<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_28_1212207</id>
	<title>Microsoft Lost Search War By Ignoring the Long Tail</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269782400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Art3x writes <i>"When developing search engine technology, Microsoft focused on returning good results for popular queries but ignored the minor ones. '<a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Microsoft-Ignored-the-Long-Tail-in-Search-Bing-Boss-Says-396023/">It turned out the long tail was much more important</a>,' said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi. 'One-third of queries that show up on Bing, it's the first time we've ever seen that query.' Yet the long tail is what makes most of Google's money. Microsoft is so far behind now that they won't crush Google, but <a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Microsoft-Bing-Director-Search-Not-a-Zero-Sum-Game-Vs-Google-524808/">they hope to live side by side</a>, with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets, said Bing Director Stefan Weitz."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Art3x writes " When developing search engine technology , Microsoft focused on returning good results for popular queries but ignored the minor ones .
'It turned out the long tail was much more important, ' said Bing 's Yusuf Mehdi .
'One-third of queries that show up on Bing , it 's the first time we 've ever seen that query .
' Yet the long tail is what makes most of Google 's money .
Microsoft is so far behind now that they wo n't crush Google , but they hope to live side by side , with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets , said Bing Director Stefan Weitz .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Art3x writes "When developing search engine technology, Microsoft focused on returning good results for popular queries but ignored the minor ones.
'It turned out the long tail was much more important,' said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi.
'One-third of queries that show up on Bing, it's the first time we've ever seen that query.
' Yet the long tail is what makes most of Google's money.
Microsoft is so far behind now that they won't crush Google, but they hope to live side by side, with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets, said Bing Director Stefan Weitz.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647788</id>
	<title>Re:Why I switched to Bing</title>
	<author>Gaygirlie</author>
	<datestamp>1269795600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally favor the engine with "too many" results than the one with "too few" results: it's not possible to make the search engine come up with results it simply doesn't have, but it is entirely possible to narrow down your search if you get too many.</p><p>Like in your case, a simple "+Toyota +recall -Twitter" would have given you all the same results except any pages which mention Twitter. Simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally favor the engine with " too many " results than the one with " too few " results : it 's not possible to make the search engine come up with results it simply does n't have , but it is entirely possible to narrow down your search if you get too many.Like in your case , a simple " + Toyota + recall -Twitter " would have given you all the same results except any pages which mention Twitter .
Simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally favor the engine with "too many" results than the one with "too few" results: it's not possible to make the search engine come up with results it simply doesn't have, but it is entirely possible to narrow down your search if you get too many.Like in your case, a simple "+Toyota +recall -Twitter" would have given you all the same results except any pages which mention Twitter.
Simple as that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647838</id>
	<title>Remember the old days?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1269795960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the 90's you could type "Linux" into a Microsoft search engine and get half a dozen hits when Infoseek (this was before google...) gave a million-odd.</p><p>That was when Microsoft lost me as a customer for their search engines - past, present, future. I really haven't bothered to try Bing and never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 90 's you could type " Linux " into a Microsoft search engine and get half a dozen hits when Infoseek ( this was before google... ) gave a million-odd.That was when Microsoft lost me as a customer for their search engines - past , present , future .
I really have n't bothered to try Bing and never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 90's you could type "Linux" into a Microsoft search engine and get half a dozen hits when Infoseek (this was before google...) gave a million-odd.That was when Microsoft lost me as a customer for their search engines - past, present, future.
I really haven't bothered to try Bing and never will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647024</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Cjstone</author>
	<datestamp>1269789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The big problem with Google is privacy. Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?</p></div><p>This <i>is</i> Microsoft we're talking about. If you believe they'll ever do that, I've got a bridge to sell you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem with Google is privacy .
Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ? This is Microsoft we 're talking about .
If you believe they 'll ever do that , I 've got a bridge to sell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem with Google is privacy.
Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?This is Microsoft we're talking about.
If you believe they'll ever do that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650036</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269768780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they did that, but they used <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=how+to+build+a+great+search+engine&amp;toggle=1&amp;cop=mss&amp;ei=UTF-8&amp;fr=yfp-t-701" title="yahoo.com">Yahoo</a> [yahoo.com] instead of Google.  Yeah, not so great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they did that , but they used Yahoo [ yahoo.com ] instead of Google .
Yeah , not so great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they did that, but they used Yahoo [yahoo.com] instead of Google.
Yeah, not so great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648232</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269798900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do? I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.  Maybe most people wouldn't, but I would.</p></div><p>I think you already pointed out the problem with your plan.  I see a few more:</p><p>How do you verify that the company doesn't track what you do?  The people who would pay for privacy aren't going to take a companies word, but I see no way a user could get proof they were not being tracked.</p><p>How much of a reduction in quality of results will you tolerate?  Tracking user behavior gives powerful signals that make search engines better.  For example, if 1000 users who searches for 'puppy' clicked the third link and ignores the first two, this is a strong hint that the third link should be ranked higher.  Would you mind getting inferior results?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
I 'd pay a subscription for such a thing .
Maybe most people would n't , but I would.I think you already pointed out the problem with your plan .
I see a few more : How do you verify that the company does n't track what you do ?
The people who would pay for privacy are n't going to take a companies word , but I see no way a user could get proof they were not being tracked.How much of a reduction in quality of results will you tolerate ?
Tracking user behavior gives powerful signals that make search engines better .
For example , if 1000 users who searches for 'puppy ' clicked the third link and ignores the first two , this is a strong hint that the third link should be ranked higher .
Would you mind getting inferior results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.
Maybe most people wouldn't, but I would.I think you already pointed out the problem with your plan.
I see a few more:How do you verify that the company doesn't track what you do?
The people who would pay for privacy aren't going to take a companies word, but I see no way a user could get proof they were not being tracked.How much of a reduction in quality of results will you tolerate?
Tracking user behavior gives powerful signals that make search engines better.
For example, if 1000 users who searches for 'puppy' clicked the third link and ignores the first two, this is a strong hint that the third link should be ranked higher.
Would you mind getting inferior results?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649212</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269805500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad, and their business model isn't based on data mining.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Windows-&gt;open? Who are you kidding?  What gets sent when you start a Windows PC?  What goes in the registry that is NOT GUID Based?</p><div><p>
Business model not based on data mining?  What about Windows (and Office) Genuine Advantage?  Just what do they collect from all of those PC's?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad , and their business model is n't based on data mining .
Windows- &gt; open ? Who are you kidding ?
What gets sent when you start a Windows PC ?
What goes in the registry that is NOT GUID Based ?
Business model not based on data mining ?
What about Windows ( and Office ) Genuine Advantage ?
Just what do they collect from all of those PC 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad, and their business model isn't based on data mining.
Windows-&gt;open? Who are you kidding?
What gets sent when you start a Windows PC?
What goes in the registry that is NOT GUID Based?
Business model not based on data mining?
What about Windows (and Office) Genuine Advantage?
Just what do they collect from all of those PC's?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646880</id>
	<title>About money</title>
	<author>rososusilo</author>
	<datestamp>1269787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>world of the Internet is not just a place to find information, but it is also important, the Internet is about "make money". microsoft should have realized it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>world of the Internet is not just a place to find information , but it is also important , the Internet is about " make money " .
microsoft should have realized it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>world of the Internet is not just a place to find information, but it is also important, the Internet is about "make money".
microsoft should have realized it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647520</id>
	<title>Leeches</title>
	<author>LordThyGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269793440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they didn't have innovative companies like Google, Apple, Sony, etc, etc, etc to lead the way, they would not have a business model at all.

Current model: wait for someone else to come up with a good idea, see if it makes money, imitate the innovator, use monopoly power to grab share of market, and if possible, overwhelm the innovators so they disappear as a future threat to the status quo (ie, MS hegemony).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did n't have innovative companies like Google , Apple , Sony , etc , etc , etc to lead the way , they would not have a business model at all .
Current model : wait for someone else to come up with a good idea , see if it makes money , imitate the innovator , use monopoly power to grab share of market , and if possible , overwhelm the innovators so they disappear as a future threat to the status quo ( ie , MS hegemony ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they didn't have innovative companies like Google, Apple, Sony, etc, etc, etc to lead the way, they would not have a business model at all.
