem worth reading or pique your interest.
This just changes the front page into something that more resembles a table of contents.Papers can complain that these indexing services are taking half of their traffic.
In reality, far fewer people would go to their site specifically to scan for those same headlines.
Half of all aggregator readers clicking through to a story seems astonishingly high - I'd have expected closer to 10-20\%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839766</id>
	<title>As a person who does this...</title>
	<author>TheAlkymyst</author>
	<datestamp>1263990720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I must say, if I saw any news worth my time, I might click through. As long as "journalism" continues being opinion pieces and small amounts of actual facts, which are never shown in an independent light, I'm going to keep reading headlines to keep my bearings, and then if something really interests me, I'll find independent coverage elsewhere, and form my own thoughts.

If you want people to continue using your services, treat them as if they can think for themselves. We can, and we do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must say , if I saw any news worth my time , I might click through .
As long as " journalism " continues being opinion pieces and small amounts of actual facts , which are never shown in an independent light , I 'm going to keep reading headlines to keep my bearings , and then if something really interests me , I 'll find independent coverage elsewhere , and form my own thoughts .
If you want people to continue using your services , treat them as if they can think for themselves .
We can , and we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must say, if I saw any news worth my time, I might click through.
As long as "journalism" continues being opinion pieces and small amounts of actual facts, which are never shown in an independent light, I'm going to keep reading headlines to keep my bearings, and then if something really interests me, I'll find independent coverage elsewhere, and form my own thoughts.
If you want people to continue using your services, treat them as if they can think for themselves.
We can, and we do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840204</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263992640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a "pay model" are going to try...</p></div><p>Well to me this raises a bunch of other potential problems for the for-pay newspaper market.  What are the chances that you can get people to pay for the ability to read your articles if they're not even willing to read them when they're free?  People can get "Brown wins in Massachusetts" for free-- you can't copyright that information.  If people don't want to RTFA, then the newspapers don't have a business.  There's no way around it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a " pay model " are going to try...Well to me this raises a bunch of other potential problems for the for-pay newspaper market .
What are the chances that you can get people to pay for the ability to read your articles if they 're not even willing to read them when they 're free ?
People can get " Brown wins in Massachusetts " for free-- you ca n't copyright that information .
If people do n't want to RTFA , then the newspapers do n't have a business .
There 's no way around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a "pay model" are going to try...Well to me this raises a bunch of other potential problems for the for-pay newspaper market.
What are the chances that you can get people to pay for the ability to read your articles if they're not even willing to read them when they're free?
People can get "Brown wins in Massachusetts" for free-- you can't copyright that information.
If people don't want to RTFA, then the newspapers don't have a business.
There's no way around it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</id>
	<title>That's funny...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263990660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50\% would have been it.  This value would be lower when exciting news is breaking, and higher when it's just more of the same BS about whatever is occupying the current news cycle magnifying glass.  "Tiger Woods also revealed to have bunions!"</p><p>What's next?  "44\% of people scan front page headlines of newspaper in newspaper vending machine without making a purchase, clearly indicating that Seven Eleven is stealing revenue from the newspapers."  <i>Noooooo</i>, Seven Eleven is making their product more readily available, and if people aren't interested enough to buy it, whose fault is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and do n't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click , ~ 50 \ % would have been it .
This value would be lower when exciting news is breaking , and higher when it 's just more of the same BS about whatever is occupying the current news cycle magnifying glass .
" Tiger Woods also revealed to have bunions !
" What 's next ?
" 44 \ % of people scan front page headlines of newspaper in newspaper vending machine without making a purchase , clearly indicating that Seven Eleven is stealing revenue from the newspapers .
" Noooooo , Seven Eleven is making their product more readily available , and if people are n't interested enough to buy it , whose fault is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50\% would have been it.
This value would be lower when exciting news is breaking, and higher when it's just more of the same BS about whatever is occupying the current news cycle magnifying glass.
"Tiger Woods also revealed to have bunions!
"What's next?
"44\% of people scan front page headlines of newspaper in newspaper vending machine without making a purchase, clearly indicating that Seven Eleven is stealing revenue from the newspapers.
"  Noooooo, Seven Eleven is making their product more readily available, and if people aren't interested enough to buy it, whose fault is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843340</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264107180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Fine Articles are often overstuffed piles of crap that are best condensed into a single cut-and-paste-able paragraph</p></div><p>Indeed, the majority of "news" sites shown by Google just repeat the AP or Reuters report.</p><p>However, there are some sites which *do* have real journalists who try to write real articles. Those are the ones who win my clicks.</p><p>For example, that CNET article by Ina Fried, about Windows 7 "got modes". While more than 100 web sites rehashed the same news, the CNET reporter actually did a bit more research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fine Articles are often overstuffed piles of crap that are best condensed into a single cut-and-paste-able paragraphIndeed , the majority of " news " sites shown by Google just repeat the AP or Reuters report.However , there are some sites which * do * have real journalists who try to write real articles .
Those are the ones who win my clicks.For example , that CNET article by Ina Fried , about Windows 7 " got modes " .
While more than 100 web sites rehashed the same news , the CNET reporter actually did a bit more research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fine Articles are often overstuffed piles of crap that are best condensed into a single cut-and-paste-able paragraphIndeed, the majority of "news" sites shown by Google just repeat the AP or Reuters report.However, there are some sites which *do* have real journalists who try to write real articles.
Those are the ones who win my clicks.For example, that CNET article by Ina Fried, about Windows 7 "got modes".
While more than 100 web sites rehashed the same news, the CNET reporter actually did a bit more research.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840314</id>
	<title>tl:dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tl:dr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tl : dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl:dr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840300</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>Silentknyght</author>
	<datestamp>1263993240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50\% would have been it</p></div><p>
My sentiments exactly.  But I'd also like to comment that usually the headline plus the two-sentence blurb tell me as much as the entire story. So rarely is the actual article a 'trove' of information, that my habits have been trained to [i]not[/i] read the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and do n't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click , ~ 50 \ % would have been it My sentiments exactly .
But I 'd also like to comment that usually the headline plus the two-sentence blurb tell me as much as the entire story .
So rarely is the actual article a 'trove ' of information , that my habits have been trained to [ i ] not [ /i ] read the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50\% would have been it
My sentiments exactly.
But I'd also like to comment that usually the headline plus the two-sentence blurb tell me as much as the entire story.
So rarely is the actual article a 'trove' of information, that my habits have been trained to [i]not[/i] read the article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840794</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263996180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know how many people just read the news thru the window on a street news vending machine? That's all this is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know how many people just read the news thru the window on a street news vending machine ?
That 's all this is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know how many people just read the news thru the window on a street news vending machine?
That's all this is</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841736</id>
	<title>People only read TFA ...</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1264004040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if they actually care about the subject.</p><p>Quel surprise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they actually care about the subject.Quel surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they actually care about the subject.Quel surprise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840190</id>
	<title>Logic Fail:Correlation does not imply causation</title>
	<author>Required Snark</author>
	<datestamp>1263992580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The so called conclusion results from a failure in logic: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation\_does\_not\_imply\_causation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation\_does\_not\_imply\_causation</a> [wikipedia.org]
<p>
Nothing has been proven by the saying "A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites." So what? This does not show that readership has gone either up or down. The statement can be true and more readers go to the news source then without Google. News papers are failing on their own lack of content, they are just lookig for someone to blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The so called conclusion results from a failure in logic : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation \ _does \ _not \ _imply \ _causation [ wikipedia.org ] Nothing has been proven by the saying " A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers ' individual sites .
" So what ?
This does not show that readership has gone either up or down .
The statement can be true and more readers go to the news source then without Google .
News papers are failing on their own lack of content , they are just lookig for someone to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The so called conclusion results from a failure in logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation\_does\_not\_imply\_causation [wikipedia.org]

Nothing has been proven by the saying "A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.
" So what?
This does not show that readership has gone either up or down.
The statement can be true and more readers go to the news source then without Google.
News papers are failing on their own lack of content, they are just lookig for someone to blame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840148</id>
	<title>Please include your target in the actual post. thx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263992400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>about half way through that post I realized who the hell *you* were talking to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>about half way through that post I realized who the hell * you * were talking to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about half way through that post I realized who the hell *you* were talking to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844176</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1264075020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, there's just nothing good to read in the legacy media. I do check Google News a few times a week, and usually the headlines are so insipid and un-newsworthy that I just don't bother clicking any. Besides, when are the major news sites capable of getting any important facts right or reporting on a story with any depth. Instead, I go to Reddit and find a few articles that are actually of interest.</p><p>Hm, let's see what's on Google News right now.<br>- News about an election I don't care about.<br>- Nonsense about Obama doing yet more to screw up, I mean save, the financial system.<br>- News about officials meeting to boost airline security. Nothing new there&mdash; we all know they won't be happy until we fly naked and in chains.<br>- Palin and McLame news. Yawn...<br>- More opinion-without-facts on Apple and Bing, by PC World, the magazine that was relevant 15 years ago.<br>- More Conan O'Brien stuff. Don't care.<br>- Someone semi-famous has pneumonia. Wow.<br>- American Idol crap.<br>- LA Times' recipe for "crazy cake". Yeah, I'll bookmark that.<br>- Sports news about sports I don't follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , there 's just nothing good to read in the legacy media .
I do check Google News a few times a week , and usually the headlines are so insipid and un-newsworthy that I just do n't bother clicking any .
Besides , when are the major news sites capable of getting any important facts right or reporting on a story with any depth .
Instead , I go to Reddit and find a few articles that are actually of interest.Hm , let 's see what 's on Google News right now.- News about an election I do n't care about.- Nonsense about Obama doing yet more to screw up , I mean save , the financial system.- News about officials meeting to boost airline security .
Nothing new there    we all know they wo n't be happy until we fly naked and in chains.- Palin and McLame news .
Yawn...- More opinion-without-facts on Apple and Bing , by PC World , the magazine that was relevant 15 years ago.- More Conan O'Brien stuff .
Do n't care.- Someone semi-famous has pneumonia .
Wow.- American Idol crap.- LA Times ' recipe for " crazy cake " .
Yeah , I 'll bookmark that.- Sports news about sports I do n't follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, there's just nothing good to read in the legacy media.
I do check Google News a few times a week, and usually the headlines are so insipid and un-newsworthy that I just don't bother clicking any.
Besides, when are the major news sites capable of getting any important facts right or reporting on a story with any depth.
Instead, I go to Reddit and find a few articles that are actually of interest.Hm, let's see what's on Google News right now.- News about an election I don't care about.- Nonsense about Obama doing yet more to screw up, I mean save, the financial system.- News about officials meeting to boost airline security.
Nothing new there— we all know they won't be happy until we fly naked and in chains.- Palin and McLame news.
Yawn...- More opinion-without-facts on Apple and Bing, by PC World, the magazine that was relevant 15 years ago.- More Conan O'Brien stuff.
Don't care.- Someone semi-famous has pneumonia.
Wow.- American Idol crap.- LA Times' recipe for "crazy cake".
Yeah, I'll bookmark that.- Sports news about sports I don't follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841190</id>
	<title>You should not read anything-you know everything!</title>
	<author>yooy</author>
	<datestamp>1263999240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Geert Wilders in court." Don't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either.

Really, you should refrain from reading anything. You know everything already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Geert Wilders in court .
" Do n't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either .
Really , you should refrain from reading anything .
You know everything already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Geert Wilders in court.
" Don't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either.
Really, you should refrain from reading anything.
You know everything already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840324</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only read comment titles to save my time. Wait, what was your post about, again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only read comment titles to save my time .
Wait , what was your post about , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only read comment titles to save my time.
Wait, what was your post about, again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841894</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264005780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Articles?<br>Wow... I clicked through  a few times, and all I got was "articles" spread over 7 pages (2 senences per page) with flash, AJAXy stuff and random shit all over the place.</p><p>And roll over adverts. you know, those that expand a flash animation when you inadvertently scroll over them (for example to click the back button).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles ? Wow... I clicked through a few times , and all I got was " articles " spread over 7 pages ( 2 senences per page ) with flash , AJAXy stuff and random shit all over the place.And roll over adverts .
you know , those that expand a flash animation when you inadvertently scroll over them ( for example to click the back button ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles?Wow... I clicked through  a few times, and all I got was "articles" spread over 7 pages (2 senences per page) with flash, AJAXy stuff and random shit all over the place.And roll over adverts.
you know, those that expand a flash animation when you inadvertently scroll over them (for example to click the back button).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840076</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>tivoKlr</author>
	<datestamp>1263992100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience, forced somewhat by my employer, is similar. The free wifi in our facility requires one to click through a EULA and hit an "I Accept" button. Now for some reason, they capture the URL you were attempting to access before the EULA page displays but they then just dump you on the google.com homepage. Since I'm on my iPhone (which if it would just run something in the background keeping the wifi connection active I would only have to do this once a day), I just tap the news tab to see what's happened in the world since I last hit "I Accept" a few minutes ago, and low and behold its the same crap. So shocking that I don't read much of it, nor do I really need to read 5 different takes on the same story.</p><p>Regardless there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'll pay for an online news subscription, I'll pay for usenet but not for real news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience , forced somewhat by my employer , is similar .
The free wifi in our facility requires one to click through a EULA and hit an " I Accept " button .
Now for some reason , they capture the URL you were attempting to access before the EULA page displays but they then just dump you on the google.com homepage .
Since I 'm on my iPhone ( which if it would just run something in the background keeping the wifi connection active I would only have to do this once a day ) , I just tap the news tab to see what 's happened in the world since I last hit " I Accept " a few minutes ago , and low and behold its the same crap .
So shocking that I do n't read much of it , nor do I really need to read 5 different takes on the same story.Regardless there is n't a snowball 's chance in hell that I 'll pay for an online news subscription , I 'll pay for usenet but not for real news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience, forced somewhat by my employer, is similar.
The free wifi in our facility requires one to click through a EULA and hit an "I Accept" button.
Now for some reason, they capture the URL you were attempting to access before the EULA page displays but they then just dump you on the google.com homepage.
Since I'm on my iPhone (which if it would just run something in the background keeping the wifi connection active I would only have to do this once a day), I just tap the news tab to see what's happened in the world since I last hit "I Accept" a few minutes ago, and low and behold its the same crap.
So shocking that I don't read much of it, nor do I really need to read 5 different takes on the same story.Regardless there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'll pay for an online news subscription, I'll pay for usenet but not for real news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839804</id>
	<title>Perhaps they should write things worth reading</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1263990900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A huge portion of newspaper articles (though not as large as the portion of television news segments) are fluff, not worth reading.  If you can get all the information you need from the headline, maybe the article wasn't much worth writing anyways.<br>
<br>
Maybe if newspapers were to write more articles exposing the horrendous fustercluckery going on locally and abroad, making meaningful commentary on artistic endeavors, giving relevant information on local events, etc. rather than living off press releases, whitewashed statements from politicians, and reprinting AP/Reuters feeds, people might be more inclined to read them.<br>
<br>
Hell, one somewhat respected (though less so lately) newspaper in my area reserves the back page of its front section for photographs of its readers holding up a copy of their paper while on vacation.  Every day.<br>
<br>
The very fact that The Family Circus is still in print is a testament to the utter incompetence and out-of-touchery of newspapers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge portion of newspaper articles ( though not as large as the portion of television news segments ) are fluff , not worth reading .
If you can get all the information you need from the headline , maybe the article was n't much worth writing anyways .
Maybe if newspapers were to write more articles exposing the horrendous fustercluckery going on locally and abroad , making meaningful commentary on artistic endeavors , giving relevant information on local events , etc .
rather than living off press releases , whitewashed statements from politicians , and reprinting AP/Reuters feeds , people might be more inclined to read them .
Hell , one somewhat respected ( though less so lately ) newspaper in my area reserves the back page of its front section for photographs of its readers holding up a copy of their paper while on vacation .
Every day .
The very fact that The Family Circus is still in print is a testament to the utter incompetence and out-of-touchery of newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge portion of newspaper articles (though not as large as the portion of television news segments) are fluff, not worth reading.
If you can get all the information you need from the headline, maybe the article wasn't much worth writing anyways.
Maybe if newspapers were to write more articles exposing the horrendous fustercluckery going on locally and abroad, making meaningful commentary on artistic endeavors, giving relevant information on local events, etc.
rather than living off press releases, whitewashed statements from politicians, and reprinting AP/Reuters feeds, people might be more inclined to read them.
Hell, one somewhat respected (though less so lately) newspaper in my area reserves the back page of its front section for photographs of its readers holding up a copy of their paper while on vacation.
Every day.
The very fact that The Family Circus is still in print is a testament to the utter incompetence and out-of-touchery of newspapers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839780</id>
	<title>Bullshit.</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1263990840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a phenomenally stupid article.<blockquote><div><p>The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.</p></div></blockquote><p>You don't need ammunition to support painfully obvious facts. yes, Google and other news aggregators link to stories without paying any advertising revenue.  Brilliant sleuthing Sherlock.

</p><p>Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page.  Why don't they? Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them.  "I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. "A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites."</p></div></blockquote><p>Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do. What really matters is, what portion of those 56\% visitors would not have visited the news site <em>in the absence of Google News</em>.  I'm guessing the answer is less.  New result: Google is a net win for news sites.</p><blockquote><div><p>...only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.</p></div></blockquote><p>In related news, almost no one is willing to pay for a DVD to gain online access to the movie.  If I wanted to read the physical edition, I'd subscribe to that.  If I want to read the online edition, asking to subscribe to the physical edition is insane.  At my last apartment I got the Sunday paper for free.  I did get some small amount of value from it, but I ultimately specifically requested to not get it because it wasn't worth the hassle to throw it away.</p><blockquote><div><p>The effect of aggregators have been particularly challenging for the media industry, particularly among the recent downturn of advertising revenue.</p></div></blockquote><p>The article has shown nothing of the sort.  It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a phenomenally stupid article.The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.You do n't need ammunition to support painfully obvious facts .
yes , Google and other news aggregators link to stories without paying any advertising revenue .
Brilliant sleuthing Sherlock .
Relatedly , if they hate having Google do so , it 's trivially easy to get off the page .
Why do n't they ?
Because for all their whining , they know that Google does drive traffic to them .
" I do n't have a business model , and you do , " is n't a valid reason to ask for Google 's money .
" Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers , it 's also taking a significant share away , " Doctor said .
" A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers ' individual sites .
" Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other , despite Doctor 's and the article 's author 's implication that they do .
What really matters is , what portion of those 56 \ % visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News .
I 'm guessing the answer is less .
New result : Google is a net win for news sites....only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.In related news , almost no one is willing to pay for a DVD to gain online access to the movie .
If I wanted to read the physical edition , I 'd subscribe to that .
If I want to read the online edition , asking to subscribe to the physical edition is insane .
At my last apartment I got the Sunday paper for free .
I did get some small amount of value from it , but I ultimately specifically requested to not get it because it was n't worth the hassle to throw it away.The effect of aggregators have been particularly challenging for the media industry , particularly among the recent downturn of advertising revenue.The article has shown nothing of the sort .
It 's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a phenomenally stupid article.The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.You don't need ammunition to support painfully obvious facts.
yes, Google and other news aggregators link to stories without paying any advertising revenue.
Brilliant sleuthing Sherlock.
Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page.
Why don't they?
Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them.
"I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.
"Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said.
"A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.
"Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do.
What really matters is, what portion of those 56\% visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News.
I'm guessing the answer is less.
New result: Google is a net win for news sites....only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.In related news, almost no one is willing to pay for a DVD to gain online access to the movie.
If I wanted to read the physical edition, I'd subscribe to that.
If I want to read the online edition, asking to subscribe to the physical edition is insane.
At my last apartment I got the Sunday paper for free.
I did get some small amount of value from it, but I ultimately specifically requested to not get it because it wasn't worth the hassle to throw it away.The effect of aggregators have been particularly challenging for the media industry, particularly among the recent downturn of advertising revenue.The article has shown nothing of the sort.
It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841370</id>
	<title>Journalistic writing styles provide all the info.</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1264000740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Journalists use a writing style that provides a bulk of the information towards the beginning of the article. This report is akin to someone who picks up a newspaper while, for instance, waiting in line at a supermarket, skims over the headlines, but doesn't purchase the paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalists use a writing style that provides a bulk of the information towards the beginning of the article .
This report is akin to someone who picks up a newspaper while , for instance , waiting in line at a supermarket , skims over the headlines , but does n't purchase the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalists use a writing style that provides a bulk of the information towards the beginning of the article.
This report is akin to someone who picks up a newspaper while, for instance, waiting in line at a supermarket, skims over the headlines, but doesn't purchase the paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844558</id>
	<title>google is like the sweetie shop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264080360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could be repeating what others have said already cos I didn't read through every post. But when I go into a newsagents to buy a packet of chewing gum or the like, I walk past the newspaper section and have a quick glance over the front cover headlines, but don't bother stopping to pick up and read them, or buy them. Not much different, so don't think you can blame google for people not clicking through to individual news sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could be repeating what others have said already cos I did n't read through every post .
But when I go into a newsagents to buy a packet of chewing gum or the like , I walk past the newspaper section and have a quick glance over the front cover headlines , but do n't bother stopping to pick up and read them , or buy them .
Not much different , so do n't think you can blame google for people not clicking through to individual news sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could be repeating what others have said already cos I didn't read through every post.
But when I go into a newsagents to buy a packet of chewing gum or the like, I walk past the newspaper section and have a quick glance over the front cover headlines, but don't bother stopping to pick up and read them, or buy them.
Not much different, so don't think you can blame google for people not clicking through to individual news sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841302</id>
	<title>It's quite simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264000200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first time a site requests money to view content is the last time I visit it. End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time a site requests money to view content is the last time I visit it .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time a site requests money to view content is the last time I visit it.
End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841642</id>
	<title>New York Times Commits Suicide</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264003200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         People will not pay for the times electronic version. Frankly they have no real reason to do so. We will always have superior news on the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People will not pay for the times electronic version .
Frankly they have no real reason to do so .
We will always have superior news on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         People will not pay for the times electronic version.
Frankly they have no real reason to do so.
We will always have superior news on the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30847180</id>
	<title>Re:Now the real return on advertising is known.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264095180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual report says 44\% of people who were contacted by Outsell and chose to respond have no intention of clicking on a link and simply read the headlines.  You're not going to get people to click by changing your behavior - these people have probably never seen your site and aren't making a decision based on your site or your advertising.  They simply intend to skim headlines.</p><p>So calling this advertising is really disingenuous.  Calling it a return on anything is as well.  A lone news site has to build loyalty and/or recognition before someone in the 46\% group willingly changes their behaviors, which will take advertising money and lots more.</p><p>The only trade-off we're talking about is news site providing data to Google.  If people don't find your random news site somehow, you have zero chance of being used.  So you're providing data, hoping to be stumbled upon, just like every other website ever.  In other words, just another member of the internet and just another company trying to make money via the internet.</p><p>I'll go further and say there is no difference between these 46\% of people who don't click the articles, and the roughly 50\% of people who visit the site but block ads.  You could split hairs and say google is serving the data for the news provider while ad blockers consume bandwidth without generating corresponding advertising revenue.  So google is the white knight here.  Sure I pulled that number out of my butt, but I don't believe there is a single source for the number of ad blocking people - everything I've found is self-selecting based on the content of the site, or near-random guessing based on partial statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual report says 44 \ % of people who were contacted by Outsell and chose to respond have no intention of clicking on a link and simply read the headlines .
You 're not going to get people to click by changing your behavior - these people have probably never seen your site and are n't making a decision based on your site or your advertising .
They simply intend to skim headlines.So calling this advertising is really disingenuous .
Calling it a return on anything is as well .
A lone news site has to build loyalty and/or recognition before someone in the 46 \ % group willingly changes their behaviors , which will take advertising money and lots more.The only trade-off we 're talking about is news site providing data to Google .
If people do n't find your random news site somehow , you have zero chance of being used .
So you 're providing data , hoping to be stumbled upon , just like every other website ever .
In other words , just another member of the internet and just another company trying to make money via the internet.I 'll go further and say there is no difference between these 46 \ % of people who do n't click the articles , and the roughly 50 \ % of people who visit the site but block ads .
You could split hairs and say google is serving the data for the news provider while ad blockers consume bandwidth without generating corresponding advertising revenue .
So google is the white knight here .
Sure I pulled that number out of my butt , but I do n't believe there is a single source for the number of ad blocking people - everything I 've found is self-selecting based on the content of the site , or near-random guessing based on partial statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual report says 44\% of people who were contacted by Outsell and chose to respond have no intention of clicking on a link and simply read the headlines.
You're not going to get people to click by changing your behavior - these people have probably never seen your site and aren't making a decision based on your site or your advertising.
They simply intend to skim headlines.So calling this advertising is really disingenuous.
Calling it a return on anything is as well.
A lone news site has to build loyalty and/or recognition before someone in the 46\% group willingly changes their behaviors, which will take advertising money and lots more.The only trade-off we're talking about is news site providing data to Google.
If people don't find your random news site somehow, you have zero chance of being used.
So you're providing data, hoping to be stumbled upon, just like every other website ever.
In other words, just another member of the internet and just another company trying to make money via the internet.I'll go further and say there is no difference between these 46\% of people who don't click the articles, and the roughly 50\% of people who visit the site but block ads.
You could split hairs and say google is serving the data for the news provider while ad blockers consume bandwidth without generating corresponding advertising revenue.
So google is the white knight here.
Sure I pulled that number out of my butt, but I don't believe there is a single source for the number of ad blocking people - everything I've found is self-selecting based on the content of the site, or near-random guessing based on partial statistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30852312</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1264071360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...one of the problems with America these days,...and could care less about facts surrounding a situation."</p><p>Actually, that's always been the the case.  Gossip has always been popular.  Logic and reason does not come naturally.  Journalism and muckraking has a very long history.  It's just that the media has become really good at pandering to our base nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...one of the problems with America these days,...and could care less about facts surrounding a situation .
" Actually , that 's always been the the case .
Gossip has always been popular .
Logic and reason does not come naturally .
Journalism and muckraking has a very long history .
It 's just that the media has become really good at pandering to our base nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...one of the problems with America these days,...and could care less about facts surrounding a situation.
"Actually, that's always been the the case.
Gossip has always been popular.
Logic and reason does not come naturally.
Journalism and muckraking has a very long history.
It's just that the media has become really good at pandering to our base nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844770</id>
	<title>Advertising driving people away</title>
	<author>Craig Maloney</author>
	<datestamp>1264082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if anyone else has this problem with their local paper's website, but the advertising on it makes reading any article an exercise in frustration. Hover-ads, banner ads that would make anyone epileptic, links that bring up Netflix popups, and a scrolling ad that takes up half of the page. By the time one navigates the minefield to get to TFA, it's generally not worth the effort invested. If newspapers made their content available with less hassle and irritation, I'm sure more folks would click to read TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if anyone else has this problem with their local paper 's website , but the advertising on it makes reading any article an exercise in frustration .
Hover-ads , banner ads that would make anyone epileptic , links that bring up Netflix popups , and a scrolling ad that takes up half of the page .
By the time one navigates the minefield to get to TFA , it 's generally not worth the effort invested .
If newspapers made their content available with less hassle and irritation , I 'm sure more folks would click to read TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if anyone else has this problem with their local paper's website, but the advertising on it makes reading any article an exercise in frustration.
Hover-ads, banner ads that would make anyone epileptic, links that bring up Netflix popups, and a scrolling ad that takes up half of the page.
By the time one navigates the minefield to get to TFA, it's generally not worth the effort invested.
If newspapers made their content available with less hassle and irritation, I'm sure more folks would click to read TFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839870</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263991200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or even the other comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or even the other comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or even the other comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845020</id>
	<title>And how is this "revealing"???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264084800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this "revelation" differs from how one "reads" a dead tree newspaper in what way?  (With the one exception that the newspaper publishers could not "track" which articles you read in the dead tree version.)</p><p>Here's how I read a dead tree newspaper - scan headlines, if no headline looks interesting enough to grab me, move on.  Exactly the same in the dead tree copy as in google.  With the one, significant, difference being that in google I can scan most if not all of the headlines on a single "page" whereas in the dead tree copy I had to keep turning the pages to scan the headlines.</p><p>So how is this a "revelation", other than a "revelation" to smug, self centered, ego centric newspaper publishers that most pelple did not read all of your articles in your dead tree copy to begin with.   You were just living in your own denial that everyone buying the dead tree copy was reading every word of every article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this " revelation " differs from how one " reads " a dead tree newspaper in what way ?
( With the one exception that the newspaper publishers could not " track " which articles you read in the dead tree version .
) Here 's how I read a dead tree newspaper - scan headlines , if no headline looks interesting enough to grab me , move on .
Exactly the same in the dead tree copy as in google .
With the one , significant , difference being that in google I can scan most if not all of the headlines on a single " page " whereas in the dead tree copy I had to keep turning the pages to scan the headlines.So how is this a " revelation " , other than a " revelation " to smug , self centered , ego centric newspaper publishers that most pelple did not read all of your articles in your dead tree copy to begin with .
You were just living in your own denial that everyone buying the dead tree copy was reading every word of every article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this "revelation" differs from how one "reads" a dead tree newspaper in what way?
(With the one exception that the newspaper publishers could not "track" which articles you read in the dead tree version.
)Here's how I read a dead tree newspaper - scan headlines, if no headline looks interesting enough to grab me, move on.
Exactly the same in the dead tree copy as in google.
With the one, significant, difference being that in google I can scan most if not all of the headlines on a single "page" whereas in the dead tree copy I had to keep turning the pages to scan the headlines.So how is this a "revelation", other than a "revelation" to smug, self centered, ego centric newspaper publishers that most pelple did not read all of your articles in your dead tree copy to begin with.
You were just living in your own denial that everyone buying the dead tree copy was reading every word of every article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842198</id>
	<title>Fluff Stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever stories involving newspapers comes up, the reaction always seems to include: "well, if those darned newspapers would just do more good, investigative work, I would read them!"</p><p>What most of these commenters seem to fail to grasp is that good journalism is EXPENSIVE. The well-researched, thorough investigative piece cannot be funded simply by the ads appearing alongside that article (both in print or online). Instead, the inexpensive "fluff" ends up bringing in the net profit that will counter the net loss incurred by the good journalism.</p><p>Decline in paper subscriptions (where the "fluff" is forced on you) and a decline in non-article-specific visits == a massive shortfall of money for the good journalism we all want. So although we hate "fluff" (and ads on TV, etc.), it is necessary to an extent.</p><p>Newspaper companies have certainly made several mistakes, but in asserting your critiques, please take reality into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever stories involving newspapers comes up , the reaction always seems to include : " well , if those darned newspapers would just do more good , investigative work , I would read them !
" What most of these commenters seem to fail to grasp is that good journalism is EXPENSIVE .
The well-researched , thorough investigative piece can not be funded simply by the ads appearing alongside that article ( both in print or online ) .
Instead , the inexpensive " fluff " ends up bringing in the net profit that will counter the net loss incurred by the good journalism.Decline in paper subscriptions ( where the " fluff " is forced on you ) and a decline in non-article-specific visits = = a massive shortfall of money for the good journalism we all want .
So although we hate " fluff " ( and ads on TV , etc .
) , it is necessary to an extent.Newspaper companies have certainly made several mistakes , but in asserting your critiques , please take reality into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever stories involving newspapers comes up, the reaction always seems to include: "well, if those darned newspapers would just do more good, investigative work, I would read them!
"What most of these commenters seem to fail to grasp is that good journalism is EXPENSIVE.
The well-researched, thorough investigative piece cannot be funded simply by the ads appearing alongside that article (both in print or online).
Instead, the inexpensive "fluff" ends up bringing in the net profit that will counter the net loss incurred by the good journalism.Decline in paper subscriptions (where the "fluff" is forced on you) and a decline in non-article-specific visits == a massive shortfall of money for the good journalism we all want.
So although we hate "fluff" (and ads on TV, etc.
), it is necessary to an extent.Newspaper companies have certainly made several mistakes, but in asserting your critiques, please take reality into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839838</id>
	<title>I don't really understand the problem here...</title>
	<author>novastar123</author>
	<datestamp>1263991080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I honestly don't see what the big deal is.</p><p>Google is paying the bandwidth costs for all those people that don't click through, so they are saving those news sites some money.<br>And I'm betting a majority of the people who use google news, and the like, are more tech-smart than the average news reader, so<br>odds are they have a ad blocker installed, like I do. So these sites wouldn't be all the extra ad revenue that they think they will.</p><p>Yeah, yeah yeah, I know, ad blockers hurt site's. Sure, that is true, but those annoying ass flash ad's with autoplaying sound, and those ads<br>that cover the content, yeah, they make me want to hurt the sites owner. So I run a white list, sites I visit a lot, that dont have annoying ads, are whitelisted.<br>And any site that runs adsense ads doesn't get blocked either.</p><p>And as to the news sites that are considering charging for their online access, well, I am betting they will be going out of business, or reversing their decision shortly<br>after implementing that scam. Why would anyone pay to read a certain news papers website when they can get pretty much the same news somewhere else for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't see what the big deal is.Google is paying the bandwidth costs for all those people that do n't click through , so they are saving those news sites some money.And I 'm betting a majority of the people who use google news , and the like , are more tech-smart than the average news reader , soodds are they have a ad blocker installed , like I do .
So these sites would n't be all the extra ad revenue that they think they will.Yeah , yeah yeah , I know , ad blockers hurt site 's .
Sure , that is true , but those annoying ass flash ad 's with autoplaying sound , and those adsthat cover the content , yeah , they make me want to hurt the sites owner .
So I run a white list , sites I visit a lot , that dont have annoying ads , are whitelisted.And any site that runs adsense ads does n't get blocked either.And as to the news sites that are considering charging for their online access , well , I am betting they will be going out of business , or reversing their decision shortlyafter implementing that scam .
Why would anyone pay to read a certain news papers website when they can get pretty much the same news somewhere else for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't see what the big deal is.Google is paying the bandwidth costs for all those people that don't click through, so they are saving those news sites some money.And I'm betting a majority of the people who use google news, and the like, are more tech-smart than the average news reader, soodds are they have a ad blocker installed, like I do.
So these sites wouldn't be all the extra ad revenue that they think they will.Yeah, yeah yeah, I know, ad blockers hurt site's.
Sure, that is true, but those annoying ass flash ad's with autoplaying sound, and those adsthat cover the content, yeah, they make me want to hurt the sites owner.
So I run a white list, sites I visit a lot, that dont have annoying ads, are whitelisted.And any site that runs adsense ads doesn't get blocked either.And as to the news sites that are considering charging for their online access, well, I am betting they will be going out of business, or reversing their decision shortlyafter implementing that scam.
Why would anyone pay to read a certain news papers website when they can get pretty much the same news somewhere else for free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840548</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263994620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if they have two sources: one that costs money to read, and one that doesn't? How much extra trust does someone have to have in the news source to actually pay money to read the entire thing? In other words - how much would Fox News have to charge before a conservative reader decides that he's better off reading the NPR article?</p><p>I think we're going to have a very interesting shake-up coming in the world of news organizations. My belief is that if they stick to news as entertainment, they're going to be eaten alive by free, ad-supported blogs. Their only chance is in 60 Minutes style in-depth reporting on a topic. Note: this is not a comment on how trustworthy 60 minutes is, but merely on its format and marketing message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they have two sources : one that costs money to read , and one that does n't ?
How much extra trust does someone have to have in the news source to actually pay money to read the entire thing ?
In other words - how much would Fox News have to charge before a conservative reader decides that he 's better off reading the NPR article ? I think we 're going to have a very interesting shake-up coming in the world of news organizations .
My belief is that if they stick to news as entertainment , they 're going to be eaten alive by free , ad-supported blogs .
Their only chance is in 60 Minutes style in-depth reporting on a topic .
Note : this is not a comment on how trustworthy 60 minutes is , but merely on its format and marketing message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they have two sources: one that costs money to read, and one that doesn't?
How much extra trust does someone have to have in the news source to actually pay money to read the entire thing?
In other words - how much would Fox News have to charge before a conservative reader decides that he's better off reading the NPR article?I think we're going to have a very interesting shake-up coming in the world of news organizations.
My belief is that if they stick to news as entertainment, they're going to be eaten alive by free, ad-supported blogs.
Their only chance is in 60 Minutes style in-depth reporting on a topic.
Note: this is not a comment on how trustworthy 60 minutes is, but merely on its format and marketing message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845058</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>coofercat</author>
	<datestamp>1264085100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phenomenally stupid indeed. In fact, an example of exactly the sort of content users aren't clicking on.</p><p><i>The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.</i></p><p>Had there been any semblance of journalism here, it might have said:</p><p>The findings indicate that Google generates fewer, but more highly qualified leads to publishers. These highly engaged users are 78\% more likely to be interested in the tightly targeted ads those publishers are now able to include on their content. All this has lead to a 50\% decrease in traffic (with a corresponding decrease in publisher's operating costs of about 22\%), yet a 38\% increase in profit.</p><p>(obviously I'm making up the numbers)</p><p>The kind of people spouting this rubbish just want to wallow in the problem rather than being any tiny part of the solution. If they haven't figured out that their lower traffic is actually more valuable than the swathes of dross they used to get, then they deserve to whither and die. The ads industry has long since worked out that "conversions" are far more useful than "page impressions", so I have no idea how so-called publishers still think page views are important to them. As I say, they don't <i>want</i> to succeed.</p><p>Perhaps these people would celebrate and order their Porsches if every bot net on the planet starting downloading and discarding content from them? Maybe once they can't pay for the champagne and hookers they might they realise that traffic alone doesn't generate revenue, and actually does the opposite because it increases costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phenomenally stupid indeed .
In fact , an example of exactly the sort of content users are n't clicking on.The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.Had there been any semblance of journalism here , it might have said : The findings indicate that Google generates fewer , but more highly qualified leads to publishers .
These highly engaged users are 78 \ % more likely to be interested in the tightly targeted ads those publishers are now able to include on their content .
All this has lead to a 50 \ % decrease in traffic ( with a corresponding decrease in publisher 's operating costs of about 22 \ % ) , yet a 38 \ % increase in profit .
( obviously I 'm making up the numbers ) The kind of people spouting this rubbish just want to wallow in the problem rather than being any tiny part of the solution .
If they have n't figured out that their lower traffic is actually more valuable than the swathes of dross they used to get , then they deserve to whither and die .
The ads industry has long since worked out that " conversions " are far more useful than " page impressions " , so I have no idea how so-called publishers still think page views are important to them .
As I say , they do n't want to succeed.Perhaps these people would celebrate and order their Porsches if every bot net on the planet starting downloading and discarding content from them ?
Maybe once they ca n't pay for the champagne and hookers they might they realise that traffic alone does n't generate revenue , and actually does the opposite because it increases costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phenomenally stupid indeed.
In fact, an example of exactly the sort of content users aren't clicking on.The findings give further ammunition to publishers who insist that Google and other news aggregators are linking to their stories without paying any advertising revenue.Had there been any semblance of journalism here, it might have said:The findings indicate that Google generates fewer, but more highly qualified leads to publishers.
These highly engaged users are 78\% more likely to be interested in the tightly targeted ads those publishers are now able to include on their content.
All this has lead to a 50\% decrease in traffic (with a corresponding decrease in publisher's operating costs of about 22\%), yet a 38\% increase in profit.
(obviously I'm making up the numbers)The kind of people spouting this rubbish just want to wallow in the problem rather than being any tiny part of the solution.
If they haven't figured out that their lower traffic is actually more valuable than the swathes of dross they used to get, then they deserve to whither and die.
The ads industry has long since worked out that "conversions" are far more useful than "page impressions", so I have no idea how so-called publishers still think page views are important to them.
As I say, they don't want to succeed.Perhaps these people would celebrate and order their Porsches if every bot net on the planet starting downloading and discarding content from them?
Maybe once they can't pay for the champagne and hookers they might they realise that traffic alone doesn't generate revenue, and actually does the opposite because it increases costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841070</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps it is you, media people...</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1263998400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read an article in the German Zeit, in which they described some of the problems newspapers face today, accompanied by some anecdotal evidence which covered most of the bigger German newspapers.
It basically came to a new pressure for increased profit margins, which lead to reduction in team sizes, which, somehow not surprisingly, did nothing good for the numbers.
A lot of owners, some old news families, sold their papers or starting expecting margins that were and are simply not deliverable. Iirc the numbers were around 0-5\% with most newspapers in the last few decades, while now they are expecting 10-15\%. This simply can not work.
And then there are those that took the opposite strategy like the S&#252;ddeutsche Zeitung, which basically thought it would be a good idea to get into speculations. Well, guess what, it went wrong. So now they also have to save the money, but this time because of poor management decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read an article in the German Zeit , in which they described some of the problems newspapers face today , accompanied by some anecdotal evidence which covered most of the bigger German newspapers .
It basically came to a new pressure for increased profit margins , which lead to reduction in team sizes , which , somehow not surprisingly , did nothing good for the numbers .
A lot of owners , some old news families , sold their papers or starting expecting margins that were and are simply not deliverable .
Iirc the numbers were around 0-5 \ % with most newspapers in the last few decades , while now they are expecting 10-15 \ % .
This simply can not work .
And then there are those that took the opposite strategy like the S   ddeutsche Zeitung , which basically thought it would be a good idea to get into speculations .
Well , guess what , it went wrong .
So now they also have to save the money , but this time because of poor management decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read an article in the German Zeit, in which they described some of the problems newspapers face today, accompanied by some anecdotal evidence which covered most of the bigger German newspapers.
It basically came to a new pressure for increased profit margins, which lead to reduction in team sizes, which, somehow not surprisingly, did nothing good for the numbers.
A lot of owners, some old news families, sold their papers or starting expecting margins that were and are simply not deliverable.
Iirc the numbers were around 0-5\% with most newspapers in the last few decades, while now they are expecting 10-15\%.
This simply can not work.
And then there are those that took the opposite strategy like the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which basically thought it would be a good idea to get into speculations.
Well, guess what, it went wrong.
So now they also have to save the money, but this time because of poor management decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840308</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263993300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50\% would have been it.</p></div><p>The question is, then, how many users do you count as?  The article seems to claim that 50\% of users just don't actually read any articles.  Presumably the remaining 50\% don't read every article but read articles sometimes.  So if you visit Google News multiple times and 50\% of the time don't read any articles, do you count as a single visitor who reads articles sometimes, or does each visit count you as a "user" and some of those users never read articles?
</p><p>Ah, who knows?  Lies, damned lies, and statistics...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and do n't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click , ~ 50 \ % would have been it.The question is , then , how many users do you count as ?
The article seems to claim that 50 \ % of users just do n't actually read any articles .
Presumably the remaining 50 \ % do n't read every article but read articles sometimes .
So if you visit Google News multiple times and 50 \ % of the time do n't read any articles , do you count as a single visitor who reads articles sometimes , or does each visit count you as a " user " and some of those users never read articles ?
Ah , who knows ?
Lies , damned lies , and statistics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50\% would have been it.The question is, then, how many users do you count as?
The article seems to claim that 50\% of users just don't actually read any articles.
Presumably the remaining 50\% don't read every article but read articles sometimes.
So if you visit Google News multiple times and 50\% of the time don't read any articles, do you count as a single visitor who reads articles sometimes, or does each visit count you as a "user" and some of those users never read articles?
Ah, who knows?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1263990360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.  There isn't a need to click through in this case.</p></div><p>This alone is the reason people don't click through.  The Fine Articles are often overstuffed piles of crap that are best condensed into a single cut-and-paste-able paragraph.  After a certain number of wasted clicks, people become conditioned to only click when they really, really want to know more AND believe that the source in question is going to deliver more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , for the rest of you who never RTFA , the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA .
There is n't a need to click through in this case.This alone is the reason people do n't click through .
The Fine Articles are often overstuffed piles of crap that are best condensed into a single cut-and-paste-able paragraph .
After a certain number of wasted clicks , people become conditioned to only click when they really , really want to know more AND believe that the source in question is going to deliver more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.
There isn't a need to click through in this case.This alone is the reason people don't click through.
The Fine Articles are often overstuffed piles of crap that are best condensed into a single cut-and-paste-able paragraph.
After a certain number of wasted clicks, people become conditioned to only click when they really, really want to know more AND believe that the source in question is going to deliver more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841028</id>
	<title>Useless statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. 'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.'"</p><p>These are some whacked out statistics.  How is it "taking significant share away" if the great majority of newspapers' individual sites <i>wouldn't have been found in the first place</i> without Google, and thus even the 56\% that did visit might not have shown up if Google (or some similar aggregator) didn't exist?  Furthermore, maybe 90\% of the news articles that popped up aren't relevant, thus I didn't click on those results to read them?</p><p>It's a false "loss" statistic because they have no statistics on what the visitation rate would be without the "Google/aggregator" sites.</p><p>Here's an example: I don't regularly read the BBC.  The UK isn't where I live, so I have no particular reason to read news at their news site.  I go somewhere more local.  However, I have been directed to many articles there as a result of Google searches, and therefore they have got some visits from me as a result.  The BBC can kiss all those types of visits goodbye if news aggregators did not exist or indexers are forced to stop indexing the news.</p><p>In reality, of course, we all know the news sites just want to weasel some money out of the aggregators <i>even though the aggregators bring them more business than they would otherwise have</i>, and are therefore doing news sites a favor at no cost to them.  News sites are just sore that the aggregators can make money off helpfully directing customers to their business, like a kind of free Yellow Pages.  Yes, "Pay us to list our business in your Yellow Pages directory" makes perfect sense!  You'd think they would be happy enough to get interested customers for free, but no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers , it 's also taking a significant share away , " Doctor said .
'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers ' individual sites .
' " These are some whacked out statistics .
How is it " taking significant share away " if the great majority of newspapers ' individual sites would n't have been found in the first place without Google , and thus even the 56 \ % that did visit might not have shown up if Google ( or some similar aggregator ) did n't exist ?
Furthermore , maybe 90 \ % of the news articles that popped up are n't relevant , thus I did n't click on those results to read them ? It 's a false " loss " statistic because they have no statistics on what the visitation rate would be without the " Google/aggregator " sites.Here 's an example : I do n't regularly read the BBC .
The UK is n't where I live , so I have no particular reason to read news at their news site .
I go somewhere more local .
However , I have been directed to many articles there as a result of Google searches , and therefore they have got some visits from me as a result .
The BBC can kiss all those types of visits goodbye if news aggregators did not exist or indexers are forced to stop indexing the news.In reality , of course , we all know the news sites just want to weasel some money out of the aggregators even though the aggregators bring them more business than they would otherwise have , and are therefore doing news sites a favor at no cost to them .
News sites are just sore that the aggregators can make money off helpfully directing customers to their business , like a kind of free Yellow Pages .
Yes , " Pay us to list our business in your Yellow Pages directory " makes perfect sense !
You 'd think they would be happy enough to get interested customers for free , but no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said.
'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.
'"These are some whacked out statistics.
How is it "taking significant share away" if the great majority of newspapers' individual sites wouldn't have been found in the first place without Google, and thus even the 56\% that did visit might not have shown up if Google (or some similar aggregator) didn't exist?
Furthermore, maybe 90\% of the news articles that popped up aren't relevant, thus I didn't click on those results to read them?It's a false "loss" statistic because they have no statistics on what the visitation rate would be without the "Google/aggregator" sites.Here's an example: I don't regularly read the BBC.
The UK isn't where I live, so I have no particular reason to read news at their news site.
I go somewhere more local.
However, I have been directed to many articles there as a result of Google searches, and therefore they have got some visits from me as a result.
The BBC can kiss all those types of visits goodbye if news aggregators did not exist or indexers are forced to stop indexing the news.In reality, of course, we all know the news sites just want to weasel some money out of the aggregators even though the aggregators bring them more business than they would otherwise have, and are therefore doing news sites a favor at no cost to them.
News sites are just sore that the aggregators can make money off helpfully directing customers to their business, like a kind of free Yellow Pages.
Yes, "Pay us to list our business in your Yellow Pages directory" makes perfect sense!
You'd think they would be happy enough to get interested customers for free, but no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840788</id>
	<title>RTFA?</title>
	<author>greymond</author>
	<datestamp>1263996120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone Read The Fucking Article when the heading and introduction/opening paragraph give us everything we need to know...</p><p>Here is an example from a real headline...</p><p>Michael Jackson's Giraffes Murdered?<br>(RTTNews) - Bizarre events surrounding the late Michael Jackson's continue to unfold, this time with the death of two giraffes that once lived at the King of Pop's Neverland Ranch.</p><p>Ok so by seeing this on my RSS reader I now know that Michael Jackson's Giraffes were indeed murdered and that cops are still incompetent and much like myself don't really care enough to delve deeper into this topic. On the other hand if the news blurb had come across my reader as "Michael Jack's Giraffe Murderer Found - The Giraffes were killed as part of an illegal Giraffe fighting operation ran by Michael Vick" then I probably would actually take the time to read the article...</p><p>Who knew that people would only click what they're really, really interested in or what sounds really really crazy? Anyone for watching the "Sanctity of Marriage" oh I mean "The Bachelor"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone Read The Fucking Article when the heading and introduction/opening paragraph give us everything we need to know...Here is an example from a real headline...Michael Jackson 's Giraffes Murdered ?
( RTTNews ) - Bizarre events surrounding the late Michael Jackson 's continue to unfold , this time with the death of two giraffes that once lived at the King of Pop 's Neverland Ranch.Ok so by seeing this on my RSS reader I now know that Michael Jackson 's Giraffes were indeed murdered and that cops are still incompetent and much like myself do n't really care enough to delve deeper into this topic .
On the other hand if the news blurb had come across my reader as " Michael Jack 's Giraffe Murderer Found - The Giraffes were killed as part of an illegal Giraffe fighting operation ran by Michael Vick " then I probably would actually take the time to read the article...Who knew that people would only click what they 're really , really interested in or what sounds really really crazy ?
Anyone for watching the " Sanctity of Marriage " oh I mean " The Bachelor " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone Read The Fucking Article when the heading and introduction/opening paragraph give us everything we need to know...Here is an example from a real headline...Michael Jackson's Giraffes Murdered?
(RTTNews) - Bizarre events surrounding the late Michael Jackson's continue to unfold, this time with the death of two giraffes that once lived at the King of Pop's Neverland Ranch.Ok so by seeing this on my RSS reader I now know that Michael Jackson's Giraffes were indeed murdered and that cops are still incompetent and much like myself don't really care enough to delve deeper into this topic.
On the other hand if the news blurb had come across my reader as "Michael Jack's Giraffe Murderer Found - The Giraffes were killed as part of an illegal Giraffe fighting operation ran by Michael Vick" then I probably would actually take the time to read the article...Who knew that people would only click what they're really, really interested in or what sounds really really crazy?
Anyone for watching the "Sanctity of Marriage" oh I mean "The Bachelor"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841560</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another contributor is how much of the news is new?  I don't use Google News, but for DrudgeReport or even Slashdot, I'll visit a few times a day, not see anything new that interests me and be on my way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another contributor is how much of the news is new ?
I do n't use Google News , but for DrudgeReport or even Slashdot , I 'll visit a few times a day , not see anything new that interests me and be on my way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another contributor is how much of the news is new?
I don't use Google News, but for DrudgeReport or even Slashdot, I'll visit a few times a day, not see anything new that interests me and be on my way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840196</id>
	<title>Remove sources?</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1263992580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd go further into the sources if I could remove certain ones.  Fox News is almost a troll, and the Wall Street Journal seems to be not much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd go further into the sources if I could remove certain ones .
Fox News is almost a troll , and the Wall Street Journal seems to be not much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd go further into the sources if I could remove certain ones.
Fox News is almost a troll, and the Wall Street Journal seems to be not much better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843436</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually its the other way around. Half of users don't read the article which means half do. Millions and millions and millions of daily visitors to news websites world wide looking &amp; clicking on all those lovely adverts. All thanks to news aggregation. News sites really are a bunch of whiners since without news aggregation they would sink without trace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually its the other way around .
Half of users do n't read the article which means half do .
Millions and millions and millions of daily visitors to news websites world wide looking &amp; clicking on all those lovely adverts .
All thanks to news aggregation .
News sites really are a bunch of whiners since without news aggregation they would sink without trace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually its the other way around.
Half of users don't read the article which means half do.
Millions and millions and millions of daily visitors to news websites world wide looking &amp; clicking on all those lovely adverts.
All thanks to news aggregation.
News sites really are a bunch of whiners since without news aggregation they would sink without trace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840362</id>
	<title>I read articles without clicking the links</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often read articles without clicking the links. Instead of clicking, I copy and paste the link in to a new browser window so there's no referrer information. It's not only that I'm clinically paranoid, but one of my hobbies is thwarting the aggregation of data about me online. The site I'm browsing doesn't need to know what brought me there.</p><p>Of course I'm guessing most people don't do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often read articles without clicking the links .
Instead of clicking , I copy and paste the link in to a new browser window so there 's no referrer information .
It 's not only that I 'm clinically paranoid , but one of my hobbies is thwarting the aggregation of data about me online .
The site I 'm browsing does n't need to know what brought me there.Of course I 'm guessing most people do n't do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often read articles without clicking the links.
Instead of clicking, I copy and paste the link in to a new browser window so there's no referrer information.
It's not only that I'm clinically paranoid, but one of my hobbies is thwarting the aggregation of data about me online.
The site I'm browsing doesn't need to know what brought me there.Of course I'm guessing most people don't do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839710</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1263990480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFA</p><p>The only problems with this if that, like on Slashdot, the titles are sometimes misleading. It occurred to me several times that I found points in the article that contradicted the newspaper title<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>In newspapers, the title is often chosen by another person than the writer, mostly for marketing reasons I would assume.</p><p>So in the end, we end up with people being misinformed on some topics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-(</p><p>At least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. got a lot of comments which usually contribute to fix misleading titles for people who do not read the TFA.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAThe only problems with this if that , like on Slashdot , the titles are sometimes misleading .
It occurred to me several times that I found points in the article that contradicted the newspaper title ; - ) In newspapers , the title is often chosen by another person than the writer , mostly for marketing reasons I would assume.So in the end , we end up with people being misinformed on some topics ; - ( At least / .
got a lot of comments which usually contribute to fix misleading titles for people who do not read the TFA .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAThe only problems with this if that, like on Slashdot, the titles are sometimes misleading.
It occurred to me several times that I found points in the article that contradicted the newspaper title ;-)In newspapers, the title is often chosen by another person than the writer, mostly for marketing reasons I would assume.So in the end, we end up with people being misinformed on some topics ;-(At least /.
got a lot of comments which usually contribute to fix misleading titles for people who do not read the TFA.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840114</id>
	<title>purposeof headlines</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1263992220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the olden days headlines were written to attract potential buyers to newspapers.  Believe it or not, above the fold headlines and content were given away for free! People were allowed to crouch next to newpaper dispensers or sometimesnewstands and steal several paragraphs of entire articles.
<p>
Depending on the headlines and the news day, some of these thief's might come around and buy a newspaper(here is another amazing thing, once you put your money in, you could take as many as you wanted!).
</p><p>
This is no different. In many ways it is better.  Instead of seeing only the above-the-fold headlines, users can see many headlines which may increase the chance that the user will 'buy a newspaper', in this case view the ads. The newspaper no longer has to deliver the physical product, procure space to market the product, and deal with broken machines.  Furthermore,the user does not get to read more than a few sentences of content.  All those costs are handled by the news aggregator.
</p><p>
Of course, if your headlines are crap, no one will buy.  And, of course,there are many more headlines to write as each article must sell itself. More work for those that are willing to do the work to reach readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the olden days headlines were written to attract potential buyers to newspapers .
Believe it or not , above the fold headlines and content were given away for free !
People were allowed to crouch next to newpaper dispensers or sometimesnewstands and steal several paragraphs of entire articles .
Depending on the headlines and the news day , some of these thief 's might come around and buy a newspaper ( here is another amazing thing , once you put your money in , you could take as many as you wanted ! ) .
This is no different .
In many ways it is better .
Instead of seeing only the above-the-fold headlines , users can see many headlines which may increase the chance that the user will 'buy a newspaper ' , in this case view the ads .
The newspaper no longer has to deliver the physical product , procure space to market the product , and deal with broken machines .
Furthermore,the user does not get to read more than a few sentences of content .
All those costs are handled by the news aggregator .
Of course , if your headlines are crap , no one will buy .
And , of course,there are many more headlines to write as each article must sell itself .
More work for those that are willing to do the work to reach readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the olden days headlines were written to attract potential buyers to newspapers.
Believe it or not, above the fold headlines and content were given away for free!
People were allowed to crouch next to newpaper dispensers or sometimesnewstands and steal several paragraphs of entire articles.
Depending on the headlines and the news day, some of these thief's might come around and buy a newspaper(here is another amazing thing, once you put your money in, you could take as many as you wanted!).
This is no different.
In many ways it is better.
Instead of seeing only the above-the-fold headlines, users can see many headlines which may increase the chance that the user will 'buy a newspaper', in this case view the ads.
The newspaper no longer has to deliver the physical product, procure space to market the product, and deal with broken machines.
Furthermore,the user does not get to read more than a few sentences of content.
All those costs are handled by the news aggregator.
Of course, if your headlines are crap, no one will buy.
And, of course,there are many more headlines to write as each article must sell itself.
More work for those that are willing to do the work to reach readers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844972</id>
	<title>I think the real story is...</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1264084440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>half the times you visit you don't click, not half the visitors don't click. A lot of times the news is not interesting to me so why bother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>half the times you visit you do n't click , not half the visitors do n't click .
A lot of times the news is not interesting to me so why bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>half the times you visit you don't click, not half the visitors don't click.
A lot of times the news is not interesting to me so why bother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845972</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>McKing</author>
	<datestamp>1264089840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny, because I was thinking the same thing.  It seems to me that most reading habits with RSS feed readers, Google News, Yahoo News, and newspapers are about the same.  Most people probably skim the headlines and/or the first paragraph of each article, and only read the ones that they are actually interested in.</p><p>Google News doesn't really care about the click-through as much as Yahoo does, so it's a pretty bare bones site that lends itself to this sort of thing.  Yahoo has always been all about the click-through, so it has the "New! Shiny!" headlines to try to grab the reader's attention (although they have toned down their sites recently, too).</p><p>The online news sites that all rehash the same Reuters and AP feeds like Fox are prime examples of business people trying to change the customer's behavior instead of responding to how the customer actually uses their *product*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny , because I was thinking the same thing .
It seems to me that most reading habits with RSS feed readers , Google News , Yahoo News , and newspapers are about the same .
Most people probably skim the headlines and/or the first paragraph of each article , and only read the ones that they are actually interested in.Google News does n't really care about the click-through as much as Yahoo does , so it 's a pretty bare bones site that lends itself to this sort of thing .
Yahoo has always been all about the click-through , so it has the " New !
Shiny ! " headlines to try to grab the reader 's attention ( although they have toned down their sites recently , too ) .The online news sites that all rehash the same Reuters and AP feeds like Fox are prime examples of business people trying to change the customer 's behavior instead of responding to how the customer actually uses their * product * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny, because I was thinking the same thing.
It seems to me that most reading habits with RSS feed readers, Google News, Yahoo News, and newspapers are about the same.
Most people probably skim the headlines and/or the first paragraph of each article, and only read the ones that they are actually interested in.Google News doesn't really care about the click-through as much as Yahoo does, so it's a pretty bare bones site that lends itself to this sort of thing.
Yahoo has always been all about the click-through, so it has the "New!
Shiny!" headlines to try to grab the reader's attention (although they have toned down their sites recently, too).The online news sites that all rehash the same Reuters and AP feeds like Fox are prime examples of business people trying to change the customer's behavior instead of responding to how the customer actually uses their *product*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840886</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1263996780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tiger Woods has bunions?  Why wasn't I informed about this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tiger Woods has bunions ?
Why was n't I informed about this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tiger Woods has bunions?
Why wasn't I informed about this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839776</id>
	<title>One catch to that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their research assumes that people who are going to google news actually used to visit the newspaper sites independently.  I can say that I have never browsed newspaper sites indedpendently, but I do end up there some times from google news.</p><p>So the amount of lost advertising is probably smaller than they say it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their research assumes that people who are going to google news actually used to visit the newspaper sites independently .
I can say that I have never browsed newspaper sites indedpendently , but I do end up there some times from google news.So the amount of lost advertising is probably smaller than they say it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their research assumes that people who are going to google news actually used to visit the newspaper sites independently.
I can say that I have never browsed newspaper sites indedpendently, but I do end up there some times from google news.So the amount of lost advertising is probably smaller than they say it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840896</id>
	<title>Re:The death of traditional news</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1263996840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that newspapers have had a lock on their content for a long time and this content has been of sufficient value to support the entire organization.  They deliver readers to advertisers and the advertisers pay.</p><p>One problem today is the advertising budget is spread over many different local venues, the newspaper being only one.  Also, the value of the ads in a newspaper is much less than is used to be.</p><p>The idea that news could be a loss leader for other content is interesting, but the problem is that there isn't much other online digital content that people actually will pay for, especially when that content is often available for free from other sources.  The one real moneymaker online has been porn, and almost nothing else reaches the level of value that porn has.  But do you really think a newspaper can provide news and porn with a straight face?</p><p>I think the idea of a "newspaper" or any other sort of news organization is pretty much doomed.  It costs too much and people simply aren't going to pay.  The end result is that "news" will be pretty much gossipy chat from uninformed people that think they have something to say online.  Think early American Idol auditions, but a little worse.  Maybe 4chan as a serious news source is the right way to look at it.</p><p>The other "news sources" will be government-run information distributors.  The BBC is a very, very good example of what is possible.  I would say whatever the North Korean Ministry of Public Misinformation might be called in reality is much more like what you are going to see.  I don't see the US Government putting out news that isn't slanted towards whatever party is controlling that part of the bureauracy.  Nor do I think there will be any impartial news from any other government, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that newspapers have had a lock on their content for a long time and this content has been of sufficient value to support the entire organization .
They deliver readers to advertisers and the advertisers pay.One problem today is the advertising budget is spread over many different local venues , the newspaper being only one .
Also , the value of the ads in a newspaper is much less than is used to be.The idea that news could be a loss leader for other content is interesting , but the problem is that there is n't much other online digital content that people actually will pay for , especially when that content is often available for free from other sources .
The one real moneymaker online has been porn , and almost nothing else reaches the level of value that porn has .
But do you really think a newspaper can provide news and porn with a straight face ? I think the idea of a " newspaper " or any other sort of news organization is pretty much doomed .
It costs too much and people simply are n't going to pay .
The end result is that " news " will be pretty much gossipy chat from uninformed people that think they have something to say online .
Think early American Idol auditions , but a little worse .
Maybe 4chan as a serious news source is the right way to look at it.The other " news sources " will be government-run information distributors .
The BBC is a very , very good example of what is possible .
I would say whatever the North Korean Ministry of Public Misinformation might be called in reality is much more like what you are going to see .
I do n't see the US Government putting out news that is n't slanted towards whatever party is controlling that part of the bureauracy .
Nor do I think there will be any impartial news from any other government , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that newspapers have had a lock on their content for a long time and this content has been of sufficient value to support the entire organization.
They deliver readers to advertisers and the advertisers pay.One problem today is the advertising budget is spread over many different local venues, the newspaper being only one.
Also, the value of the ads in a newspaper is much less than is used to be.The idea that news could be a loss leader for other content is interesting, but the problem is that there isn't much other online digital content that people actually will pay for, especially when that content is often available for free from other sources.
The one real moneymaker online has been porn, and almost nothing else reaches the level of value that porn has.
But do you really think a newspaper can provide news and porn with a straight face?I think the idea of a "newspaper" or any other sort of news organization is pretty much doomed.
It costs too much and people simply aren't going to pay.
The end result is that "news" will be pretty much gossipy chat from uninformed people that think they have something to say online.
Think early American Idol auditions, but a little worse.
Maybe 4chan as a serious news source is the right way to look at it.The other "news sources" will be government-run information distributors.
The BBC is a very, very good example of what is possible.
I would say whatever the North Korean Ministry of Public Misinformation might be called in reality is much more like what you are going to see.
I don't see the US Government putting out news that isn't slanted towards whatever party is controlling that part of the bureauracy.
Nor do I think there will be any impartial news from any other government, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840506</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps it is you, media people...</title>
	<author>kd5zex</author>
	<datestamp>1263994380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting to remove an unintentional moderation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting to remove an unintentional moderation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting to remove an unintentional moderation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841950</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1264006200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA. There isn't a need to click through in this case.</i></p><p>I didn't RTFA, so I did not know that I did not have to.</p><p>That was until I saw your post. Now I know I don't have to, thus proving that RTFA is rarely necessary!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for the rest of you who never RTFA , the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA .
There is n't a need to click through in this case.I did n't RTFA , so I did not know that I did not have to.That was until I saw your post .
Now I know I do n't have to , thus proving that RTFA is rarely necessary !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.
There isn't a need to click through in this case.I didn't RTFA, so I did not know that I did not have to.That was until I saw your post.
Now I know I don't have to, thus proving that RTFA is rarely necessary!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841226</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263999540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the new fast flip previews on the bottom fascinating because it appears that the selection of what appears is more user driven. It's amazing how long some of the superfluous junk from the women's magazines can stay up no matter how unnewsworthy it is. I presume that's because they're getting more click-throughs than the meatier articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the new fast flip previews on the bottom fascinating because it appears that the selection of what appears is more user driven .
It 's amazing how long some of the superfluous junk from the women 's magazines can stay up no matter how unnewsworthy it is .
I presume that 's because they 're getting more click-throughs than the meatier articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the new fast flip previews on the bottom fascinating because it appears that the selection of what appears is more user driven.
It's amazing how long some of the superfluous junk from the women's magazines can stay up no matter how unnewsworthy it is.
I presume that's because they're getting more click-throughs than the meatier articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839852</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263991140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA. There isn't a need to click through in this case.</i></p><p>*suspicious glare*</p><p>How'd you figure <i>that</i> out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , for the rest of you who never RTFA , the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA .
There is n't a need to click through in this case .
* suspicious glare * How 'd you figure that out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.
There isn't a need to click through in this case.
*suspicious glare*How'd you figure that out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30850040</id>
	<title>Re:Or perhaps it is you, media people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264107180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I can tell, ruiner13 just made the most insightful post on Slashdot I've read all week. Modded appropriately as well. Good.</p><p>Or, shorter: I couldn't possibly agree more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , ruiner13 just made the most insightful post on Slashdot I 've read all week .
Modded appropriately as well .
Good.Or , shorter : I could n't possibly agree more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, ruiner13 just made the most insightful post on Slashdot I've read all week.
Modded appropriately as well.
Good.Or, shorter: I couldn't possibly agree more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841814</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1264004940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>nobody RTFAs.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect?</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/543009352041/inlineimg/Y/thats\_the\_joke-1.jpg" title="arstechnica.com">Whoosh</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nobody RTFAs .
Um , ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect ?
Whoosh [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nobody RTFAs.
Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect?
Whoosh [arstechnica.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844766</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1264082640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Post your website URL, let's see if we'll read it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
We'll read it only when we are curious. For example, summary should say something about some oily Natalie without clothes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Post your website URL , let 's see if we 'll read it : -D We 'll read it only when we are curious .
For example , summary should say something about some oily Natalie without clothes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post your website URL, let's see if we'll read it :-D