Current model: wait for someone else to come up with a good idea, see if it makes money, imitate the innovator, use monopoly power to grab share of market, and if possible, overwhelm the innovators so they disappear as a future threat to the status quo (ie, MS hegemony).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649524</id>
	<title>Re:So they say</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269807900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Being too late. Search engines have been around for many years.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ironically, Google was also late. Yahoo and Alta Vista were quite popular at the time. The trick is that you have to do it better, not merely as good as. But MS is not known for original innovation.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Being too late .
Search engines have been around for many years.Ironically , Google was also late .
Yahoo and Alta Vista were quite popular at the time .
The trick is that you have to do it better , not merely as good as .
But MS is not known for original innovation .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Being too late.
Search engines have been around for many years.Ironically, Google was also late.
Yahoo and Alta Vista were quite popular at the time.
The trick is that you have to do it better, not merely as good as.
But MS is not known for original innovation.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648684</id>
	<title>Re:So they say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269802140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Stupid name. Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.</p></div><p>I actually get reminded of Bong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Stupid name .
Every time I hear " Bing " I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.I actually get reminded of Bong : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Stupid name.
Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.I actually get reminded of Bong :(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648942</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1269803700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Google #1 result is just as self serving : <a href="http://www.quickpwn.com/2009/08/why-is-windows-so-expensive.html" title="quickpwn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.quickpwn.com/2009/08/why-is-windows-so-expensive.html</a> [quickpwn.com]  In which the results of the Bing search are criticized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Google # 1 result is just as self serving : http : //www.quickpwn.com/2009/08/why-is-windows-so-expensive.html [ quickpwn.com ] In which the results of the Bing search are criticized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Google #1 result is just as self serving : http://www.quickpwn.com/2009/08/why-is-windows-so-expensive.html [quickpwn.com]  In which the results of the Bing search are criticized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</id>
	<title>So they say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say they lost by:</p><p>1. Being too late. Search engines have been around for many years. You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.</p><p>2. Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.</p><p>3. Stupid name. Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.</p><p>4. OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say they lost by : 1 .
Being too late .
Search engines have been around for many years .
You ca n't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.2 .
Not being trusted , I do n't want to use Microsoft 's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.3 .
Stupid name .
Every time I hear " Bing " I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.4 .
OTT interface , I do n't need a big background when I 'm looking for stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say they lost by:1.
Being too late.
Search engines have been around for many years.
You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.2.
Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.3.
Stupid name.
Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.4.
OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</id>
	<title>They need to do something more radically different</title>
	<author>astrashe</author>
	<datestamp>1269787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Bing will ever out-Google Google.  So it's strange that they don't try to identify problems with Google and address them.  They seem to start out with the assumption that Google is perfect, so the best path forward is to do everything just like Google, only more so.</p><p>The big problem with Google is privacy.  Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?  I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.  Maybe most people wouldn't, but I would.  Search is such a big market that 5\% of it is still huge.  Maybe 5\% of the people in the US would pay for private searching.</p><p>MS has had a kind of bullying culture for a long time, and they've declared war on open source, so we've viewed them as the bad guys for a long time.  But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad, and their business model isn't based on data mining.  In a lot of ways, they've been left behind by many of the most toxic trends in the industry.  They should listen to some of the things that we linux folks have been saying, and try to fit them into their pitch when they can.  Talk about the value of controlling your own data, of privacy, of letting anyone who wants to write a program and distribute it, of being able to install your software on whatever hardware you want.  That's not snake oil -- it's good stuff.</p><p>The strange thing is that they've missed those toxic trends not because they value the good alternatives, but because they're big and sluggish and not very agile.  They've just been left behind.  And all they want is to catch up so they can turn the same screws on us that Apple and Google turn.  It doesn't occur to them to make the kinds of arguments I'm proposing here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Bing will ever out-Google Google .
So it 's strange that they do n't try to identify problems with Google and address them .
They seem to start out with the assumption that Google is perfect , so the best path forward is to do everything just like Google , only more so.The big problem with Google is privacy .
Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
I 'd pay a subscription for such a thing .
Maybe most people would n't , but I would .
Search is such a big market that 5 \ % of it is still huge .
Maybe 5 \ % of the people in the US would pay for private searching.MS has had a kind of bullying culture for a long time , and they 've declared war on open source , so we 've viewed them as the bad guys for a long time .
But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad , and their business model is n't based on data mining .
In a lot of ways , they 've been left behind by many of the most toxic trends in the industry .
They should listen to some of the things that we linux folks have been saying , and try to fit them into their pitch when they can .
Talk about the value of controlling your own data , of privacy , of letting anyone who wants to write a program and distribute it , of being able to install your software on whatever hardware you want .
That 's not snake oil -- it 's good stuff.The strange thing is that they 've missed those toxic trends not because they value the good alternatives , but because they 're big and sluggish and not very agile .
They 've just been left behind .
And all they want is to catch up so they can turn the same screws on us that Apple and Google turn .
It does n't occur to them to make the kinds of arguments I 'm proposing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Bing will ever out-Google Google.
So it's strange that they don't try to identify problems with Google and address them.
They seem to start out with the assumption that Google is perfect, so the best path forward is to do everything just like Google, only more so.The big problem with Google is privacy.
Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.
Maybe most people wouldn't, but I would.
Search is such a big market that 5\% of it is still huge.
Maybe 5\% of the people in the US would pay for private searching.MS has had a kind of bullying culture for a long time, and they've declared war on open source, so we've viewed them as the bad guys for a long time.
But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad, and their business model isn't based on data mining.
In a lot of ways, they've been left behind by many of the most toxic trends in the industry.
They should listen to some of the things that we linux folks have been saying, and try to fit them into their pitch when they can.
Talk about the value of controlling your own data, of privacy, of letting anyone who wants to write a program and distribute it, of being able to install your software on whatever hardware you want.
That's not snake oil -- it's good stuff.The strange thing is that they've missed those toxic trends not because they value the good alternatives, but because they're big and sluggish and not very agile.
They've just been left behind.
And all they want is to catch up so they can turn the same screws on us that Apple and Google turn.
It doesn't occur to them to make the kinds of arguments I'm proposing here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654452</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>Suhas</author>
	<datestamp>1269855420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When's the news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When 's the news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When's the news?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646868</id>
	<title>Sure</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1269787440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Microsoft is so far behind now that they won't crush Google, but they hope to live side by side...</i>

</p><p>The same way the Zune lives side by side with the iPod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is so far behind now that they wo n't crush Google , but they hope to live side by side.. . The same way the Zune lives side by side with the iPod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft is so far behind now that they won't crush Google, but they hope to live side by side...

The same way the Zune lives side by side with the iPod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31651426</id>
	<title>The "long tail" is infinite in bing</title>
	<author>urban\_gorilla</author>
	<datestamp>1269778620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bing seems to think you have an infinite number of search results for everything.<br>
go try a search for something like "<a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=inopportuneness&amp;filt=all&amp;first=191&amp;FORM=PORE" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">inopportuneness</a> [bing.com]" and keep clicking on the "Next" button. You'll eventually get a blank page</htmltext>
<tokenext>bing seems to think you have an infinite number of search results for everything .
go try a search for something like " inopportuneness [ bing.com ] " and keep clicking on the " Next " button .
You 'll eventually get a blank page</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bing seems to think you have an infinite number of search results for everything.
go try a search for something like "inopportuneness [bing.com]" and keep clicking on the "Next" button.
You'll eventually get a blank page</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648152</id>
	<title>Bing lost me for another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269798300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too much eye candy and/or AJAX nonsense.  This
is especially true for image search.  My laptop
chokes trying to render it sometimes.  I shouldn't have to
buy the lates, greatest, desktop replacement laptop
just do do an image search.  Also, it seems to want
to popup or something when you click an image.  Maybe
there's a fix for that which doesn't involve dumbing
down my IE security settings.  I have to admit I never
tried it on Chrome, I just gave up on it and went
back to Google.</p><p>Because of their non-simple interface, I never even
got to realize they were missing depth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too much eye candy and/or AJAX nonsense .
This is especially true for image search .
My laptop chokes trying to render it sometimes .
I should n't have to buy the lates , greatest , desktop replacement laptop just do do an image search .
Also , it seems to want to popup or something when you click an image .
Maybe there 's a fix for that which does n't involve dumbing down my IE security settings .
I have to admit I never tried it on Chrome , I just gave up on it and went back to Google.Because of their non-simple interface , I never even got to realize they were missing depth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too much eye candy and/or AJAX nonsense.
This
is especially true for image search.
My laptop
chokes trying to render it sometimes.
I shouldn't have to
buy the lates, greatest, desktop replacement laptop
just do do an image search.
Also, it seems to want
to popup or something when you click an image.
Maybe
there's a fix for that which doesn't involve dumbing
down my IE security settings.
I have to admit I never
tried it on Chrome, I just gave up on it and went
back to Google.Because of their non-simple interface, I never even
got to realize they were missing depth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</id>
	<title>Same old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Company releases an inferior product, much later to the game than competition, makes excuses for failure, water still wet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Company releases an inferior product , much later to the game than competition , makes excuses for failure , water still wet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company releases an inferior product, much later to the game than competition, makes excuses for failure, water still wet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647430</id>
	<title>Instincts KNOW</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1269792720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody is jumping on you as though you'd cut yourself in a shark pool because you committed the error of being factually inaccurate in a forum full of geeks.  Which doesn't make you right, but still. . .</p><p>I think you inadvertently raise an interesting point.</p><p>You just assume that MS is being sneaky.  And you have EVERY reason to believe this to be the case.  Can you imagine a world where search is ruled by the MS totalitarian approach to everything they touch?  I have a very hard time trusting Google, and they've got a pretty good track record, but MS. . ?</p><p>~Shudder~</p><p>I wouldn't trust them with anybody's info for two seconds.  You KNOW they'll abuse it for profit the moment Game Theory recommends that as the best option for world domination and monetary gain.  That's simply how they work.</p><p>So your automatic distrust of MS, while factually off the mark, is based on more than two decades of rotten corporate behavior.  That aspect of the human instinct will often point at the wrong specifics (because the conscious mind is over-eager to interpret the warning bells) but usually in the right overall direction.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody is jumping on you as though you 'd cut yourself in a shark pool because you committed the error of being factually inaccurate in a forum full of geeks .
Which does n't make you right , but still .
. .I think you inadvertently raise an interesting point.You just assume that MS is being sneaky .
And you have EVERY reason to believe this to be the case .
Can you imagine a world where search is ruled by the MS totalitarian approach to everything they touch ?
I have a very hard time trusting Google , and they 've got a pretty good track record , but MS. . ? ~ Shudder ~ I would n't trust them with anybody 's info for two seconds .
You KNOW they 'll abuse it for profit the moment Game Theory recommends that as the best option for world domination and monetary gain .
That 's simply how they work.So your automatic distrust of MS , while factually off the mark , is based on more than two decades of rotten corporate behavior .
That aspect of the human instinct will often point at the wrong specifics ( because the conscious mind is over-eager to interpret the warning bells ) but usually in the right overall direction.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody is jumping on you as though you'd cut yourself in a shark pool because you committed the error of being factually inaccurate in a forum full of geeks.
Which doesn't make you right, but still.
. .I think you inadvertently raise an interesting point.You just assume that MS is being sneaky.
And you have EVERY reason to believe this to be the case.
Can you imagine a world where search is ruled by the MS totalitarian approach to everything they touch?
I have a very hard time trusting Google, and they've got a pretty good track record, but MS. . ?~Shudder~I wouldn't trust them with anybody's info for two seconds.
You KNOW they'll abuse it for profit the moment Game Theory recommends that as the best option for world domination and monetary gain.
That's simply how they work.So your automatic distrust of MS, while factually off the mark, is based on more than two decades of rotten corporate behavior.
That aspect of the human instinct will often point at the wrong specifics (because the conscious mind is over-eager to interpret the warning bells) but usually in the right overall direction.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647046</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1269789540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would appear that Bing correlates results in real-time, re-scoring based on clicks. So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when someone searches, "Why Is Windows Expensive," Bing watches to see what the user *clicks* in the results and uses that to score *subsequent* queries. I'm just guessing, of course, but this could explain why some people get that Mac link as the first hit, while others get something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would appear that Bing correlates results in real-time , re-scoring based on clicks .
So ... when someone searches , " Why Is Windows Expensive , " Bing watches to see what the user * clicks * in the results and uses that to score * subsequent * queries .
I 'm just guessing , of course , but this could explain why some people get that Mac link as the first hit , while others get something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would appear that Bing correlates results in real-time, re-scoring based on clicks.
So ... when someone searches, "Why Is Windows Expensive," Bing watches to see what the user *clicks* in the results and uses that to score *subsequent* queries.
I'm just guessing, of course, but this could explain why some people get that Mac link as the first hit, while others get something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647144</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1269790440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The big problem with Google is privacy. Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do? I'd pay a subscription for such a thing. Maybe most people wouldn't, but I would. Search is such a big market that 5\% of it is still huge. Maybe 5\% of the people in the US would pay for private searching.</p></div><p>Microsoft doesn't have a problem with google abusing privacy. Their only complaint is that <i>they</i> want to be the ones doing it, not google! Ask me how I feel in a year or two but for now I still trust Microsoft a whole lot less than Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem with Google is privacy .
Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
I 'd pay a subscription for such a thing .
Maybe most people would n't , but I would .
Search is such a big market that 5 \ % of it is still huge .
Maybe 5 \ % of the people in the US would pay for private searching.Microsoft does n't have a problem with google abusing privacy .
Their only complaint is that they want to be the ones doing it , not google !
Ask me how I feel in a year or two but for now I still trust Microsoft a whole lot less than Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem with Google is privacy.
Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.
Maybe most people wouldn't, but I would.
Search is such a big market that 5\% of it is still huge.
Maybe 5\% of the people in the US would pay for private searching.Microsoft doesn't have a problem with google abusing privacy.
Their only complaint is that they want to be the ones doing it, not google!
Ask me how I feel in a year or two but for now I still trust Microsoft a whole lot less than Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646908</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how they could have <b>not</b> figured this out ahead of time. All they needed to do was search for <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=how+to+build+a+great+search+engine&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=" title="google.com">how to build a great search engine</a> [google.com] and they would have gotten about 280,000,000 results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how they could have not figured this out ahead of time .
All they needed to do was search for how to build a great search engine [ google.com ] and they would have gotten about 280,000,000 results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how they could have not figured this out ahead of time.
All they needed to do was search for how to build a great search engine [google.com] and they would have gotten about 280,000,000 results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647926</id>
	<title>My prediction is on course</title>
	<author>bpprice</author>
	<datestamp>1269796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the one I made in 2004. We will never see an interesting, competent or remotely innovative product from Microsoft, ever again. It's over, and they will continue to turn the money crank on bloated "enterprise" software for years to come as they slowly but certainly slip into irrelevance.

It's the business model. It doesn't matter what engineers they hire. And it's over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the one I made in 2004 .
We will never see an interesting , competent or remotely innovative product from Microsoft , ever again .
It 's over , and they will continue to turn the money crank on bloated " enterprise " software for years to come as they slowly but certainly slip into irrelevance .
It 's the business model .
It does n't matter what engineers they hire .
And it 's over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the one I made in 2004.
We will never see an interesting, competent or remotely innovative product from Microsoft, ever again.
It's over, and they will continue to turn the money crank on bloated "enterprise" software for years to come as they slowly but certainly slip into irrelevance.
It's the business model.
It doesn't matter what engineers they hire.