We'll read it only when we are curious.
For example, summary should say something about some oily Natalie without clothes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840826</id>
	<title>Re:Next up! Cover up magazines at stores!</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1263996360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a bad analogy, because in the checkout lane you can read most of the article without having to pick up the paper, but on Google you have to click through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bad analogy , because in the checkout lane you can read most of the article without having to pick up the paper , but on Google you have to click through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bad analogy, because in the checkout lane you can read most of the article without having to pick up the paper, but on Google you have to click through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839876</id>
	<title>GASP!</title>
	<author>ryanisflyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263991200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean to tell me that 44 percent of visitors to Google News aren't actually interested in the listed headlines, and therefore don't click through!? Let me put this to the test...</p><p>"Democrats see Mass. message: Jobs, jobs, jobs" - boring, pass.<br>"Alternate supply routes could open Haiti aid bottleneck" - just got all info I needed.<br>"Americans See Economic Recovery a Long Way Off" - no duh.<br>"Airstrikes Target al-Qaida in Yemen" - woot, bombs, but I'll pass.<br>"Netanyahu turns fire on Abbas as US envoy flies in" - whattahootey?<br>"Powers 'shifting to sanctions' in dealing with Iran" - invasion timer started.<br>"Intel chief concedes errors in Christmas bomb case" - and?<br>"Michelle Obama to launch initiative fighting child obesity" - by dressing fashionably?<br>"Alleged dinner crashers invoke Fifth Amendment" - reality TV series coming to NBC in spring.</p><p>Didn't click on anything, until I got to my custom filter:<br>"Twisted Physics: Scientists Create Knots of Light" - Oh wait, this is from fox news. Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean to tell me that 44 percent of visitors to Google News are n't actually interested in the listed headlines , and therefore do n't click through ! ?
Let me put this to the test... " Democrats see Mass .
message : Jobs , jobs , jobs " - boring , pass .
" Alternate supply routes could open Haiti aid bottleneck " - just got all info I needed .
" Americans See Economic Recovery a Long Way Off " - no duh .
" Airstrikes Target al-Qaida in Yemen " - woot , bombs , but I 'll pass .
" Netanyahu turns fire on Abbas as US envoy flies in " - whattahootey ?
" Powers 'shifting to sanctions ' in dealing with Iran " - invasion timer started .
" Intel chief concedes errors in Christmas bomb case " - and ?
" Michelle Obama to launch initiative fighting child obesity " - by dressing fashionably ?
" Alleged dinner crashers invoke Fifth Amendment " - reality TV series coming to NBC in spring.Did n't click on anything , until I got to my custom filter : " Twisted Physics : Scientists Create Knots of Light " - Oh wait , this is from fox news .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean to tell me that 44 percent of visitors to Google News aren't actually interested in the listed headlines, and therefore don't click through!?
Let me put this to the test..."Democrats see Mass.
message: Jobs, jobs, jobs" - boring, pass.
"Alternate supply routes could open Haiti aid bottleneck" - just got all info I needed.
"Americans See Economic Recovery a Long Way Off" - no duh.
"Airstrikes Target al-Qaida in Yemen" - woot, bombs, but I'll pass.
"Netanyahu turns fire on Abbas as US envoy flies in" - whattahootey?
"Powers 'shifting to sanctions' in dealing with Iran" - invasion timer started.
"Intel chief concedes errors in Christmas bomb case" - and?
"Michelle Obama to launch initiative fighting child obesity" - by dressing fashionably?
"Alleged dinner crashers invoke Fifth Amendment" - reality TV series coming to NBC in spring.Didn't click on anything, until I got to my custom filter:"Twisted Physics: Scientists Create Knots of Light" - Oh wait, this is from fox news.
Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844272</id>
	<title>Re:First cooperate, then replace, The Google Way</title>
	<author>tpgp</author>
	<datestamp>1264076520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They made Android, got vendors like HTC to commit to it and now they're making their own phone instead. </i></p><p>HTC *is* the manufacturer of the google phone. Whatever point you were trying to make is lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They made Android , got vendors like HTC to commit to it and now they 're making their own phone instead .
HTC * is * the manufacturer of the google phone .
Whatever point you were trying to make is lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made Android, got vendors like HTC to commit to it and now they're making their own phone instead.
HTC *is* the manufacturer of the google phone.
Whatever point you were trying to make is lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840916</id>
	<title>Google: please read</title>
	<author>kupekhaize</author>
	<datestamp>1263997020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google, in light of these statements, I'd like to make a feature suggestion. I already have an account to log in, preferences to set on which articles I want to see and where they are displayed at for the page.</p><p>For the love of god, please, please give me the ability to filter out articles by news organization.</p><p>Nothing makes me madder then to click to nytimes.com, read half of a 2 page article, and then be required to register and sign up for an account to read the second half of my story. Half the time, the second page is nothing more then a paragraph that could have easily fit on the first page. It would please me to no end to be able to filter some of these assholes out myself. Sure, I can (and at this point, have) route nytimes.com to a bad IP in my hosts file so they won't load anyway. However, I'd be perfectly happy to simply have them removed from my results, along with several others. Anyone else requiring payment for their articles or "free registration" come to mind..</p><p>Please, make it happen! There have to be some Google employees that read Slashdot comments...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , in light of these statements , I 'd like to make a feature suggestion .
I already have an account to log in , preferences to set on which articles I want to see and where they are displayed at for the page.For the love of god , please , please give me the ability to filter out articles by news organization.Nothing makes me madder then to click to nytimes.com , read half of a 2 page article , and then be required to register and sign up for an account to read the second half of my story .
Half the time , the second page is nothing more then a paragraph that could have easily fit on the first page .
It would please me to no end to be able to filter some of these assholes out myself .
Sure , I can ( and at this point , have ) route nytimes.com to a bad IP in my hosts file so they wo n't load anyway .
However , I 'd be perfectly happy to simply have them removed from my results , along with several others .
Anyone else requiring payment for their articles or " free registration " come to mind..Please , make it happen !
There have to be some Google employees that read Slashdot comments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, in light of these statements, I'd like to make a feature suggestion.
I already have an account to log in, preferences to set on which articles I want to see and where they are displayed at for the page.For the love of god, please, please give me the ability to filter out articles by news organization.Nothing makes me madder then to click to nytimes.com, read half of a 2 page article, and then be required to register and sign up for an account to read the second half of my story.
Half the time, the second page is nothing more then a paragraph that could have easily fit on the first page.
It would please me to no end to be able to filter some of these assholes out myself.
Sure, I can (and at this point, have) route nytimes.com to a bad IP in my hosts file so they won't load anyway.
However, I'd be perfectly happy to simply have them removed from my results, along with several others.
Anyone else requiring payment for their articles or "free registration" come to mind..Please, make it happen!
There have to be some Google employees that read Slashdot comments...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841746</id>
	<title>Nobody gets it</title>
	<author>ElitistWhiner</author>
	<datestamp>1264004160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The miracle of high speed technology is that it delivers today's news TODAY</p><p>Confusing whether CTFA == RTFA is irrelevent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The miracle of high speed technology is that it delivers today 's news TODAYConfusing whether CTFA = = RTFA is irrelevent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The miracle of high speed technology is that it delivers today's news TODAYConfusing whether CTFA == RTFA is irrelevent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840066</id>
	<title>bullshit spreading contest</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1263991980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, assuming the stats are all right, the conclussion is... well bullshit?. So, in fact google news users click HALF of the links they find... That's a lot of traffic. Since google news tends to show the same news multiple times. And since some news sites are not worth clicking. And since many users probably did not find the news they were looking for... 50\% is actually a huge number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , assuming the stats are all right , the conclussion is... well bullshit ? .
So , in fact google news users click HALF of the links they find... That 's a lot of traffic .
Since google news tends to show the same news multiple times .
And since some news sites are not worth clicking .
And since many users probably did not find the news they were looking for... 50 \ % is actually a huge number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, assuming the stats are all right, the conclussion is... well bullshit?.
So, in fact google news users click HALF of the links they find... That's a lot of traffic.
Since google news tends to show the same news multiple times.
And since some news sites are not worth clicking.
And since many users probably did not find the news they were looking for... 50\% is actually a huge number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843280</id>
	<title>First cooperate, then replace, The Google Way</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264106520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google seems to have a long track record of cooperating with other organizations and eventually learning that whatever technology they provide is cheaper to replace.<br><br>They made Android, got vendors like HTC to commit to it and now they're making their own phone instead. They paid browser vendors for search and clicks, and now are making their own browser which is quickly gaining market share. Opera and Firefox make a considerable amount of their income from Google, but how long before Google decides they don't need them anymore?<br><br>They make their own servers, OCR software, office software, mapping system, launched their own satellites, have attempted to buy wireless spectrums, built a library, etc...<br><br>In reality, they're consuming the Internet at a rate far faster than Microsoft ever managed against the PC world. They throw money at all the businesses that are selling software until the vendor feels the false sense of confidence allowing them to offer the software nearly for free. Then they make their own alternative to those apps. Of course, from what I understand, they haven't stopped paying the smaller vendors for their clicks, but they produce and market their own products through the most successful marketing tool of the past decade... Google.<br><br>I love the Google search engine, Earth is great, maps is wonderful, translate isn't too bad, gmail is fantastic. I also love Microsoft's stuff, Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc... but I hate both of their businesses.<br><br>It's a bit of a shame that such horrible organizations make some of the best stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to have a long track record of cooperating with other organizations and eventually learning that whatever technology they provide is cheaper to replace.They made Android , got vendors like HTC to commit to it and now they 're making their own phone instead .
They paid browser vendors for search and clicks , and now are making their own browser which is quickly gaining market share .
Opera and Firefox make a considerable amount of their income from Google , but how long before Google decides they do n't need them anymore ? They make their own servers , OCR software , office software , mapping system , launched their own satellites , have attempted to buy wireless spectrums , built a library , etc...In reality , they 're consuming the Internet at a rate far faster than Microsoft ever managed against the PC world .
They throw money at all the businesses that are selling software until the vendor feels the false sense of confidence allowing them to offer the software nearly for free .
Then they make their own alternative to those apps .
Of course , from what I understand , they have n't stopped paying the smaller vendors for their clicks , but they produce and market their own products through the most successful marketing tool of the past decade... Google.I love the Google search engine , Earth is great , maps is wonderful , translate is n't too bad , gmail is fantastic .
I also love Microsoft 's stuff , Windows , Office , Visual Studio , etc... but I hate both of their businesses.It 's a bit of a shame that such horrible organizations make some of the best stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to have a long track record of cooperating with other organizations and eventually learning that whatever technology they provide is cheaper to replace.They made Android, got vendors like HTC to commit to it and now they're making their own phone instead.
They paid browser vendors for search and clicks, and now are making their own browser which is quickly gaining market share.
Opera and Firefox make a considerable amount of their income from Google, but how long before Google decides they don't need them anymore?They make their own servers, OCR software, office software, mapping system, launched their own satellites, have attempted to buy wireless spectrums, built a library, etc...In reality, they're consuming the Internet at a rate far faster than Microsoft ever managed against the PC world.
They throw money at all the businesses that are selling software until the vendor feels the false sense of confidence allowing them to offer the software nearly for free.
Then they make their own alternative to those apps.
Of course, from what I understand, they haven't stopped paying the smaller vendors for their clicks, but they produce and market their own products through the most successful marketing tool of the past decade... Google.I love the Google search engine, Earth is great, maps is wonderful, translate isn't too bad, gmail is fantastic.
I also love Microsoft's stuff, Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc... but I hate both of their businesses.It's a bit of a shame that such horrible organizations make some of the best stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840334</id>
	<title>This is why I quit going to newsstands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they bitched at me for scanning headlines and buying only a couple of papers, and not buying a hundred newspapers every time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they bitched at me for scanning headlines and buying only a couple of papers , and not buying a hundred newspapers every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they bitched at me for scanning headlines and buying only a couple of papers, and not buying a hundred newspapers every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839962</id>
	<title>Probably Better \% Than Newspapers</title>
	<author>uiucgrad</author>
	<datestamp>1263991560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably a great percentage compared to the \% of people that read the headlines of a newspaper at the newspaper stand never buy a paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably a great percentage compared to the \ % of people that read the headlines of a newspaper at the newspaper stand never buy a paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably a great percentage compared to the \% of people that read the headlines of a newspaper at the newspaper stand never buy a paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841744</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, 60\% of all news articles are lame and users have learned to tell which ones they are from their short excerpts on Google New. It's no wonder users don't click through to lame stories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , 60 \ % of all news articles are lame and users have learned to tell which ones they are from their short excerpts on Google New .
It 's no wonder users do n't click through to lame stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, 60\% of all news articles are lame and users have learned to tell which ones they are from their short excerpts on Google New.
It's no wonder users don't click through to lame stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844112</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1264074240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is their fucking grammar and logic? Because it is "couldn't care less" you fucking moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is their fucking grammar and logic ?
Because it is " could n't care less " you fucking moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is their fucking grammar and logic?
Because it is "couldn't care less" you fucking moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840670</id>
	<title>This is only news to content distribution noobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263995400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half of all web traffic to major sites are bounces... why is this surprising?</p><p>Oh and sorry content providers, bouncers aren't ad clickers anyways!</p><p>Fucking noobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half of all web traffic to major sites are bounces... why is this surprising ? Oh and sorry content providers , bouncers are n't ad clickers anyways ! Fucking noobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half of all web traffic to major sites are bounces... why is this surprising?Oh and sorry content providers, bouncers aren't ad clickers anyways!Fucking noobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839702</id>
	<title>Now the real return on advertising is known.</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1263990420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now the real return on advertising is known. 50\% sounds rather good to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the real return on advertising is known .
50 \ % sounds rather good to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the real return on advertising is known.
50\% sounds rather good to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844964</id>
	<title>One question</title>
	<author>goontz</author>
	<datestamp>1264084320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if their statistics include my Google News app populating stories every time I open my iGoogle page without any intention of looking at the news. <br> <br>


Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA so I don't know if it clarified this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if their statistics include my Google News app populating stories every time I open my iGoogle page without any intention of looking at the news .
Disclaimer : I did n't RTFA so I do n't know if it clarified this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if their statistics include my Google News app populating stories every time I open my iGoogle page without any intention of looking at the news.
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA so I don't know if it clarified this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840990</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Kreigaffe</author>
	<datestamp>1263997560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not even that, really.</p><p>I check google news pretty much every day at least once, but it's actually pretty damn rare that there's any headlines that interest me in the slightest.<br>In other words..  it's not Google's fault that newspapers don't produce interesting content.  Half the articles are just rehashes of the same article they put out the day before.  Sometimes they'll add the sentence or two of details you can catch during station ID and traffic updates on the radio driving to work/school/nowhere particular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even that , really.I check google news pretty much every day at least once , but it 's actually pretty damn rare that there 's any headlines that interest me in the slightest.In other words.. it 's not Google 's fault that newspapers do n't produce interesting content .
Half the articles are just rehashes of the same article they put out the day before .
Sometimes they 'll add the sentence or two of details you can catch during station ID and traffic updates on the radio driving to work/school/nowhere particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even that, really.I check google news pretty much every day at least once, but it's actually pretty damn rare that there's any headlines that interest me in the slightest.In other words..  it's not Google's fault that newspapers don't produce interesting content.
Half the articles are just rehashes of the same article they put out the day before.
Sometimes they'll add the sentence or two of details you can catch during station ID and traffic updates on the radio driving to work/school/nowhere particular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841586</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1264002660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole "research" falls into the "well duh" category.  If I pick up a paper copy of a newspaper, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it.  If I go to my local paper's website, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it.  If I go to google news, you guessed, I skim the headlines and only read the ones interesting to me.  Given how much boring news is out there, I'm actually surprised that half the people actually find something worth reading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " research " falls into the " well duh " category .
If I pick up a paper copy of a newspaper , I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me , and then read it .
If I go to my local paper 's website , I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me , and then read it .
If I go to google news , you guessed , I skim the headlines and only read the ones interesting to me .
Given how much boring news is out there , I 'm actually surprised that half the people actually find something worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "research" falls into the "well duh" category.
If I pick up a paper copy of a newspaper, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it.
If I go to my local paper's website, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it.
If I go to google news, you guessed, I skim the headlines and only read the ones interesting to me.
Given how much boring news is out there, I'm actually surprised that half the people actually find something worth reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840636</id>
	<title>In Other News</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1263995160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, users of Google News click through to the aggregated news outlets an outstanding 50\% of the time. It is estimated that this brings more traffic to these outlets than any other single website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , users of Google News click through to the aggregated news outlets an outstanding 50 \ % of the time .
It is estimated that this brings more traffic to these outlets than any other single website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, users of Google News click through to the aggregated news outlets an outstanding 50\% of the time.
It is estimated that this brings more traffic to these outlets than any other single website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</id>
	<title>Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1263990060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.</p><p>My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a "pay model" are going to try to provide an aggregator feed that their editors will fill only with teaser headlines:  "The Massachusetts Election" instead of "Brown Wins in Massachusetts."  We'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources, such as NPR headlines.</p><p>By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.  There isn't a need to click through in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a " pay model " are going to try to provide an aggregator feed that their editors will fill only with teaser headlines : " The Massachusetts Election " instead of " Brown Wins in Massachusetts .
" We 'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources , such as NPR headlines.By the way , for the rest of you who never RTFA , the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA .
There is n't a need to click through in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a "pay model" are going to try to provide an aggregator feed that their editors will fill only with teaser headlines:  "The Massachusetts Election" instead of "Brown Wins in Massachusetts.
"  We'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources, such as NPR headlines.By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA.
There isn't a need to click through in this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840024</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Haymaker</author>
	<datestamp>1263991860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually saw this story on Google News before it appeared on Slashdot, but I can't say I bothered to click and read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually saw this story on Google News before it appeared on Slashdot , but I ca n't say I bothered to click and read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually saw this story on Google News before it appeared on Slashdot, but I can't say I bothered to click and read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845316</id>
	<title>Re:Easy test for statistics distortion</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264086780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Simply invert the statistic and state what this new portion represents (usually the opposite). In this case:
</p><ul>
<li>A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites</li></ul><p>... turns into:
</p><ul>
<li>A full 56 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines and access newspapers' individual sites</li></ul><p>Wow, doesn't that sound better? Not only that, but it makes the next step easily seen: how many people scan Google News? What's 55\% of that number? How many clicks is that? Isn't that a gigantic portion of a news site's revenue?</p><p>
But hey, the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around.</p></div><p>The thing is, the way the stat is listed is part of the reason so few people actually read the articles. The news industry has been wording headlines to increase hype so long that they think that the way they have distorted the news to hype it up is the news. I don't know how many times I have looked at an article that looked interesting where the important information was somewhere near the end of the article, if it was included at all. I remember when I was in school being taught that the important stuff, the five W's (although one of them is an H), should be in the first paragraph. OK, so you don't want it in the first paragraph because you want people to read the article, but I still shouldn't have to read the whole article to find out if you ever get around to saying: What, Who, Where, When, and How.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply invert the statistic and state what this new portion represents ( usually the opposite ) .
In this case : A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers ' individual sites... turns into : A full 56 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines and access newspapers ' individual sitesWow , does n't that sound better ?
Not only that , but it makes the next step easily seen : how many people scan Google News ?
What 's 55 \ % of that number ?
How many clicks is that ?
Is n't that a gigantic portion of a news site 's revenue ?
But hey , the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around.The thing is , the way the stat is listed is part of the reason so few people actually read the articles .
The news industry has been wording headlines to increase hype so long that they think that the way they have distorted the news to hype it up is the news .
I do n't know how many times I have looked at an article that looked interesting where the important information was somewhere near the end of the article , if it was included at all .
I remember when I was in school being taught that the important stuff , the five W 's ( although one of them is an H ) , should be in the first paragraph .
OK , so you do n't want it in the first paragraph because you want people to read the article , but I still should n't have to read the whole article to find out if you ever get around to saying : What , Who , Where , When , and How .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply invert the statistic and state what this new portion represents (usually the opposite).
In this case:

A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites... turns into:

A full 56 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines and access newspapers' individual sitesWow, doesn't that sound better?
Not only that, but it makes the next step easily seen: how many people scan Google News?
What's 55\% of that number?
How many clicks is that?
Isn't that a gigantic portion of a news site's revenue?
But hey, the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around.The thing is, the way the stat is listed is part of the reason so few people actually read the articles.
The news industry has been wording headlines to increase hype so long that they think that the way they have distorted the news to hype it up is the news.
I don't know how many times I have looked at an article that looked interesting where the important information was somewhere near the end of the article, if it was included at all.
I remember when I was in school being taught that the important stuff, the five W's (although one of them is an H), should be in the first paragraph.
OK, so you don't want it in the first paragraph because you want people to read the article, but I still shouldn't have to read the whole article to find out if you ever get around to saying: What, Who, Where, When, and How.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840388</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, half of marijuana users smoked but don't inhale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , half of marijuana users smoked but do n't inhale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, half of marijuana users smoked but don't inhale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841596</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Kanasta</author>
	<datestamp>1264002720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So newspapers admit only 56\% of their articles that even make it to the top page are worth spending 30s in reading.<br>Better improve your articles then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So newspapers admit only 56 \ % of their articles that even make it to the top page are worth spending 30s in reading.Better improve your articles then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So newspapers admit only 56\% of their articles that even make it to the top page are worth spending 30s in reading.Better improve your articles then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840192</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1263992580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bit of data to add to all the correlations they are trying to do.</p><p>My interests include much of the world.  I find things in Bangladesh as interesting as happenings in MessyTwoShits.  But, worldwide, there are so MANY things happening, I can't even dream of keeping up with everything.</p><p>There are only 24 hours in a day - and I can't spend all of them reading news.</p><p>I scan headlines, choose the MOST interesting, and click those.  When I've actually read somewhere between 6 and 30 articles. I've got tend to my own real life.</p><p>The Wall Street Journal may get 3 clicks this week, one next week, none the next, then 6 clicks the following week.  So - how do they count me in their click-throughs?</p><p>Ehhh.  If I find that the system actually takes my kind of news reading into account, I'll come up with something to throw another monkey wrench into the works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit of data to add to all the correlations they are trying to do.My interests include much of the world .
I find things in Bangladesh as interesting as happenings in MessyTwoShits .
But , worldwide , there are so MANY things happening , I ca n't even dream of keeping up with everything.There are only 24 hours in a day - and I ca n't spend all of them reading news.I scan headlines , choose the MOST interesting , and click those .
When I 've actually read somewhere between 6 and 30 articles .
I 've got tend to my own real life.The Wall Street Journal may get 3 clicks this week , one next week , none the next , then 6 clicks the following week .
So - how do they count me in their click-throughs ? Ehhh .
If I find that the system actually takes my kind of news reading into account , I 'll come up with something to throw another monkey wrench into the works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit of data to add to all the correlations they are trying to do.My interests include much of the world.
I find things in Bangladesh as interesting as happenings in MessyTwoShits.
But, worldwide, there are so MANY things happening, I can't even dream of keeping up with everything.There are only 24 hours in a day - and I can't spend all of them reading news.I scan headlines, choose the MOST interesting, and click those.
When I've actually read somewhere between 6 and 30 articles.
I've got tend to my own real life.The Wall Street Journal may get 3 clicks this week, one next week, none the next, then 6 clicks the following week.
So - how do they count me in their click-throughs?Ehhh.
If I find that the system actually takes my kind of news reading into account, I'll come up with something to throw another monkey wrench into the works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841112</id>
	<title>for those claiming that 50\% is a good click thru</title>
	<author>spatley</author>
	<datestamp>1263998700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember that TFA stated the ~50\% of *users* clicked thru to articles, which would only amount to 1 click for the ~200 or so headlines to choose from on a given google news page. This makes a click thru rate of about 1 in 400 impressions or 0.25\%
<br> <br>
Which is still considered a miracle click thru rate for banner display media tha advertisers pay for.
<br> <br>
So considering they are getting this trafic for FREE it seems like a pretty god deal to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that TFA stated the ~ 50 \ % of * users * clicked thru to articles , which would only amount to 1 click for the ~ 200 or so headlines to choose from on a given google news page .
This makes a click thru rate of about 1 in 400 impressions or 0.25 \ % Which is still considered a miracle click thru rate for banner display media tha advertisers pay for .
So considering they are getting this trafic for FREE it seems like a pretty god deal to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that TFA stated the ~50\% of *users* clicked thru to articles, which would only amount to 1 click for the ~200 or so headlines to choose from on a given google news page.
This makes a click thru rate of about 1 in 400 impressions or 0.25\%
 