And it's over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650966</id>
	<title>this is all part of microsofts planned PR</title>
	<author>Exter-C</author>
	<datestamp>1269775080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over recent weeks we are seeing more and more about how people within the 'bing' team are all talking about how 'we' are all trying to get along and live along side google... The reality seems to be very very different if you talk to the other microsoft divisions.. If you take all of Steve Balmers comments about wanting to 'kill google' and 'bing will take over' there seems to be a big change in the reality.. I suspect that its all part of the 'poor microsoft story' that's focused on making them out to be the poor underdog when in reality they are investing billions in taking peoples choice away by creating agreements with carriers etc to either include only bing or do other 'techniques' to try and artificially win search transactions and therefore advertising revenue.</p><p>I'm not saying that Google does not pay for people to use their search, there are agreements for revenue sharing etc the key is that googles services for the most part are soo good that people want to use them.. bing still has a long way to go despite being an improvement over 'live' search crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over recent weeks we are seeing more and more about how people within the 'bing ' team are all talking about how 'we ' are all trying to get along and live along side google... The reality seems to be very very different if you talk to the other microsoft divisions.. If you take all of Steve Balmers comments about wanting to 'kill google ' and 'bing will take over ' there seems to be a big change in the reality.. I suspect that its all part of the 'poor microsoft story ' that 's focused on making them out to be the poor underdog when in reality they are investing billions in taking peoples choice away by creating agreements with carriers etc to either include only bing or do other 'techniques ' to try and artificially win search transactions and therefore advertising revenue.I 'm not saying that Google does not pay for people to use their search , there are agreements for revenue sharing etc the key is that googles services for the most part are soo good that people want to use them.. bing still has a long way to go despite being an improvement over 'live ' search crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over recent weeks we are seeing more and more about how people within the 'bing' team are all talking about how 'we' are all trying to get along and live along side google... The reality seems to be very very different if you talk to the other microsoft divisions.. If you take all of Steve Balmers comments about wanting to 'kill google' and 'bing will take over' there seems to be a big change in the reality.. I suspect that its all part of the 'poor microsoft story' that's focused on making them out to be the poor underdog when in reality they are investing billions in taking peoples choice away by creating agreements with carriers etc to either include only bing or do other 'techniques' to try and artificially win search transactions and therefore advertising revenue.I'm not saying that Google does not pay for people to use their search, there are agreements for revenue sharing etc the key is that googles services for the most part are soo good that people want to use them.. bing still has a long way to go despite being an improvement over 'live' search crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647022</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269789180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can use ixquick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can use ixquick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can use ixquick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654022</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269805800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing:  "Why is Windows so expensive?"</p><p>The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.  Until then, I'm sticking with Google, which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bings\_bias\_tinfoil\_hats\_dont\_seem\_neccesary\_yet.php" title="readwriteweb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bings\_bias\_tinfoil\_hats\_dont\_seem\_neccesary\_yet.php</a> [readwriteweb.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From time to time , I try out the following query on Bing : " Why is Windows so expensive ?
" The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I 'll start to take Bing seriously .
Until then , I 'm sticking with Google , which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries .
http : //www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bings \ _bias \ _tinfoil \ _hats \ _dont \ _seem \ _neccesary \ _yet.php [ readwriteweb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing:  "Why is Windows so expensive?
"The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.
Until then, I'm sticking with Google, which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/bings\_bias\_tinfoil\_hats\_dont\_seem\_neccesary\_yet.php [readwriteweb.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649102</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>timmans</author>
	<datestamp>1269804840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad</p></div></blockquote><p>You're comparing oranges to apples, so to speak.</p>  </div><p>Shouldn't that be lemons to apples?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPadYou 're comparing oranges to apples , so to speak .
Should n't that be lemons to apples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPadYou're comparing oranges to apples, so to speak.
Shouldn't that be lemons to apples?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647158</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269790620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The big problem with Google is privacy</p><p>No it's not. Maybe it's a problem to you and a few other privacy nuts, but no one else minds, and it's good to Google, that's why they do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The big problem with Google is privacyNo it 's not .
Maybe it 's a problem to you and a few other privacy nuts , but no one else minds , and it 's good to Google , that 's why they do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The big problem with Google is privacyNo it's not.
Maybe it's a problem to you and a few other privacy nuts, but no one else minds, and it's good to Google, that's why they do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647098</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269790140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I very much doubt that this is Microsoft fiddling with the search results, just like Google isn't being racist because of the results that come up when you enter "michelle obama monkey".</p><p>If the Mac page didn't also come up in the top 10 on Google then I might see that you had a point. Or if the sites asking the question about Windows were censored from the results, then you could complain. But all you have found is a particular search that comes up with a seemingly bizarre result. People used to post that <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=funny+google+search+results" title="google.com">examples of that sort of thing about Google</a> [google.com], just for a laugh. There is just no proof of any conspiracy.</p><p>And in my country Mac question doesn't come up on Bing's first page at all, although there is the Slashdot article on "Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I very much doubt that this is Microsoft fiddling with the search results , just like Google is n't being racist because of the results that come up when you enter " michelle obama monkey " .If the Mac page did n't also come up in the top 10 on Google then I might see that you had a point .
Or if the sites asking the question about Windows were censored from the results , then you could complain .
But all you have found is a particular search that comes up with a seemingly bizarre result .
People used to post that examples of that sort of thing about Google [ google.com ] , just for a laugh .
There is just no proof of any conspiracy.And in my country Mac question does n't come up on Bing 's first page at all , although there is the Slashdot article on " Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I very much doubt that this is Microsoft fiddling with the search results, just like Google isn't being racist because of the results that come up when you enter "michelle obama monkey".If the Mac page didn't also come up in the top 10 on Google then I might see that you had a point.
Or if the sites asking the question about Windows were censored from the results, then you could complain.
But all you have found is a particular search that comes up with a seemingly bizarre result.
People used to post that examples of that sort of thing about Google [google.com], just for a laugh.
There is just no proof of any conspiracy.And in my country Mac question doesn't come up on Bing's first page at all, although there is the Slashdot article on "Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647750</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>dhyanesh</author>
	<datestamp>1269795240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?</p></div><p>If a search engine doesn't track you it will give so bad results that you would stop using it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ? If a search engine does n't track you it will give so bad results that you would stop using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?If a search engine doesn't track you it will give so bad results that you would stop using it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649804</id>
	<title>Tricky ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269766860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like an invitation for the "mainstream" users to come to Bing, and leave Google for the small niche users. Nice try!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like an invitation for the " mainstream " users to come to Bing , and leave Google for the small niche users .
Nice try !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like an invitation for the "mainstream" users to come to Bing, and leave Google for the small niche users.
Nice try!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647358</id>
	<title>It wasn't part of "The road ahead", 1995</title>
	<author>phonewebcam</author>
	<datestamp>1269792180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two years before Google was founded the word "internet" didn't even appear in Bills book.<br>Nuff said: http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill\_Gates</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two years before Google was founded the word " internet " did n't even appear in Bills book.Nuff said : http : //www.conservapedia.com/Bill \ _Gates</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two years before Google was founded the word "internet" didn't even appear in Bills book.Nuff said: http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill\_Gates</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648876</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1269803280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets</i> </p><p>Huh?!?  A search engine that specializes in plane tickets...</p><p>
<i>RIGHT.</i>
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets Huh ? ! ?
A search engine that specializes in plane tickets.. . RIGHT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets Huh?!?
A search engine that specializes in plane tickets...
RIGHT.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648206</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269798660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simpler than that. Bing offers <i>nothing</i> that makes users want to use their search engine instead of Google's. Google is a <i>verb in the English language.</i> When people think of finding something on the web, they think of Google.</p><p>Bing doesn't even look like Google when one reaches their landing page; this, accompanied with worries about malware search engines and such, would make people who aren't as in-the-know wonder why that isn't Google. Intelligently, Google protected their landing page to prevent Microsoft from doing exactly that. (This mitigates the argument that making Bing the default search page would steal Google's market share.)</p><p>I love their photography, but I'm an amateur photographer, so I'm biased. I would bet dollars to donuts (who came up with that saying? It's stupid!) that most people don't care about the photos or necessarily want them in the first place.</p><p>Notice that none of these points address differences in search technology. I think that Bing isn't getting the market share they want because they waited WAY too long to make a dent, just like they waited too long to release the Zune (which, like Bing, has few features that would make people want to not get a household name, especially since the inception of the iPod Touch). Worse, Yahoo! was the place for searching the web before Google stole their thunder, and MSN Search was bloated and unmoving even THEN. (Reference: <a href="http://www.msn.com/" title="msn.com">http://www.msn.com/</a> [msn.com] NOW hasn't changed much from then in terms of bloat.) Hotmail (now Live! Mail) is a good proof to this. Hotmail was LEADING THE WAY in terms of free e-mail services, with Yahoo going head-to-head with them. Their service was pretty good and definitely reliable (I've never had problems with my msn.com or hotmail.com e-mail addresses when I've used them). Even though Google Mail has been released to the public for years, there are still PLENTY of people who use Hotmail (as shown <a href="http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/main/dashboard-10133.html" title="hitwise.com"> here </a> [hitwise.com], as Hotmail ranks higher than gmail).</p><p>In regards to their technology, I think it's actually quite good, especially when compared to MSN Search (which was useless 90\% of the time). It does suffer a bit on the tail end, though. Example: my school gives every student a MSDN Academic Alliance account upon request, but I always forget the site. (Yes, I can use bookmarks. NO, I will not make one.) <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=stevens+msdnaa&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g1&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=" title="google.com"> Using </a> [google.com] the search terms 'stevens msdnaa' on Google gives me my IT department's wiki article on it right off the bat as well as many articles below it that also contain the link. (I know the person who runs that blog, as he's also a Stevens student.) <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=stevens+msdnaa&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH&amp;qs=n" title="bing.com">Bing</a> [bing.com], on the other hand, also gives me the link right from the get go, but wanders into irrelevance after the second hit. When I searched that term in Bing for the first time, I didn't even get the link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simpler than that .
Bing offers nothing that makes users want to use their search engine instead of Google 's .
Google is a verb in the English language .
When people think of finding something on the web , they think of Google.Bing does n't even look like Google when one reaches their landing page ; this , accompanied with worries about malware search engines and such , would make people who are n't as in-the-know wonder why that is n't Google .
Intelligently , Google protected their landing page to prevent Microsoft from doing exactly that .
( This mitigates the argument that making Bing the default search page would steal Google 's market share .
) I love their photography , but I 'm an amateur photographer , so I 'm biased .
I would bet dollars to donuts ( who came up with that saying ?
It 's stupid !
) that most people do n't care about the photos or necessarily want them in the first place.Notice that none of these points address differences in search technology .
I think that Bing is n't getting the market share they want because they waited WAY too long to make a dent , just like they waited too long to release the Zune ( which , like Bing , has few features that would make people want to not get a household name , especially since the inception of the iPod Touch ) .
Worse , Yahoo !
was the place for searching the web before Google stole their thunder , and MSN Search was bloated and unmoving even THEN .
( Reference : http : //www.msn.com/ [ msn.com ] NOW has n't changed much from then in terms of bloat .
) Hotmail ( now Live !
Mail ) is a good proof to this .
Hotmail was LEADING THE WAY in terms of free e-mail services , with Yahoo going head-to-head with them .
Their service was pretty good and definitely reliable ( I 've never had problems with my msn.com or hotmail.com e-mail addresses when I 've used them ) .
Even though Google Mail has been released to the public for years , there are still PLENTY of people who use Hotmail ( as shown here [ hitwise.com ] , as Hotmail ranks higher than gmail ) .In regards to their technology , I think it 's actually quite good , especially when compared to MSN Search ( which was useless 90 \ % of the time ) .
It does suffer a bit on the tail end , though .
Example : my school gives every student a MSDN Academic Alliance account upon request , but I always forget the site .
( Yes , I can use bookmarks .
NO , I will not make one .
) Using [ google.com ] the search terms 'stevens msdnaa ' on Google gives me my IT department 's wiki article on it right off the bat as well as many articles below it that also contain the link .
( I know the person who runs that blog , as he 's also a Stevens student .
) Bing [ bing.com ] , on the other hand , also gives me the link right from the get go , but wanders into irrelevance after the second hit .
When I searched that term in Bing for the first time , I did n't even get the link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simpler than that.
Bing offers nothing that makes users want to use their search engine instead of Google's.
Google is a verb in the English language.
When people think of finding something on the web, they think of Google.Bing doesn't even look like Google when one reaches their landing page; this, accompanied with worries about malware search engines and such, would make people who aren't as in-the-know wonder why that isn't Google.
Intelligently, Google protected their landing page to prevent Microsoft from doing exactly that.
(This mitigates the argument that making Bing the default search page would steal Google's market share.
)I love their photography, but I'm an amateur photographer, so I'm biased.
I would bet dollars to donuts (who came up with that saying?
It's stupid!
) that most people don't care about the photos or necessarily want them in the first place.Notice that none of these points address differences in search technology.
I think that Bing isn't getting the market share they want because they waited WAY too long to make a dent, just like they waited too long to release the Zune (which, like Bing, has few features that would make people want to not get a household name, especially since the inception of the iPod Touch).
Worse, Yahoo!
was the place for searching the web before Google stole their thunder, and MSN Search was bloated and unmoving even THEN.
(Reference: http://www.msn.com/ [msn.com] NOW hasn't changed much from then in terms of bloat.
) Hotmail (now Live!
Mail) is a good proof to this.
Hotmail was LEADING THE WAY in terms of free e-mail services, with Yahoo going head-to-head with them.
Their service was pretty good and definitely reliable (I've never had problems with my msn.com or hotmail.com e-mail addresses when I've used them).
Even though Google Mail has been released to the public for years, there are still PLENTY of people who use Hotmail (as shown  here  [hitwise.com], as Hotmail ranks higher than gmail).In regards to their technology, I think it's actually quite good, especially when compared to MSN Search (which was useless 90\% of the time).
It does suffer a bit on the tail end, though.
Example: my school gives every student a MSDN Academic Alliance account upon request, but I always forget the site.
(Yes, I can use bookmarks.
NO, I will not make one.
)  Using  [google.com] the search terms 'stevens msdnaa' on Google gives me my IT department's wiki article on it right off the bat as well as many articles below it that also contain the link.
(I know the person who runs that blog, as he's also a Stevens student.
) Bing [bing.com], on the other hand, also gives me the link right from the get go, but wanders into irrelevance after the second hit.
When I searched that term in Bing for the first time, I didn't even get the link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650276</id>
	<title>Re:So they say</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269770700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Being too late. Search engines have been around for many years. You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.</p></div><p>There is no such thing as "Too Late" if you provide a better search.  It's only "too late" if your search is the same.  If it's worse, then you'll never succeed even if you were there first.  The reverse, obviously, is that it doesn't matter how long you've been around - if your search is better, people will flock to you.</p><p>Google is proof positive of that - there used to be thousands of search engines, with dozens competing for the top spot.  Then some guys with a basement full of servers came along and <i>CRUSHED</i> the established market into oblivion.  Only two other search engines really survived, MSN and Yahoo, and that was because neither of them did well in search anyway, and they relied on other services or other facets of their business to keep in the search business.  Even those two never really counted after Google, and nobody has come up with a better search.</p><p>As soon as someone comes up with a better search though, if Google can't find a way to cope they will be history, and it will happen fast.  95\% of Google's revenue is generated by their searches, so if that scenario ever comes to pass you can say goodbye to Google as we know it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.</p></div><p>Microsoft is only untrusted as a company by alternative OS proponents (I'm including most of the anti-trust stuff here, which is definitely valid).  The vast majority of people who buy Microsoft software don't distrust Microsoft, or they wouldn't be buying it.  Their software, well, everybody knows to be careful with it, but not because Microsoft is malicious.  This extends to Bing - very few people think Microsoft is intentionally fucking with your search results, they just think they suck and go to a better search engine.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Stupid name. Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.</p></div><p>Yeah, the name is dumb, but it is no worse than Yahoo or Google.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.</p></div><p>One of the major hurdles Google had to overcome when they were first starting was, ironically, the simple interface.  People kept waiting for "the rest of it" to load, and were getting frustrated with how "slow" it was because they didn't realized it had finished already - there was nothing more to load.  They were used to massive pages full of clutter with a box near the top you entered searches into.  Google had to come up with subtle clues to convince users that it really was finished loading and they could start searching.</p><p>Bing's search is not cluttered like the searches of old, and I think the rotating picture is kinda nice.  It also provides a nice clue that nothing else will be loading, avoiding Google's problem.</p><p>Still, pretty or no, Google's search is better, and I use a search engine to search, not look at pretty pictures, so I use Google pretty much exclusively.  If something better comes along I'll be switching to it.  It can be Microsoft, Google, Apple, some guys in their basement, I don't care.  I'm going to use what works the best.  Period.</p><p><i>That</i> is why Bing is a failure - it's because it isn't better than Google, plain and simple.  No deep analysis necessary.  In fact, people would gladly put up with all the crap you mentioned if the search were better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Being too late .
Search engines have been around for many years .
You ca n't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.There is no such thing as " Too Late " if you provide a better search .
It 's only " too late " if your search is the same .