Which is still considered a miracle click thru rate for banner display media tha advertisers pay for.
So considering they are getting this trafic for FREE it seems like a pretty god deal to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839968</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263991620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a number of slashdotters skip the summary also and go straight into the comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a number of slashdotters skip the summary also and go straight into the comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a number of slashdotters skip the summary also and go straight into the comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840238</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263992820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It just takes <b>one</b> reader to have access to the text of the article, and post a proper summary on their blog, and then they're back to square 1.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just takes one reader to have access to the text of the article , and post a proper summary on their blog , and then they 're back to square 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It just takes one reader to have access to the text of the article, and post a proper summary on their blog, and then they're back to square 1.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840882</id>
	<title>Re:That's funny...</title>
	<author>millette</author>
	<datestamp>1263996720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another thing is if you visit google news a few times a day, the chance of a new story popping up is quite slim. That would explain a big chunk of that percentage too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another thing is if you visit google news a few times a day , the chance of a new story popping up is quite slim .
That would explain a big chunk of that percentage too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another thing is if you visit google news a few times a day, the chance of a new story popping up is quite slim.
That would explain a big chunk of that percentage too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841306</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they should write things worth reading</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264000200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an exercise, see how much redundancy you can get out of five articles in your favorite paper. Next, see how many quotes you can find that say something you wouldn't expect. The simple truth is that nearly all the <em>meat</em> is in the headlines themselves! The rest of the story practically writes itself, without even doing any research. And it's clear that they're doing only as much as necessary to develop a story that can fill some space.</p><p>Are there exceptions? Sure. But most of the articles in most papers are poorly written, regurgitated news feeds from AP or Reuters, while the rest are poorly written stories about local events of no interest to anyone who wasn't there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an exercise , see how much redundancy you can get out of five articles in your favorite paper .
Next , see how many quotes you can find that say something you would n't expect .
The simple truth is that nearly all the meat is in the headlines themselves !
The rest of the story practically writes itself , without even doing any research .
And it 's clear that they 're doing only as much as necessary to develop a story that can fill some space.Are there exceptions ?
Sure. But most of the articles in most papers are poorly written , regurgitated news feeds from AP or Reuters , while the rest are poorly written stories about local events of no interest to anyone who was n't there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an exercise, see how much redundancy you can get out of five articles in your favorite paper.
Next, see how many quotes you can find that say something you wouldn't expect.
The simple truth is that nearly all the meat is in the headlines themselves!
The rest of the story practically writes itself, without even doing any research.
And it's clear that they're doing only as much as necessary to develop a story that can fill some space.Are there exceptions?
Sure. But most of the articles in most papers are poorly written, regurgitated news feeds from AP or Reuters, while the rest are poorly written stories about local events of no interest to anyone who wasn't there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30856814</id>
	<title>Re:Next up! Cover up magazines at stores!</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264101240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You joke, but many of the free commuter dailies frequently have add 'outserts' that are a cover outside the front page. In the newspaper boxes, you don't see headlines, only the stupid full-front-page ads. The first page of the paper is inside it.</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You joke , but many of the free commuter dailies frequently have add 'outserts ' that are a cover outside the front page .
In the newspaper boxes , you do n't see headlines , only the stupid full-front-page ads .
The first page of the paper is inside it.- RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You joke, but many of the free commuter dailies frequently have add 'outserts' that are a cover outside the front page.
In the newspaper boxes, you don't see headlines, only the stupid full-front-page ads.
The first page of the paper is inside it.- RG&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839806</id>
	<title>It's not just a substitute for news...</title>
	<author>ngc5194</author>
	<datestamp>1263990900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... a lot of times I don't find what I'm looking for.

<p>
I can't speak for everyone else who uses Google News, but a lot of the time that I go there it's because I'm looking for a particular story.  A lot of the time I can't find it or it's probably too recent for the story to make its way through the cycle to end up referenced at Google.  If that's the case, I don't click on anything, and I'll come back later or find the article through some other means.

</p><p>
Just because someone doesn't click through it doesn't mean Google is stealing page views from the original news source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a lot of times I do n't find what I 'm looking for .
I ca n't speak for everyone else who uses Google News , but a lot of the time that I go there it 's because I 'm looking for a particular story .
A lot of the time I ca n't find it or it 's probably too recent for the story to make its way through the cycle to end up referenced at Google .
If that 's the case , I do n't click on anything , and I 'll come back later or find the article through some other means .
Just because someone does n't click through it does n't mean Google is stealing page views from the original news source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a lot of times I don't find what I'm looking for.
I can't speak for everyone else who uses Google News, but a lot of the time that I go there it's because I'm looking for a particular story.
A lot of the time I can't find it or it's probably too recent for the story to make its way through the cycle to end up referenced at Google.
If that's the case, I don't click on anything, and I'll come back later or find the article through some other means.
Just because someone doesn't click through it doesn't mean Google is stealing page views from the original news source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30846630</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1264092720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet you didn't even RTFA. Who's the problem now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet you did n't even RTFA .
Who 's the problem now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet you didn't even RTFA.
Who's the problem now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843982</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect?</p></div><p>come on, that's not users reading TFAs, that's just our browsers prefetching the linked pages...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect ? come on , that 's not users reading TFAs , that 's just our browsers prefetching the linked pages.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect?come on, that's not users reading TFAs, that's just our browsers prefetching the linked pages...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840502</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1263994380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources, such as NPR headlines.</p></div></blockquote><p>
As someone who does occasionally click through to RTFA (on google, not slashdot), I've noticed recently that FT.com articles are getting pushed to the top more often than they used to, despite their new policy of one free article per month.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources , such as NPR headlines .
As someone who does occasionally click through to RTFA ( on google , not slashdot ) , I 've noticed recently that FT.com articles are getting pushed to the top more often than they used to , despite their new policy of one free article per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources, such as NPR headlines.
As someone who does occasionally click through to RTFA (on google, not slashdot), I've noticed recently that FT.com articles are getting pushed to the top more often than they used to, despite their new policy of one free article per month.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839708</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, the kind of person who is content to read just the headlines isn't ever going to pay to read the articles. Clearly they don't find them interesting enough, which isn't google's fault. Unless they're just worried about the ad revenue they'd get from that person visiting their front page once a day? I mean, I guess it would be fair to give some portion of the ad revenue earned by google from people looking the NYT's headlines to the NYT, but that's not what they're asking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the kind of person who is content to read just the headlines is n't ever going to pay to read the articles .
Clearly they do n't find them interesting enough , which is n't google 's fault .
Unless they 're just worried about the ad revenue they 'd get from that person visiting their front page once a day ?
I mean , I guess it would be fair to give some portion of the ad revenue earned by google from people looking the NYT 's headlines to the NYT , but that 's not what they 're asking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the kind of person who is content to read just the headlines isn't ever going to pay to read the articles.
Clearly they don't find them interesting enough, which isn't google's fault.
Unless they're just worried about the ad revenue they'd get from that person visiting their front page once a day?
I mean, I guess it would be fair to give some portion of the ad revenue earned by google from people looking the NYT's headlines to the NYT, but that's not what they're asking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840756</id>
	<title>Easy test for statistics distortion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263995820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simply invert the statistic and state what this new portion represents (usually the opposite). In this case:
<ul>
<li>A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites</li></ul><p>... turns into:
</p><ul>
<li>A full 56 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines and access newspapers' individual sites</li></ul><p>Wow, doesn't that sound better? Not only that, but it makes the next step easily seen: how many people scan Google News? What's 55\% of that number? How many clicks is that? Isn't that a gigantic portion of a news site's revenue?</p><p>
But hey, the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply invert the statistic and state what this new portion represents ( usually the opposite ) .
In this case : A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers ' individual sites... turns into : A full 56 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines and access newspapers ' individual sitesWow , does n't that sound better ?
Not only that , but it makes the next step easily seen : how many people scan Google News ?
What 's 55 \ % of that number ?
How many clicks is that ?
Is n't that a gigantic portion of a news site 's revenue ?
But hey , the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply invert the statistic and state what this new portion represents (usually the opposite).
In this case:

A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites... turns into:

A full 56 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines and access newspapers' individual sitesWow, doesn't that sound better?
Not only that, but it makes the next step easily seen: how many people scan Google News?
What's 55\% of that number?
How many clicks is that?
Isn't that a gigantic portion of a news site's revenue?
But hey, the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840996</id>
	<title>Condensed Info</title>
	<author>theJML</author>
	<datestamp>1263997680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I honestly would pay a few dollars a month to have full stores that were JUST a concise listing of pertinent info with no ads or fluff. So many sites today have the article in a thin column down the middle of the page, somehow stretch things out to multiple pages and have nothing but ads on the right and links on the left. And to make it worse, are formatted with screens stuck in the late 90's at 800px wide. There's no wonder people won't click through to them.</p><p>Personally I find that a story can be summed up in 100-250 characters and be just as useful 90\% of the time. Sure there are cases that more info might be intersting, and links could be given to that effect (like a link to the actual study for instance), but when I'm reading news I'd like more than the short summaries on Google News or RSS feed titles, but less than the full, fluff laden articles. I don't care what Joe Blow on the street thinks. I don't care what other reporters say. In fact, I don't even want opinions most of the time, I just want the story, short and sweet. Title: "Is Apple working on \_\_\_\_?" Article: "Yes, but we don't have any details." Nuff Said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly would pay a few dollars a month to have full stores that were JUST a concise listing of pertinent info with no ads or fluff .
So many sites today have the article in a thin column down the middle of the page , somehow stretch things out to multiple pages and have nothing but ads on the right and links on the left .
And to make it worse , are formatted with screens stuck in the late 90 's at 800px wide .
There 's no wonder people wo n't click through to them.Personally I find that a story can be summed up in 100-250 characters and be just as useful 90 \ % of the time .
Sure there are cases that more info might be intersting , and links could be given to that effect ( like a link to the actual study for instance ) , but when I 'm reading news I 'd like more than the short summaries on Google News or RSS feed titles , but less than the full , fluff laden articles .
I do n't care what Joe Blow on the street thinks .
I do n't care what other reporters say .
In fact , I do n't even want opinions most of the time , I just want the story , short and sweet .
Title : " Is Apple working on \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ?
" Article : " Yes , but we do n't have any details .
" Nuff Said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly would pay a few dollars a month to have full stores that were JUST a concise listing of pertinent info with no ads or fluff.
So many sites today have the article in a thin column down the middle of the page, somehow stretch things out to multiple pages and have nothing but ads on the right and links on the left.
And to make it worse, are formatted with screens stuck in the late 90's at 800px wide.
There's no wonder people won't click through to them.Personally I find that a story can be summed up in 100-250 characters and be just as useful 90\% of the time.
Sure there are cases that more info might be intersting, and links could be given to that effect (like a link to the actual study for instance), but when I'm reading news I'd like more than the short summaries on Google News or RSS feed titles, but less than the full, fluff laden articles.
I don't care what Joe Blow on the street thinks.
I don't care what other reporters say.
In fact, I don't even want opinions most of the time, I just want the story, short and sweet.
Title: "Is Apple working on \_\_\_\_?
" Article: "Yes, but we don't have any details.
" Nuff Said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841462</id>
	<title>and long before online news existed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264001580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people would walk past newsracks, scan the headlines, and most of the time not buy the paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people would walk past newsracks , scan the headlines , and most of the time not buy the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people would walk past newsracks, scan the headlines, and most of the time not buy the paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843314</id>
	<title>Long live the journalists!!</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1264106880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over the last 10 years, papers have been laying off reporters and publishing syndicated crap, a business practice that resulted in huge profits without considering long term survival strategies. The syndication practice  worked fine in print because we tend to only buy one news-paper, but online it absolutely destroys the value of the business. <br>
The only way publications will EVER be able regain market value is to hire their own reporters again and produce unique content  that adds value for the reader, and this can be evidenced  today by the   more respected publications in the market.<br>
Long live the journalists!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the last 10 years , papers have been laying off reporters and publishing syndicated crap , a business practice that resulted in huge profits without considering long term survival strategies .
The syndication practice worked fine in print because we tend to only buy one news-paper , but online it absolutely destroys the value of the business .
The only way publications will EVER be able regain market value is to hire their own reporters again and produce unique content that adds value for the reader , and this can be evidenced today by the more respected publications in the market .
Long live the journalists !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the last 10 years, papers have been laying off reporters and publishing syndicated crap, a business practice that resulted in huge profits without considering long term survival strategies.
The syndication practice  worked fine in print because we tend to only buy one news-paper, but online it absolutely destroys the value of the business.
The only way publications will EVER be able regain market value is to hire their own reporters again and produce unique content  that adds value for the reader, and this can be evidenced  today by the   more respected publications in the market.
Long live the journalists!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842906</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1264014900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the real problem is that 80\% (99\%? -- that's a serious question) of articles are reworded versions of the same thing - i.e. a press release, or statement. There's almost zero original reporting done, which is why it's a big deal when a NYT science article is on Slashdot - it's actually news. Most news stories are rehashes or developing updates. Why would you read an article that's four sentences of news (which the headline encapsulates) and twelve paragraphs of backstory you're already familiar with? Most details not included in the headline will probably be covered by the evening news, a talking head on sunday afternoon CNN or the family news junkie anyways. There's no major elections coming up soon and everyone currently employed is going to be doing (or not doing) their jobs for a while still. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Personally I skim google news four or five times a day, I will usually click on one or two updates, or a breaking news story a day. Headlines are written now to be so google friendly that all the important information is encapsulated right there. The fact that google news gives you five or six headlines on the same subject allows you to grasp the situation without reading a poorly researched article about a press release and twelve paragraphs of fluff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the real problem is that 80 \ % ( 99 \ % ?
-- that 's a serious question ) of articles are reworded versions of the same thing - i.e .
a press release , or statement .
There 's almost zero original reporting done , which is why it 's a big deal when a NYT science article is on Slashdot - it 's actually news .
Most news stories are rehashes or developing updates .
Why would you read an article that 's four sentences of news ( which the headline encapsulates ) and twelve paragraphs of backstory you 're already familiar with ?
Most details not included in the headline will probably be covered by the evening news , a talking head on sunday afternoon CNN or the family news junkie anyways .
There 's no major elections coming up soon and everyone currently employed is going to be doing ( or not doing ) their jobs for a while still .
  Personally I skim google news four or five times a day , I will usually click on one or two updates , or a breaking news story a day .
Headlines are written now to be so google friendly that all the important information is encapsulated right there .
The fact that google news gives you five or six headlines on the same subject allows you to grasp the situation without reading a poorly researched article about a press release and twelve paragraphs of fluff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the real problem is that 80\% (99\%?
-- that's a serious question) of articles are reworded versions of the same thing - i.e.
a press release, or statement.
There's almost zero original reporting done, which is why it's a big deal when a NYT science article is on Slashdot - it's actually news.
Most news stories are rehashes or developing updates.
Why would you read an article that's four sentences of news (which the headline encapsulates) and twelve paragraphs of backstory you're already familiar with?
Most details not included in the headline will probably be covered by the evening news, a talking head on sunday afternoon CNN or the family news junkie anyways.
There's no major elections coming up soon and everyone currently employed is going to be doing (or not doing) their jobs for a while still.
  Personally I skim google news four or five times a day, I will usually click on one or two updates, or a breaking news story a day.
Headlines are written now to be so google friendly that all the important information is encapsulated right there.
The fact that google news gives you five or six headlines on the same subject allows you to grasp the situation without reading a poorly researched article about a press release and twelve paragraphs of fluff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839684</id>
	<title>Outsell Not Outlook</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1263990360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.</p></div><p>The article says the same thing but what they probably messed up is that it's Outsell not Outlook:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, <b>Outlook</b> found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.<br> <br>

For its annual News Users' survey, <b>Outsell</b> asked 2,787 US news consumers in July about their online and offline news preferences. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.<br> <br>