If it 's worse , then you 'll never succeed even if you were there first .
The reverse , obviously , is that it does n't matter how long you 've been around - if your search is better , people will flock to you.Google is proof positive of that - there used to be thousands of search engines , with dozens competing for the top spot .
Then some guys with a basement full of servers came along and CRUSHED the established market into oblivion .
Only two other search engines really survived , MSN and Yahoo , and that was because neither of them did well in search anyway , and they relied on other services or other facets of their business to keep in the search business .
Even those two never really counted after Google , and nobody has come up with a better search.As soon as someone comes up with a better search though , if Google ca n't find a way to cope they will be history , and it will happen fast .
95 \ % of Google 's revenue is generated by their searches , so if that scenario ever comes to pass you can say goodbye to Google as we know it.2 .
Not being trusted , I do n't want to use Microsoft 's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.Microsoft is only untrusted as a company by alternative OS proponents ( I 'm including most of the anti-trust stuff here , which is definitely valid ) .
The vast majority of people who buy Microsoft software do n't distrust Microsoft , or they would n't be buying it .
Their software , well , everybody knows to be careful with it , but not because Microsoft is malicious .
This extends to Bing - very few people think Microsoft is intentionally fucking with your search results , they just think they suck and go to a better search engine.3 .
Stupid name .
Every time I hear " Bing " I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.Yeah , the name is dumb , but it is no worse than Yahoo or Google.4 .
OTT interface , I do n't need a big background when I 'm looking for stuff.One of the major hurdles Google had to overcome when they were first starting was , ironically , the simple interface .
People kept waiting for " the rest of it " to load , and were getting frustrated with how " slow " it was because they did n't realized it had finished already - there was nothing more to load .
They were used to massive pages full of clutter with a box near the top you entered searches into .
Google had to come up with subtle clues to convince users that it really was finished loading and they could start searching.Bing 's search is not cluttered like the searches of old , and I think the rotating picture is kinda nice .
It also provides a nice clue that nothing else will be loading , avoiding Google 's problem.Still , pretty or no , Google 's search is better , and I use a search engine to search , not look at pretty pictures , so I use Google pretty much exclusively .
If something better comes along I 'll be switching to it .
It can be Microsoft , Google , Apple , some guys in their basement , I do n't care .
I 'm going to use what works the best .
Period.That is why Bing is a failure - it 's because it is n't better than Google , plain and simple .
No deep analysis necessary .
In fact , people would gladly put up with all the crap you mentioned if the search were better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Being too late.
Search engines have been around for many years.
You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.There is no such thing as "Too Late" if you provide a better search.
It's only "too late" if your search is the same.
If it's worse, then you'll never succeed even if you were there first.
The reverse, obviously, is that it doesn't matter how long you've been around - if your search is better, people will flock to you.Google is proof positive of that - there used to be thousands of search engines, with dozens competing for the top spot.
Then some guys with a basement full of servers came along and CRUSHED the established market into oblivion.
Only two other search engines really survived, MSN and Yahoo, and that was because neither of them did well in search anyway, and they relied on other services or other facets of their business to keep in the search business.
Even those two never really counted after Google, and nobody has come up with a better search.As soon as someone comes up with a better search though, if Google can't find a way to cope they will be history, and it will happen fast.
95\% of Google's revenue is generated by their searches, so if that scenario ever comes to pass you can say goodbye to Google as we know it.2.
Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.Microsoft is only untrusted as a company by alternative OS proponents (I'm including most of the anti-trust stuff here, which is definitely valid).
The vast majority of people who buy Microsoft software don't distrust Microsoft, or they wouldn't be buying it.
Their software, well, everybody knows to be careful with it, but not because Microsoft is malicious.
This extends to Bing - very few people think Microsoft is intentionally fucking with your search results, they just think they suck and go to a better search engine.3.
Stupid name.
Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.Yeah, the name is dumb, but it is no worse than Yahoo or Google.4.
OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.One of the major hurdles Google had to overcome when they were first starting was, ironically, the simple interface.
People kept waiting for "the rest of it" to load, and were getting frustrated with how "slow" it was because they didn't realized it had finished already - there was nothing more to load.
They were used to massive pages full of clutter with a box near the top you entered searches into.
Google had to come up with subtle clues to convince users that it really was finished loading and they could start searching.Bing's search is not cluttered like the searches of old, and I think the rotating picture is kinda nice.
It also provides a nice clue that nothing else will be loading, avoiding Google's problem.Still, pretty or no, Google's search is better, and I use a search engine to search, not look at pretty pictures, so I use Google pretty much exclusively.
If something better comes along I'll be switching to it.
It can be Microsoft, Google, Apple, some guys in their basement, I don't care.
I'm going to use what works the best.
Period.That is why Bing is a failure - it's because it isn't better than Google, plain and simple.
No deep analysis necessary.
In fact, people would gladly put up with all the crap you mentioned if the search were better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650544</id>
	<title>Lost?!  You're delusional!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269772560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft had won the far, far more profitable war for desktop and business productivity software for decades now, and it is also making progress expanding into new fields like SaaS, smart-phones, and video game hardware.  Google's ability to make money is mostly hype, especially in light of a little something called AdBlock.  And the average Google users can be lured with Google's ads for only a few seconds per day, while they stare at a Microsoft screen (computer, Xbox, smart-phone, etc) pretty much all day every day!</p><p>Having the #5 Web-site on the Internet (Live.com - according to the latest Alexa numbers), as well as the #9 (MSN.com), #19 (Microsoft.com), #23 (bing.com), and dozens other popular Web-sites (ex. Xbox.com, HealthVault.com, ninemsn.com.au) isn't exactly a loss, and they can take some of their Windows and business software profits and use them to buy the #2 (Facebook) or the #4 + #11 (Yahoo) Web-sites as well!</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft had won the far , far more profitable war for desktop and business productivity software for decades now , and it is also making progress expanding into new fields like SaaS , smart-phones , and video game hardware .
Google 's ability to make money is mostly hype , especially in light of a little something called AdBlock .
And the average Google users can be lured with Google 's ads for only a few seconds per day , while they stare at a Microsoft screen ( computer , Xbox , smart-phone , etc ) pretty much all day every day ! Having the # 5 Web-site on the Internet ( Live.com - according to the latest Alexa numbers ) , as well as the # 9 ( MSN.com ) , # 19 ( Microsoft.com ) , # 23 ( bing.com ) , and dozens other popular Web-sites ( ex .
Xbox.com , HealthVault.com , ninemsn.com.au ) is n't exactly a loss , and they can take some of their Windows and business software profits and use them to buy the # 2 ( Facebook ) or the # 4 + # 11 ( Yahoo ) Web-sites as well !
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft had won the far, far more profitable war for desktop and business productivity software for decades now, and it is also making progress expanding into new fields like SaaS, smart-phones, and video game hardware.
Google's ability to make money is mostly hype, especially in light of a little something called AdBlock.
And the average Google users can be lured with Google's ads for only a few seconds per day, while they stare at a Microsoft screen (computer, Xbox, smart-phone, etc) pretty much all day every day!Having the #5 Web-site on the Internet (Live.com - according to the latest Alexa numbers), as well as the #9 (MSN.com), #19 (Microsoft.com), #23 (bing.com), and dozens other popular Web-sites (ex.
Xbox.com, HealthVault.com, ninemsn.com.au) isn't exactly a loss, and they can take some of their Windows and business software profits and use them to buy the #2 (Facebook) or the #4 + #11 (Yahoo) Web-sites as well!
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646784</id>
	<title>frits psot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>frist post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>frist post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frist post?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31656866</id>
	<title>Re:So they say</title>
	<author>Bungie</author>
	<datestamp>1269876420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stupid name. Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.</p></div></blockquote><p>Around here bing is a commonly used slang for coke. I'm not sure if Microsoft realized that telling people to "bing it" could be interpreted as encouragement to do drugs in some circles...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid name .
Every time I hear " Bing " I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.Around here bing is a commonly used slang for coke .
I 'm not sure if Microsoft realized that telling people to " bing it " could be interpreted as encouragement to do drugs in some circles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid name.
Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.Around here bing is a commonly used slang for coke.
I'm not sure if Microsoft realized that telling people to "bing it" could be interpreted as encouragement to do drugs in some circles...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648350</id>
	<title>"When developing search engine technology"</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1269799800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"When developing search engine technology<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...." maybe the first problem was calling it "developing search engine technology". Sounds pretentious to me.
Especially compared to what came out.

Stephan</htmltext>
<tokenext>" When developing search engine technology .... " maybe the first problem was calling it " developing search engine technology " .
Sounds pretentious to me .
Especially compared to what came out .
Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When developing search engine technology ...." maybe the first problem was calling it "developing search engine technology".
Sounds pretentious to me.
Especially compared to what came out.
Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31658704</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269884040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>did you even try that before commenting?  Give it a shot, I don't see any mention of macs on the first page...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did you even try that before commenting ?
Give it a shot , I do n't see any mention of macs on the first page.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did you even try that before commenting?
Give it a shot, I don't see any mention of macs on the first page...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647156</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1269790560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah. Example: the summary.</p><p>I don't know how plane searches work on Bing but they work super fast on google.</p><p>Example: search ORD to JFK and you get a link asking for the dates you wish to fly. After you put those in, if you open each link beneath it (in new tabs) you can search 7 major airline searches for your destination/date in like 5 seconds. (Cheapticket, expedia, hotwire, kayak, orbitz, priceline, travelocity) . So I don't know or even care what bing has on that, since google's is that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah .
Example : the summary.I do n't know how plane searches work on Bing but they work super fast on google.Example : search ORD to JFK and you get a link asking for the dates you wish to fly .
After you put those in , if you open each link beneath it ( in new tabs ) you can search 7 major airline searches for your destination/date in like 5 seconds .
( Cheapticket , expedia , hotwire , kayak , orbitz , priceline , travelocity ) .
So I do n't know or even care what bing has on that , since google 's is that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah.
Example: the summary.I don't know how plane searches work on Bing but they work super fast on google.Example: search ORD to JFK and you get a link asking for the dates you wish to fly.
After you put those in, if you open each link beneath it (in new tabs) you can search 7 major airline searches for your destination/date in like 5 seconds.
(Cheapticket, expedia, hotwire, kayak, orbitz, priceline, travelocity) .
So I don't know or even care what bing has on that, since google's is that simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646846</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Kneo24</author>
	<datestamp>1269787200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For shits and grins I thought I would try your experiment out.</p><p>Not that I was expecting any less from Microsoft, but you weren't fucking kidding. The first result in Bing is the sixth result on Google. I don't expect exact parity between the two, but I would expect results to be somewhat similar. I'm looking for something that's relevant to the topic, therefore I expect similar relevant results between the two. Mac's being expensive isn't relevant, at least not at first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For shits and grins I thought I would try your experiment out.Not that I was expecting any less from Microsoft , but you were n't fucking kidding .
The first result in Bing is the sixth result on Google .
I do n't expect exact parity between the two , but I would expect results to be somewhat similar .
I 'm looking for something that 's relevant to the topic , therefore I expect similar relevant results between the two .
Mac 's being expensive is n't relevant , at least not at first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For shits and grins I thought I would try your experiment out.Not that I was expecting any less from Microsoft, but you weren't fucking kidding.
The first result in Bing is the sixth result on Google.
I don't expect exact parity between the two, but I would expect results to be somewhat similar.
I'm looking for something that's relevant to the topic, therefore I expect similar relevant results between the two.
Mac's being expensive isn't relevant, at least not at first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652712</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh...</title>
	<author>QuietObserver</author>
	<datestamp>1269790800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for the hell of it, I searched for "Ill Booten Gotty" (a gag phrase from the M*A*S*H episode "I Hate a Mystery") on Google, Bing, and Yahoo.  I used quotes to make sure the quote would be searched for in its entirety, and since I use Google on a frequent basis (and therefore have certain search settings in Firefox), I ran the search on Opera.</p><p>Yahoo provided a link to a German band first, and a lot of other irrelevant stuff, but nothing dealing with the reference I was seeking in the top ten entries (I didn't search past that point).  Clearly Yahoo's arrangement with Microsoft has done more damage to their service than good if they can't even find a single relevant page in the top ten.</p><p>Bing provided the same German band link first, and a bunch of other irrelevant stuff before providing a link to a quotes page on tv.com for the episode at the end of the list (I again didn't search past that point).  This is an obscure, but rather old quote, but I am still surprised the first relevant link was so far removed from first.</p><p>Google first provided two IMDB links to quotes pages (one for the episode itself and another for a M*A*S*H character), and one for the tv.com quotes page (in the fifth position) along with some other less relevant stuff (I again did not search past number ten).  I actually got slightly different results using my search settings (tv.com was in fourth, and two more relevant links to a page I'd never heard of ended the list).</p><p>I personally think this proves the point of the article, and also proves your point about what search engines are used for.</p><p>Two final points.  One, I did not reply to you because of the similarities in our screen names, but because I felt you made a good point, and your point fit well with my point.  Two, Preview is a great tool for making sure you get the major bugs out of your post (this would have been a jumble of text otherwise).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for the hell of it , I searched for " Ill Booten Gotty " ( a gag phrase from the M * A * S * H episode " I Hate a Mystery " ) on Google , Bing , and Yahoo .
I used quotes to make sure the quote would be searched for in its entirety , and since I use Google on a frequent basis ( and therefore have certain search settings in Firefox ) , I ran the search on Opera.Yahoo provided a link to a German band first , and a lot of other irrelevant stuff , but nothing dealing with the reference I was seeking in the top ten entries ( I did n't search past that point ) .
Clearly Yahoo 's arrangement with Microsoft has done more damage to their service than good if they ca n't even find a single relevant page in the top ten.Bing provided the same German band link first , and a bunch of other irrelevant stuff before providing a link to a quotes page on tv.com for the episode at the end of the list ( I again did n't search past that point ) .
This is an obscure , but rather old quote , but I am still surprised the first relevant link was so far removed from first.Google first provided two IMDB links to quotes pages ( one for the episode itself and another for a M * A * S * H character ) , and one for the tv.com quotes page ( in the fifth position ) along with some other less relevant stuff ( I again did not search past number ten ) .
I actually got slightly different results using my search settings ( tv.com was in fourth , and two more relevant links to a page I 'd never heard of ended the list ) .I personally think this proves the point of the article , and also proves your point about what search engines are used for.Two final points .
One , I did not reply to you because of the similarities in our screen names , but because I felt you made a good point , and your point fit well with my point .
Two , Preview is a great tool for making sure you get the major bugs out of your post ( this would have been a jumble of text otherwise ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for the hell of it, I searched for "Ill Booten Gotty" (a gag phrase from the M*A*S*H episode "I Hate a Mystery") on Google, Bing, and Yahoo.
I used quotes to make sure the quote would be searched for in its entirety, and since I use Google on a frequent basis (and therefore have certain search settings in Firefox), I ran the search on Opera.Yahoo provided a link to a German band first, and a lot of other irrelevant stuff, but nothing dealing with the reference I was seeking in the top ten entries (I didn't search past that point).
Clearly Yahoo's arrangement with Microsoft has done more damage to their service than good if they can't even find a single relevant page in the top ten.Bing provided the same German band link first, and a bunch of other irrelevant stuff before providing a link to a quotes page on tv.com for the episode at the end of the list (I again didn't search past that point).
This is an obscure, but rather old quote, but I am still surprised the first relevant link was so far removed from first.Google first provided two IMDB links to quotes pages (one for the episode itself and another for a M*A*S*H character), and one for the tv.com quotes page (in the fifth position) along with some other less relevant stuff (I again did not search past number ten).
I actually got slightly different results using my search settings (tv.com was in fourth, and two more relevant links to a page I'd never heard of ended the list).I personally think this proves the point of the article, and also proves your point about what search engines are used for.Two final points.
One, I did not reply to you because of the similarities in our screen names, but because I felt you made a good point, and your point fit well with my point.