Outsell found that 57 percent of news users looking for "news right now" go to digital sources, up from 33 percent a few years ago.</p></div><p>I'm guessing that was a spell checking/slip up.  Not to be blamed on the submitter or slashdot editors but instead the IB Times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.The article says the same thing but what they probably messed up is that it 's Outsell not Outlook : With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online , Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access .
For its annual News Users ' survey , Outsell asked 2,787 US news consumers in July about their online and offline news preferences .
The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent .
Outsell found that 57 percent of news users looking for " news right now " go to digital sources , up from 33 percent a few years ago.I 'm guessing that was a spell checking/slip up .
Not to be blamed on the submitter or slashdot editors but instead the IB Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.The article says the same thing but what they probably messed up is that it's Outsell not Outlook:With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.
For its annual News Users' survey, Outsell asked 2,787 US news consumers in July about their online and offline news preferences.
The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.
Outsell found that 57 percent of news users looking for "news right now" go to digital sources, up from 33 percent a few years ago.I'm guessing that was a spell checking/slip up.
Not to be blamed on the submitter or slashdot editors but instead the IB Times.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840340</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they should write things worth reading</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1263993420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A huge portion of newspaper articles (though not as large as the portion of television news segments) are fluff, not worth reading. If you can get all the information you need from the headline, maybe the article wasn't much worth writing anyways.</i></p><p>[Citation needed]</p><p>As for the last part of what you wrote:  Ever consider that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing\_Ourselves\_to\_Death" title="wikipedia.org">decline in human attention span</a> [wikipedia.org] and the commoditization of news media might account for what you wryly observe as "get[ting] all the information you need from the headline"? And you would suggest that this is a good thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge portion of newspaper articles ( though not as large as the portion of television news segments ) are fluff , not worth reading .
If you can get all the information you need from the headline , maybe the article was n't much worth writing anyways .
[ Citation needed ] As for the last part of what you wrote : Ever consider that the decline in human attention span [ wikipedia.org ] and the commoditization of news media might account for what you wryly observe as " get [ ting ] all the information you need from the headline " ?
And you would suggest that this is a good thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge portion of newspaper articles (though not as large as the portion of television news segments) are fluff, not worth reading.
If you can get all the information you need from the headline, maybe the article wasn't much worth writing anyways.
[Citation needed]As for the last part of what you wrote:  Ever consider that the decline in human attention span [wikipedia.org] and the commoditization of news media might account for what you wryly observe as "get[ting] all the information you need from the headline"?
And you would suggest that this is a good thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694</id>
	<title>Kind of like...</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1263990360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how many people read or skin the slashdot summary, but don't read the article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how many people read or skin the slashdot summary , but do n't read the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many people read or skin the slashdot summary, but don't read the article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840364</id>
	<title>How is this different from any other industry?</title>
	<author>ebakunin</author>
	<datestamp>1263993540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Yahoo and Google started giving click-thru data for advertising, as opposed to page impressions, advertisers were shocked that viewers ignored most of their ads. When Tivo starting giving viewing statistics to the networks they were shocked at how ineffective their ads were. Are newspapers only now learning that there's a huge difference between seeing a headline (an ad) and actually paying attention to it? Seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Yahoo and Google started giving click-thru data for advertising , as opposed to page impressions , advertisers were shocked that viewers ignored most of their ads .
When Tivo starting giving viewing statistics to the networks they were shocked at how ineffective their ads were .
Are newspapers only now learning that there 's a huge difference between seeing a headline ( an ad ) and actually paying attention to it ?
Seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Yahoo and Google started giving click-thru data for advertising, as opposed to page impressions, advertisers were shocked that viewers ignored most of their ads.
When Tivo starting giving viewing statistics to the networks they were shocked at how ineffective their ads were.
Are newspapers only now learning that there's a huge difference between seeing a headline (an ad) and actually paying attention to it?
Seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843424</id>
	<title>good news orgs are aggregators too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I work for a newspaper, posting as AC</p><p>We run our website as a business, selling advertising. We do it well.</p><p>We run our CMS as a business, selling it to other publishers, who use it to push content to their production websites. It's an expanding part of our business.</p><p>We own many web properties and use our core website to drive traffic to these satellite properties, which also make money.</p><p>We run ad delivery and sales as a business, and sell our inventory profitably.</p><p>We look for opportunities to grow our web business through acquisition and partnership, and use both the physical newspaper and the websites for that purpose.</p><p>There is a limited understanding of how media companies work here. Most of the large newspaper websites (100 million PV/month) have these opportunities, but have not developed other abilities and businesses to monetize that legacy reputation. Huge web traffic is only a start. You need good ad sales people. You need good programmers and sysadmins. You need people who can see opportunities. You need to have started acquiring smart people years ago, and need to be better at attracting them. I'm talking computer people, who can automate turning 150 words into lots of differently presented attractive content that attracts search engine and direct traffic. </p><p>I'm sorry to say that it is late in the game to be starting on these things. Being a leader in the newspaper business means you need to have seen this coming five ^H^H^H^H^H seven years ago. You needed to have acquired other domains and web properties and needed to have started using your readership base to increase google SERP and direct traffic, and need to be selling out ad inventory based on page view stats that appeal to advertisers. Anecdotal use case stories about advertising are amusing, irrelevant to the business, and ignore the fact that a lot of web campaigns are part of a much broader media buy. Kids, learn a bit about how money is made before you declare you know everything, get off my lawn, etc. </p><p>Google is a huge source of traffic. Understanding that and using it better than everyone else is how a good organization should work. <br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I work for a newspaper , posting as ACWe run our website as a business , selling advertising .
We do it well.We run our CMS as a business , selling it to other publishers , who use it to push content to their production websites .
It 's an expanding part of our business.We own many web properties and use our core website to drive traffic to these satellite properties , which also make money.We run ad delivery and sales as a business , and sell our inventory profitably.We look for opportunities to grow our web business through acquisition and partnership , and use both the physical newspaper and the websites for that purpose.There is a limited understanding of how media companies work here .
Most of the large newspaper websites ( 100 million PV/month ) have these opportunities , but have not developed other abilities and businesses to monetize that legacy reputation .
Huge web traffic is only a start .
You need good ad sales people .
You need good programmers and sysadmins .
You need people who can see opportunities .
You need to have started acquiring smart people years ago , and need to be better at attracting them .
I 'm talking computer people , who can automate turning 150 words into lots of differently presented attractive content that attracts search engine and direct traffic .
I 'm sorry to say that it is late in the game to be starting on these things .
Being a leader in the newspaper business means you need to have seen this coming five ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H seven years ago .
You needed to have acquired other domains and web properties and needed to have started using your readership base to increase google SERP and direct traffic , and need to be selling out ad inventory based on page view stats that appeal to advertisers .
Anecdotal use case stories about advertising are amusing , irrelevant to the business , and ignore the fact that a lot of web campaigns are part of a much broader media buy .
Kids , learn a bit about how money is made before you declare you know everything , get off my lawn , etc .
Google is a huge source of traffic .
Understanding that and using it better than everyone else is how a good organization should work .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I work for a newspaper, posting as ACWe run our website as a business, selling advertising.
We do it well.We run our CMS as a business, selling it to other publishers, who use it to push content to their production websites.
It's an expanding part of our business.We own many web properties and use our core website to drive traffic to these satellite properties, which also make money.We run ad delivery and sales as a business, and sell our inventory profitably.We look for opportunities to grow our web business through acquisition and partnership, and use both the physical newspaper and the websites for that purpose.There is a limited understanding of how media companies work here.
Most of the large newspaper websites (100 million PV/month) have these opportunities, but have not developed other abilities and businesses to monetize that legacy reputation.
Huge web traffic is only a start.
You need good ad sales people.
You need good programmers and sysadmins.
You need people who can see opportunities.
You need to have started acquiring smart people years ago, and need to be better at attracting them.
I'm talking computer people, who can automate turning 150 words into lots of differently presented attractive content that attracts search engine and direct traffic.
I'm sorry to say that it is late in the game to be starting on these things.
Being a leader in the newspaper business means you need to have seen this coming five ^H^H^H^H^H seven years ago.
You needed to have acquired other domains and web properties and needed to have started using your readership base to increase google SERP and direct traffic, and need to be selling out ad inventory based on page view stats that appeal to advertisers.
Anecdotal use case stories about advertising are amusing, irrelevant to the business, and ignore the fact that a lot of web campaigns are part of a much broader media buy.
Kids, learn a bit about how money is made before you declare you know everything, get off my lawn, etc.
Google is a huge source of traffic.
Understanding that and using it better than everyone else is how a good organization should work.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30849470</id>
	<title>Maybe they're not worth reading</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps it's because Google gives enough info to realise the story isn't really worth reading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's because Google gives enough info to realise the story is n't really worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's because Google gives enough info to realise the story isn't really worth reading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844088</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1264074060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the title is chosen based on "pull" for humans and about 50\% search engine optimization</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the title is chosen based on " pull " for humans and about 50 \ % search engine optimization</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the title is chosen based on "pull" for humans and about 50\% search engine optimization</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840294</id>
	<title>Reaction: My two cents on contemporary news</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1263993240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, that 50\% is a fantastic click-thru rate, though I'm sure they'll find a way to make the glass half empty.</p><p>There are so many great comments here that collectively sum up the news industry, especially reliance on AP and every paper having essentially the same content.  However, I'm surprised that no slash-dotters have mentioned the obvious fact of many "articles" simply being paid ads.  I'm sure many Americans are aware of this.</p><p>Last summer I attended the Mayborn Literary Non-Fiction Conference in Dallas (and hosted by my alma mater, UNT) and had my suspicions confirmed by fashion "reporter" Joy Sewing of the <i>Houston Chronicle</i>.  In a presentation which essentially boiled down to a defense of her paper's increased emphasis on fluffy content, she let the truth come out with the following quote about fashion top-ten and gift lists:  "If Macy's buys an ad in my paper, then guess what?  Macy's is in my article."</p><p>Since hearing Ms. Sewing's admission, I've made it my personal goal to quote her to the world -- please pass it on!  People like her are willingly turning journalism into a farce, even as they admit to knowing better.  Shrugging shoulders and saying it's "Nature of the business" is saying you don't care about quality as long as you're getting paid.  It also makes it more difficult for people like me to get work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , that 50 \ % is a fantastic click-thru rate , though I 'm sure they 'll find a way to make the glass half empty.There are so many great comments here that collectively sum up the news industry , especially reliance on AP and every paper having essentially the same content .
However , I 'm surprised that no slash-dotters have mentioned the obvious fact of many " articles " simply being paid ads .
I 'm sure many Americans are aware of this.Last summer I attended the Mayborn Literary Non-Fiction Conference in Dallas ( and hosted by my alma mater , UNT ) and had my suspicions confirmed by fashion " reporter " Joy Sewing of the Houston Chronicle .
In a presentation which essentially boiled down to a defense of her paper 's increased emphasis on fluffy content , she let the truth come out with the following quote about fashion top-ten and gift lists : " If Macy 's buys an ad in my paper , then guess what ?
Macy 's is in my article .
" Since hearing Ms. Sewing 's admission , I 've made it my personal goal to quote her to the world -- please pass it on !
People like her are willingly turning journalism into a farce , even as they admit to knowing better .
Shrugging shoulders and saying it 's " Nature of the business " is saying you do n't care about quality as long as you 're getting paid .
It also makes it more difficult for people like me to get work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, that 50\% is a fantastic click-thru rate, though I'm sure they'll find a way to make the glass half empty.There are so many great comments here that collectively sum up the news industry, especially reliance on AP and every paper having essentially the same content.
However, I'm surprised that no slash-dotters have mentioned the obvious fact of many "articles" simply being paid ads.
I'm sure many Americans are aware of this.Last summer I attended the Mayborn Literary Non-Fiction Conference in Dallas (and hosted by my alma mater, UNT) and had my suspicions confirmed by fashion "reporter" Joy Sewing of the Houston Chronicle.
In a presentation which essentially boiled down to a defense of her paper's increased emphasis on fluffy content, she let the truth come out with the following quote about fashion top-ten and gift lists:  "If Macy's buys an ad in my paper, then guess what?
Macy's is in my article.
"Since hearing Ms. Sewing's admission, I've made it my personal goal to quote her to the world -- please pass it on!
People like her are willingly turning journalism into a farce, even as they admit to knowing better.
Shrugging shoulders and saying it's "Nature of the business" is saying you don't care about quality as long as you're getting paid.
It also makes it more difficult for people like me to get work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839746</id>
	<title>Interpreted differently</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half of Google News users not only browse but also click through</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half of Google News users not only browse but also click through</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half of Google News users not only browse but also click through</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839854</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>rockNme2349</author>
	<datestamp>1263991140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nrly hlf of ggl nws usrs dnt click thru to articles. News sites upset. Only 10\% of usrs wllng to pay. <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/my/logout" title="slashdot.org">Click Here</a> [slashdot.org] for full article. ($10)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nrly hlf of ggl nws usrs dnt click thru to articles .
News sites upset .
Only 10 \ % of usrs wllng to pay .
Click Here [ slashdot.org ] for full article .
( $ 10 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nrly hlf of ggl nws usrs dnt click thru to articles.
News sites upset.
Only 10\% of usrs wllng to pay.
Click Here [slashdot.org] for full article.
($10)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840552</id>
	<title>News Worth Reading?</title>
	<author>peterofoz</author>
	<datestamp>1263994680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, i too am a frequent scanner of news article teasers and headlines and don't click through because, frankly, they don't interest me or I've already read them. I also drive down the street past 1000's of store fronts, advertising banners and billboards and don't often stop to buy stuff. I see 1000's of web adverts every day and don't click on those either (or very rarely). I would tell you what I'd like to read, exactly, except I don't often know myself until the fancy strikes me. And it changes from day to day. So keep spamming the news headlines out there and hope to catch a few readers with what they need when they need it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , i too am a frequent scanner of news article teasers and headlines and do n't click through because , frankly , they do n't interest me or I 've already read them .
I also drive down the street past 1000 's of store fronts , advertising banners and billboards and do n't often stop to buy stuff .
I see 1000 's of web adverts every day and do n't click on those either ( or very rarely ) .
I would tell you what I 'd like to read , exactly , except I do n't often know myself until the fancy strikes me .
And it changes from day to day .
So keep spamming the news headlines out there and hope to catch a few readers with what they need when they need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, i too am a frequent scanner of news article teasers and headlines and don't click through because, frankly, they don't interest me or I've already read them.
I also drive down the street past 1000's of store fronts, advertising banners and billboards and don't often stop to buy stuff.
I see 1000's of web adverts every day and don't click on those either (or very rarely).
I would tell you what I'd like to read, exactly, except I don't often know myself until the fancy strikes me.
And it changes from day to day.
So keep spamming the news headlines out there and hope to catch a few readers with what they need when they need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841058</id>
	<title>I challenge the evidence.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1263998220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>In other news, most of the people who read the article don't click on ads.</b></p><p>I say if not for google, people wouldn't even know you existed.</p><p>Unless you are the New York Times or Washington Post, hardly anyone knows you. Google brings all of you "anonymous cowards" together and makes you presentable so people who otherwise wouldn't can see you and know who you are.</p><p>To say these people would click through every paper if not for google is like saying everyone who downloads free songs would pay for them all if given the choice.</p><p><b>No. It's thanks, but no thanks. Not thanks, okay here you go. </b></p><p>If music downloads weren't free, then people wouldn't download all that music, period. If they were tangible records, then we wouldn't decide to pay for them. We would return them.</p><p>When you create a downside to information (like a fee), then most of us won't care for it. You can beg to differ, but the users will always think they can always get it somewhere else, where there is no downside (like for free). And it's not even the price that really matters. <i>It's the thought of having to pay</i> that is the real challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , most of the people who read the article do n't click on ads.I say if not for google , people would n't even know you existed.Unless you are the New York Times or Washington Post , hardly anyone knows you .
Google brings all of you " anonymous cowards " together and makes you presentable so people who otherwise would n't can see you and know who you are.To say these people would click through every paper if not for google is like saying everyone who downloads free songs would pay for them all if given the choice.No .
It 's thanks , but no thanks .
Not thanks , okay here you go .
If music downloads were n't free , then people would n't download all that music , period .
If they were tangible records , then we would n't decide to pay for them .
We would return them.When you create a downside to information ( like a fee ) , then most of us wo n't care for it .
You can beg to differ , but the users will always think they can always get it somewhere else , where there is no downside ( like for free ) .
And it 's not even the price that really matters .
It 's the thought of having to pay that is the real challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, most of the people who read the article don't click on ads.I say if not for google, people wouldn't even know you existed.Unless you are the New York Times or Washington Post, hardly anyone knows you.
Google brings all of you "anonymous cowards" together and makes you presentable so people who otherwise wouldn't can see you and know who you are.To say these people would click through every paper if not for google is like saying everyone who downloads free songs would pay for them all if given the choice.No.
It's thanks, but no thanks.
Not thanks, okay here you go.
If music downloads weren't free, then people wouldn't download all that music, period.
If they were tangible records, then we wouldn't decide to pay for them.
We would return them.When you create a downside to information (like a fee), then most of us won't care for it.
You can beg to differ, but the users will always think they can always get it somewhere else, where there is no downside (like for free).
And it's not even the price that really matters.
It's the thought of having to pay that is the real challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840030</id>
	<title>50\% is amazingly good</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1263991860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm actually astounded 50\% of people would click through anything.  The fact the conversion rate is that high means that the news sties would be insane to cut out Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually astounded 50 \ % of people would click through anything .
The fact the conversion rate is that high means that the news sties would be insane to cut out Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually astounded 50\% of people would click through anything.
The fact the conversion rate is that high means that the news sties would be insane to cut out Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839878</id>
	<title>Same reason as movies</title>
	<author>Joucifer</author>
	<datestamp>1263991200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't click through 99\% of the stories for the same reason I don't go to 99\% of the movies.  Whoever makes the preview(headline) is way better at their job then who ever makes the movie(article).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't click through 99 \ % of the stories for the same reason I do n't go to 99 \ % of the movies .
Whoever makes the preview ( headline ) is way better at their job then who ever makes the movie ( article ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't click through 99\% of the stories for the same reason I don't go to 99\% of the movies.
Whoever makes the preview(headline) is way better at their job then who ever makes the movie(article).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1263998400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the problems with America these days, people just want sound bites and could care less about facts surrounding a situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the problems with America these days , people just want sound bites and could care less about facts surrounding a situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the problems with America these days, people just want sound bites and could care less about facts surrounding a situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840322</id>
	<title>Re:Not Interested</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1263993360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I go to an actual newspaper's website, I click FAR fewer links than 50\% of those available to me. Does this mean the newspaper is taking a significant share away from itself?</p><p>No<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... clearly the FA is talking 'bollocks'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I go to an actual newspaper 's website , I click FAR fewer links than 50 \ % of those available to me .
Does this mean the newspaper is taking a significant share away from itself ? No ... clearly the FA is talking 'bollocks' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I go to an actual newspaper's website, I click FAR fewer links than 50\% of those available to me.
Does this mean the newspaper is taking a significant share away from itself?No ... clearly the FA is talking 'bollocks'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841064</id>
	<title>No news?  No click.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263998280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or else people are looking to see if there are any new news, and they're not clicking when there is no news.  I suppose newspapers might complain that people aren't going to the newspaper sites to see no news.  But people have limited time, so they'd only look at a few news sites and fewer sites would get visited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or else people are looking to see if there are any new news , and they 're not clicking when there is no news .
I suppose newspapers might complain that people are n't going to the newspaper sites to see no news .
But people have limited time , so they 'd only look at a few news sites and fewer sites would get visited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or else people are looking to see if there are any new news, and they're not clicking when there is no news.
I suppose newspapers might complain that people aren't going to the newspaper sites to see no news.
But people have limited time, so they'd only look at a few news sites and fewer sites would get visited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841142</id>
	<title>Re:Google could actually fix this if they wanted t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263999000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there ads on google news? I never see any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there ads on google news ?
I never see any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there ads on google news?
I never see any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840346</id>
	<title>Yup.</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1263993420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also scan the headlines of the local newsrag in the newspaper machine before going into a restaurant. Haven't paid for one of those in the past decade either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also scan the headlines of the local newsrag in the newspaper machine before going into a restaurant .
Have n't paid for one of those in the past decade either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also scan the headlines of the local newsrag in the newspaper machine before going into a restaurant.
Haven't paid for one of those in the past decade either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839792</id>
	<title>Not Interested</title>
	<author>Migraineman</author>
	<datestamp>1263990840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, lesse here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br> <br>
Entertainment News, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls]<br> <br>
Sports News, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls]<br> <br>
Random Feel-Good Stories, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls]<br> <br>
Domestic News, government officials are still corrupt, stock market is still iffy, another auto maker is filing Chapter Whatever, [scrolls]<br> <br>
International News, emergency relief in Haiti still ongoing, continued tribal disputes in the Middle East, China still has internal issues<br> <br>

Okay, so it's the same crap as yesterday, and the day before that.  I'm a bad person because I don't want to re-read a story regurgitated from several days ago?  And the news outlets are upset that the recycled content isn't generating revenue?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , lesse here .. . Entertainment News , nope , could n't care less [ scrolls ] Sports News , nope , could n't care less [ scrolls ] Random Feel-Good Stories , nope , could n't care less [ scrolls ] Domestic News , government officials are still corrupt , stock market is still iffy , another auto maker is filing Chapter Whatever , [ scrolls ] International News , emergency relief in Haiti still ongoing , continued tribal disputes in the Middle East , China still has internal issues Okay , so it 's the same crap as yesterday , and the day before that .
I 'm a bad person because I do n't want to re-read a story regurgitated from several days ago ?
And the news outlets are upset that the recycled content is n't generating revenue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, lesse here ...  
Entertainment News, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls] 
Sports News, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls] 
Random Feel-Good Stories, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls] 
Domestic News, government officials are still corrupt, stock market is still iffy, another auto maker is filing Chapter Whatever, [scrolls] 
International News, emergency relief in Haiti still ongoing, continued tribal disputes in the Middle East, China still has internal issues 

Okay, so it's the same crap as yesterday, and the day before that.
I'm a bad person because I don't want to re-read a story regurgitated from several days ago?
And the news outlets are upset that the recycled content isn't generating revenue?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840570</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1263994740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often don't click through to the articles.  The reason is because I can see from the summaries that there is nothing there I want to read.  I use Google News to search for articles about a particular topic, and often there aren't any relevant recent articles about that topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often do n't click through to the articles .
The reason is because I can see from the summaries that there is nothing there I want to read .
I use Google News to search for articles about a particular topic , and often there are n't any relevant recent articles about that topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often don't click through to the articles.
The reason is because I can see from the summaries that there is nothing there I want to read.
I use Google News to search for articles about a particular topic, and often there aren't any relevant recent articles about that topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those on Google aren't even reading article summaries, just headlines. I'm seeing a whole new trend in journalism. Just post one sentence, unsubstantiated statements and you have news! Hurrah!</p><p>Wait, what's that you say? This is already going on? It's called Twitter? I guess I'll have to check it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those on Google are n't even reading article summaries , just headlines .
I 'm seeing a whole new trend in journalism .
Just post one sentence , unsubstantiated statements and you have news !
Hurrah ! Wait , what 's that you say ?
This is already going on ?
It 's called Twitter ?
I guess I 'll have to check it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those on Google aren't even reading article summaries, just headlines.
I'm seeing a whole new trend in journalism.
Just post one sentence, unsubstantiated statements and you have news!
Hurrah!Wait, what's that you say?
This is already going on?
It's called Twitter?
I guess I'll have to check it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841472</id>
	<title>News as a compliant subset of entertainment media</title>
	<author>ynotds</author>
	<datestamp>1264001700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have Google News with several custom panels open in a tab 24-7 to look at when I'm distracted.</p><p>Where it is a choice I click to items I'm interested in in <i>The Age</i> (Melbourne) in the hope that there might be other, often unrelated, local-interest articles there worth on-clicking to. But half the time the latest Fairfax site revision makes that process near impossible. Other times it can be half good.</p><p>But I'm also trying to act on the recognition that for political stuff <i>The Guardian</i> is the only English language paper that tries any more and certainly the only one I'd be willing to seriously consider paying something for. Most of the rest have clearly been overrun by the shock-horror=entertainment/ratings meme, witness the Haiti security beat ups, with exceptions like <i>Christian Science Monitor</i> usually being too allergic to any passion.</p><p>Beyond them, I try to opt for publications with local or domain-specific credibility like the <i>San Jose Mercury</i>.</p><p>Making sense of my Google News reading/click through statistics would take something a lot smarter than their search algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Google News with several custom panels open in a tab 24-7 to look at when I 'm distracted.Where it is a choice I click to items I 'm interested in in The Age ( Melbourne ) in the hope that there might be other , often unrelated , local-interest articles there worth on-clicking to .
But half the time the latest Fairfax site revision makes that process near impossible .
Other times it can be half good.But I 'm also trying to act on the recognition that for political stuff The Guardian is the only English language paper that tries any more and certainly the only one I 'd be willing to seriously consider paying something for .
Most of the rest have clearly been overrun by the shock-horror = entertainment/ratings meme , witness the Haiti security beat ups , with exceptions like Christian Science Monitor usually being too allergic to any passion.Beyond them , I try to opt for publications with local or domain-specific credibility like the San Jose Mercury.Making sense of my Google News reading/click through statistics would take something a lot smarter than their search algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Google News with several custom panels open in a tab 24-7 to look at when I'm distracted.Where it is a choice I click to items I'm interested in in The Age (Melbourne) in the hope that there might be other, often unrelated, local-interest articles there worth on-clicking to.
But half the time the latest Fairfax site revision makes that process near impossible.
Other times it can be half good.But I'm also trying to act on the recognition that for political stuff The Guardian is the only English language paper that tries any more and certainly the only one I'd be willing to seriously consider paying something for.
Most of the rest have clearly been overrun by the shock-horror=entertainment/ratings meme, witness the Haiti security beat ups, with exceptions like Christian Science Monitor usually being too allergic to any passion.Beyond them, I try to opt for publications with local or domain-specific credibility like the San Jose Mercury.Making sense of my Google News reading/click through statistics would take something a lot smarter than their search algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845032</id>
	<title>AP news</title>
	<author>TechwoIf</author>
	<datestamp>1264084860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's due to over 90\% of them are regurgitated AP feeds. I was in favor of AP forcing google to filter out there copyrighted AP stories and was hoping AP and google did not streak a deal. But they did.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-( Would have been nice to have a short list of oredgenale reporting stories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's due to over 90 \ % of them are regurgitated AP feeds .
I was in favor of AP forcing google to filter out there copyrighted AP stories and was hoping AP and google did not streak a deal .
But they did .
: - ( Would have been nice to have a short list of oredgenale reporting stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's due to over 90\% of them are regurgitated AP feeds.
I was in favor of AP forcing google to filter out there copyrighted AP stories and was hoping AP and google did not streak a deal.
But they did.
:-( Would have been nice to have a short list of oredgenale reporting stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840510</id>
	<title>Re:Not Interested</title>
	<author>holiggan</author>
	<datestamp>1263994440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the stories that go something like "OMG! New research found out that 100\% of the people that died last year were previously alive! Being alive can lead to death!"</p><p>Seriously, I hate the panic waves that the media creates. Bird flu, swine flu, mad cow, bla bla bla. They blow it all so out of proportion that you either just ignore it all, or you will never leave that permanet panic state, waiting for the next "deadly thing".</p><p>That's why I've stoped watching news on the TV a longggggg time ago, and I just skim the Google News page, just as TFA describes.</p><p>I can even honestly say that I get more actual "news" during my daily blog reading time than when I read the "old school" media sites, either newspapers, TVs or whatnot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the stories that go something like " OMG !
New research found out that 100 \ % of the people that died last year were previously alive !
Being alive can lead to death !
" Seriously , I hate the panic waves that the media creates .
Bird flu , swine flu , mad cow , bla bla bla .
They blow it all so out of proportion that you either just ignore it all , or you will never leave that permanet panic state , waiting for the next " deadly thing " .That 's why I 've stoped watching news on the TV a longggggg time ago , and I just skim the Google News page , just as TFA describes.I can even honestly say that I get more actual " news " during my daily blog reading time than when I read the " old school " media sites , either newspapers , TVs or whatnot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the stories that go something like "OMG!
New research found out that 100\% of the people that died last year were previously alive!
Being alive can lead to death!
"Seriously, I hate the panic waves that the media creates.
Bird flu, swine flu, mad cow, bla bla bla.
They blow it all so out of proportion that you either just ignore it all, or you will never leave that permanet panic state, waiting for the next "deadly thing".That's why I've stoped watching news on the TV a longggggg time ago, and I just skim the Google News page, just as TFA describes.I can even honestly say that I get more actual "news" during my daily blog reading time than when I read the "old school" media sites, either newspapers, TVs or whatnot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1263990600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.</p></div><p>
Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect? Post your website URL, let's see if we'll read it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs .
Um , ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect ?
Post your website URL , let 's see if we 'll read it : -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.
Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect?
Post your website URL, let's see if we'll read it :-D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30851504</id>
	<title>New Media</title>
	<author>Scroatzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264068900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is really no question that the new way of finding information, including the news, is online. The thing that makes online information finding desirable is that you can filter out the crap that you don't want to read.</p><p>Old media such as newspapers want to force you to look at things that you aren't interested in. We can debate all we want about the value of The New York Times, but as long as I can get search results on the particular subject I am interested in-- and get feeds about the things I'm interested in-- I don't really care about the New York Times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is really no question that the new way of finding information , including the news , is online .
The thing that makes online information finding desirable is that you can filter out the crap that you do n't want to read.Old media such as newspapers want to force you to look at things that you are n't interested in .
We can debate all we want about the value of The New York Times , but as long as I can get search results on the particular subject I am interested in-- and get feeds about the things I 'm interested in-- I do n't really care about the New York Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is really no question that the new way of finding information, including the news, is online.
The thing that makes online information finding desirable is that you can filter out the crap that you don't want to read.Old media such as newspapers want to force you to look at things that you aren't interested in.
We can debate all we want about the value of The New York Times, but as long as I can get search results on the particular subject I am interested in-- and get feeds about the things I'm interested in-- I don't really care about the New York Times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840092</id>
	<title>Newspapers don't own views, so nothing taken</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263992160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Newspapers don't own traffic, so nothing is being <i>taken</i>. Google is providing a <i>competing</i> product that half of users prefer to that the newspaper provides. Newspapers can easily provide a robots.txt which instructs Google to remove them from their news pages, if they think they would be better off that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers , it 's also taking a significant share away Newspapers do n't own traffic , so nothing is being taken .
Google is providing a competing product that half of users prefer to that the newspaper provides .
Newspapers can easily provide a robots.txt which instructs Google to remove them from their news pages , if they think they would be better off that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away
Newspapers don't own traffic, so nothing is being taken.
Google is providing a competing product that half of users prefer to that the newspaper provides.
Newspapers can easily provide a robots.txt which instructs Google to remove them from their news pages, if they think they would be better off that way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842516</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they should write things worth reading</title>
	<author>wile\_e8</author>
	<datestamp>1264011120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You read your paper and you're enjoying your two-page comic spread.  And there's The Family fucking Circus, bottom right corner, just waiting to suck.  And that's the last thing you read, so it spoils everything you read before it.  I hate it, yet I'm uncontrollably drawn to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You read your paper and you 're enjoying your two-page comic spread .
And there 's The Family fucking Circus , bottom right corner , just waiting to suck .
And that 's the last thing you read , so it spoils everything you read before it .
I hate it , yet I 'm uncontrollably drawn to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You read your paper and you're enjoying your two-page comic spread.
And there's The Family fucking Circus, bottom right corner, just waiting to suck.
And that's the last thing you read, so it spoils everything you read before it.
I hate it, yet I'm uncontrollably drawn to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839992</id>
	<title>maybe so, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263991680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..news.google.com is still my 3rd best referrer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..news.google.com is still my 3rd best referrer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..news.google.com is still my 3rd best referrer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843782</id>
	<title>Re:Now the real return on advertising is known.</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264069860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So now the real return on advertising is known. 50\% sounds rather good to me.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
There is an old adage that 50\% of the money you spend on advertising is wasted, but nobody knows which 50\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the real return on advertising is known .
50 \ % sounds rather good to me .
There is an old adage that 50 \ % of the money you spend on advertising is wasted , but nobody knows which 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the real return on advertising is known.
50\% sounds rather good to me.
There is an old adage that 50\% of the money you spend on advertising is wasted, but nobody knows which 50\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30856872</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google News</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264101900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the flip side, most of the advertisers on the website of a local news outlet in Ottawa, Illinois (pop. ~18,000), are local businesses. If enough people from my hometown of Ottawa, Ontario (pop. 900,000) follow our aggregators' links to their site because of a headline like "big crash on Main Street in Ottawa", their advertisers will probably find they're not getting their money's worth. (Admittedly, not a scenario that gives me much concern as a reader)</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the flip side , most of the advertisers on the website of a local news outlet in Ottawa , Illinois ( pop .
~ 18,000 ) , are local businesses .
If enough people from my hometown of Ottawa , Ontario ( pop .
900,000 ) follow our aggregators ' links to their site because of a headline like " big crash on Main Street in Ottawa " , their advertisers will probably find they 're not getting their money 's worth .
( Admittedly , not a scenario that gives me much concern as a reader ) - RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the flip side, most of the advertisers on the website of a local news outlet in Ottawa, Illinois (pop.
~18,000), are local businesses.
If enough people from my hometown of Ottawa, Ontario (pop.
900,000) follow our aggregators' links to their site because of a headline like "big crash on Main Street in Ottawa", their advertisers will probably find they're not getting their money's worth.
(Admittedly, not a scenario that gives me much concern as a reader)- RG&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840280</id>
	<title>walking past the newsstand</title>
	<author>Bob the Hamster</author>
	<datestamp>1263993120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Each morning I walk my dog, and I go past the newsstands on the corner. I always slow down and peer into them and read the headlines. I never buy one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each morning I walk my dog , and I go past the newsstands on the corner .
I always slow down and peer into them and read the headlines .
I never buy one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each morning I walk my dog, and I go past the newsstands on the corner.
I always slow down and peer into them and read the headlines.
I never buy one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30857780</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot did it first</title>
	<author>It doesn't come easy</author>
	<datestamp>1264159740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the same.  You buy the paper before reading the headlines.  On the web, you read the headlines before you pay for anything.<br> <br>

I am not a fan of buying access on the web but this is because most newspapers have very little unique content.  I will not pay one newspaper for something that can be had for free elsewhere, and I surely won't pay someone to tell me something happened (maybe for analysis of what happened if it's good but not just for the event itself).  The difference now verses in the olden times is that before you were paying for the delivery of the news via a paper medium.  Now, it is delivered via a web page.  Before, there were one or two or three newsstands convenient to me.  Now I have 100,000 web pages all delivering the same content and all equally convenient.<br> <br>

Today I read articles because of the writer's talent or opinion, not because of the publisher.  The newspapers are in the same position as the RIAA.  Not really needed anymore (or at least not for the same reason as before, their business needs to change).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the same .
You buy the paper before reading the headlines .
On the web , you read the headlines before you pay for anything .
I am not a fan of buying access on the web but this is because most newspapers have very little unique content .
I will not pay one newspaper for something that can be had for free elsewhere , and I surely wo n't pay someone to tell me something happened ( maybe for analysis of what happened if it 's good but not just for the event itself ) .
The difference now verses in the olden times is that before you were paying for the delivery of the news via a paper medium .
Now , it is delivered via a web page .
Before , there were one or two or three newsstands convenient to me .
Now I have 100,000 web pages all delivering the same content and all equally convenient .
Today I read articles because of the writer 's talent or opinion , not because of the publisher .
The newspapers are in the same position as the RIAA .
Not really needed anymore ( or at least not for the same reason as before , their business needs to change ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the same.
You buy the paper before reading the headlines.
On the web, you read the headlines before you pay for anything.
I am not a fan of buying access on the web but this is because most newspapers have very little unique content.
I will not pay one newspaper for something that can be had for free elsewhere, and I surely won't pay someone to tell me something happened (maybe for analysis of what happened if it's good but not just for the event itself).
The difference now verses in the olden times is that before you were paying for the delivery of the news via a paper medium.
Now, it is delivered via a web page.
Before, there were one or two or three newsstands convenient to me.
Now I have 100,000 web pages all delivering the same content and all equally convenient.
Today I read articles because of the writer's talent or opinion, not because of the publisher.
The newspapers are in the same position as the RIAA.
Not really needed anymore (or at least not for the same reason as before, their business needs to change).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839808</id>
	<title>Wait a minute</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263990960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Google News, which is <i>stealing</i> content from other news sites without payment or permission, is actually sending <b>half</b> of its readers to the sites themselves? This will probably get modded redundant, but Murdoch is an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Google News , which is stealing content from other news sites without payment or permission , is actually sending half of its readers to the sites themselves ?
This will probably get modded redundant , but Murdoch is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Google News, which is stealing content from other news sites without payment or permission, is actually sending half of its readers to the sites themselves?
This will probably get modded redundant, but Murdoch is an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839798</id>
	<title>The death of traditional news</title>
	<author>terraformer</author>
	<datestamp>1263990900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been a long time coming. The key to survival will be those papers who know how to adapt. The WSJ has adapted under one model successfully. The NYT will fail if they pick up the WSJ model, though some similarities may work. What will end up happening is sites that provide free news will be doing it as a loss leader for other content. That news though will be vapid and likely filled with advertising bias and other impurities. Those behind larger pay walls like the NYT, Salon, etc will find limited niche markets of those wanting more substance in their news reporting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been a long time coming .
The key to survival will be those papers who know how to adapt .
The WSJ has adapted under one model successfully .
The NYT will fail if they pick up the WSJ model , though some similarities may work .
What will end up happening is sites that provide free news will be doing it as a loss leader for other content .
That news though will be vapid and likely filled with advertising bias and other impurities .
Those behind larger pay walls like the NYT , Salon , etc will find limited niche markets of those wanting more substance in their news reporting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been a long time coming.
The key to survival will be those papers who know how to adapt.
The WSJ has adapted under one model successfully.
The NYT will fail if they pick up the WSJ model, though some similarities may work.
What will end up happening is sites that provide free news will be doing it as a loss leader for other content.
That news though will be vapid and likely filled with advertising bias and other impurities.
Those behind larger pay walls like the NYT, Salon, etc will find limited niche markets of those wanting more substance in their news reporting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784</id>
	<title>Or perhaps it is you, media people...</title>
	<author>ruiner13</author>
	<datestamp>1263990840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if you actually wrote your own content and didn't rely on the AP wire to write your headlines &amp; stories for you, people would see your UNIQUE headline and article and click in to read your news instead of the 700 other versions of the exact same content?  All Google has really done to hurt your business model is expose how much of your precious content is just AP regurgitated schlock.  People have realized that there is no reason to go to one site or the other, since they're all the same.  With that being the case, you might as well just click on the one that looks like it would have the least offensive presentation, and frankly, all of your flash ad laden pages and pop-ups just don't have that appeal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if you actually wrote your own content and did n't rely on the AP wire to write your headlines &amp; stories for you , people would see your UNIQUE headline and article and click in to read your news instead of the 700 other versions of the exact same content ?
All Google has really done to hurt your business model is expose how much of your precious content is just AP regurgitated schlock .
People have realized that there is no reason to go to one site or the other , since they 're all the same .
With that being the case , you might as well just click on the one that looks like it would have the least offensive presentation , and frankly , all of your flash ad laden pages and pop-ups just do n't have that appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if you actually wrote your own content and didn't rely on the AP wire to write your headlines &amp; stories for you, people would see your UNIQUE headline and article and click in to read your news instead of the 700 other versions of the exact same content?
All Google has really done to hurt your business model is expose how much of your precious content is just AP regurgitated schlock.
People have realized that there is no reason to go to one site or the other, since they're all the same.
With that being the case, you might as well just click on the one that looks like it would have the least offensive presentation, and frankly, all of your flash ad laden pages and pop-ups just don't have that appeal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30847180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30856872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30846630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30856814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30852312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30850040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30857780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_2255210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30856814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30847180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30850040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30856872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30852312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30846630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30843340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30857780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30844176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30842798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30841190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30839818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30845316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_2255210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_2255210.30840190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