Two, Preview is a great tool for making sure you get the major bugs out of your post (this would have been a jumble of text otherwise).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646990</id>
	<title>makes excuses for failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269788820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.<br><a href="http://www.chinese-girls.org/" title="chinese-girls.org" rel="nofollow">Chinese Girls</a> [chinese-girls.org]<br><a href="http://www.indian-girls.net/" title="indian-girls.net" rel="nofollow">Indian Girls</a> [indian-girls.net] <a href="http://www.chinamobilephones.org/" title="chinamobilephones.org" rel="nofollow">China Mobile Phones</a> [chinamobilephones.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We messed up " is n't really an excuse.Chinese Girls [ chinese-girls.org ] Indian Girls [ indian-girls.net ] China Mobile Phones [ chinamobilephones.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.Chinese Girls [chinese-girls.org]Indian Girls [indian-girls.net] China Mobile Phones [chinamobilephones.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650500</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh...</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1269772200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, personally I noticed that Bing does much better at finding things that everyone already knows . So now I make sure to use it whenever I want to look up something that I don't need to look up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , personally I noticed that Bing does much better at finding things that everyone already knows .
So now I make sure to use it whenever I want to look up something that I do n't need to look up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, personally I noticed that Bing does much better at finding things that everyone already knows .
So now I make sure to use it whenever I want to look up something that I don't need to look up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646958</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1269788340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>makes excuses for failure</i>
<br>
<br>
"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>makes excuses for failure " We messed up " is n't really an excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>makes excuses for failure


"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646836</id>
	<title>Lost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as there are search engines and choices, the war isn't over.  A war of unskilled attrition, ( like Microsoft plays ) can take a long time to end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as there are search engines and choices , the war is n't over .
A war of unskilled attrition , ( like Microsoft plays ) can take a long time to end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as there are search engines and choices, the war isn't over.
A war of unskilled attrition, ( like Microsoft plays ) can take a long time to end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646980</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You presume that it must be for dishonest reasons.<br>
<br>
You are essentially trying to claim that when you perform that search, that there is some code that does...<br>
<br>
if ( RESULT[0].MakesWindowsLookBad() ) { insert(RESULT, 0, PageThatMakesOSXLookBad) }<br>
<br>
This is completely laughable. Really.<br>
<br>
A rational person asks the question "Why does it rank that page higher" and "Are any of the solutions preferable to the current ranking system?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You presume that it must be for dishonest reasons .
You are essentially trying to claim that when you perform that search , that there is some code that does.. . if ( RESULT [ 0 ] .MakesWindowsLookBad ( ) ) { insert ( RESULT , 0 , PageThatMakesOSXLookBad ) } This is completely laughable .
Really . A rational person asks the question " Why does it rank that page higher " and " Are any of the solutions preferable to the current ranking system ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You presume that it must be for dishonest reasons.
You are essentially trying to claim that when you perform that search, that there is some code that does...

if ( RESULT[0].MakesWindowsLookBad() ) { insert(RESULT, 0, PageThatMakesOSXLookBad) }

This is completely laughable.
Really.

A rational person asks the question "Why does it rank that page higher" and "Are any of the solutions preferable to the current ranking system?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649310</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269806220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you comparing windows to the ipad (apples to oranges)? Windows 7 to OSX, window 7 mobile phones to iphone, MS certified tablets to ipad are all appropriate comparisons.</p><p>I think you bring up many interesting points in your post. I will just say that linux/FOSS already caters to the 5\% crowd you are talking about, and MS (and Apple and Google) can never really out FOSS the FOSS movement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you comparing windows to the ipad ( apples to oranges ) ?
Windows 7 to OSX , window 7 mobile phones to iphone , MS certified tablets to ipad are all appropriate comparisons.I think you bring up many interesting points in your post .
I will just say that linux/FOSS already caters to the 5 \ % crowd you are talking about , and MS ( and Apple and Google ) can never really out FOSS the FOSS movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you comparing windows to the ipad (apples to oranges)?
Windows 7 to OSX, window 7 mobile phones to iphone, MS certified tablets to ipad are all appropriate comparisons.I think you bring up many interesting points in your post.
I will just say that linux/FOSS already caters to the 5\% crowd you are talking about, and MS (and Apple and Google) can never really out FOSS the FOSS movement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652284</id>
	<title>Re:So they say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would say they lost by:</p><p>1. Being too late. Search engines have been around for many years. You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.</p></div><p>HotBot, Excite, WebCrawler, Ask Jeeves, Yahoo, AltaVista, Lycos, AOL Search, Netscape, MetaCrawler...  yet along came Google.  Seems that a glut of engines doesn't mean the interface can't be improved.  And don't think that Google's interface is necessarily the best.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.</p></div><p>Yeah...  Google doesn't use search data to sell AdWords.  Right.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Stupid name. Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.</p></div><p>Say it with me...  "google".  Yeah, that's not stupid.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.</p></div><p>And I don't need my search engine to use a JavaScript fade-in before showing the interface.  Besides, if you're concerned about minimalist search needs, why do you need a search page at all?  Ctrl+E in FireFox, and I'm sure there are similar shortcuts in other browsers.</p><p><div class="quote"></div><p>Seriously?  This got modded "Insightful"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say they lost by : 1 .
Being too late .
Search engines have been around for many years .
You ca n't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.HotBot , Excite , WebCrawler , Ask Jeeves , Yahoo , AltaVista , Lycos , AOL Search , Netscape , MetaCrawler... yet along came Google .
Seems that a glut of engines does n't mean the interface ca n't be improved .
And do n't think that Google 's interface is necessarily the best.2 .
Not being trusted , I do n't want to use Microsoft 's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.Yeah... Google does n't use search data to sell AdWords .
Right.3. Stupid name .
Every time I hear " Bing " I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.Say it with me... " google " . Yeah , that 's not stupid.4 .
OTT interface , I do n't need a big background when I 'm looking for stuff.And I do n't need my search engine to use a JavaScript fade-in before showing the interface .
Besides , if you 're concerned about minimalist search needs , why do you need a search page at all ?
Ctrl + E in FireFox , and I 'm sure there are similar shortcuts in other browsers.Seriously ?
This got modded " Insightful " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say they lost by:1.
Being too late.
Search engines have been around for many years.
You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.HotBot, Excite, WebCrawler, Ask Jeeves, Yahoo, AltaVista, Lycos, AOL Search, Netscape, MetaCrawler...  yet along came Google.
Seems that a glut of engines doesn't mean the interface can't be improved.
And don't think that Google's interface is necessarily the best.2.
Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.Yeah...  Google doesn't use search data to sell AdWords.
Right.3. Stupid name.
Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.Say it with me...  "google".  Yeah, that's not stupid.4.
OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.And I don't need my search engine to use a JavaScript fade-in before showing the interface.
Besides, if you're concerned about minimalist search needs, why do you need a search page at all?
Ctrl+E in FireFox, and I'm sure there are similar shortcuts in other browsers.Seriously?
This got modded "Insightful"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31655804</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy enhanced search?</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's an even <i>better</i> link: <br> <br>

<a href="https://www.ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.ixquick.com/</a> [ixquick.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an even better link : https : //www.ixquick.com/ [ ixquick.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an even better link:  

https://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</id>
	<title>Well, duh...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269786300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi. 'One-third of queries that show up on Bing, it's the first time we've ever seen that query.' </i> <p>.</p><p>

Search engines are all about people looking to find stuff.   A good portion of what people look for are probably new things that are happening now.

</p><p>

So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new "bet the ranch" search engine, without even knowing how its customers use such a service.   Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>said Bing 's Yusuf Mehdi .
'One-third of queries that show up on Bing , it 's the first time we 've ever seen that query .
' .
Search engines are all about people looking to find stuff .
A good portion of what people look for are probably new things that are happening now .
So , Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new " bet the ranch " search engine , without even knowing how its customers use such a service .
Yes , that sounds like Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi.
'One-third of queries that show up on Bing, it's the first time we've ever seen that query.
'  .
Search engines are all about people looking to find stuff.
A good portion of what people look for are probably new things that are happening now.
So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new "bet the ranch" search engine, without even knowing how its customers use such a service.
Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648028</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1269797400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do? I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.</p></div><p>
No you wouldn't. Seriously, let's be real - you absolutely would not pay for a subscription to a search engine.<br> <br>
And neither would anyone else. Nobody.<br> <br>
There are simply too many free alternatives out there (Google, Yahoo, Alta Vista, etc., etc., etc.) - only a complete and utter twit who was absolutely new to the internet would pay for a subscription to a search engine.<br> <br>
If you're going to suggest a business model, at least suggest one that has some vague, remote possibility of being successful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
I 'd pay a subscription for such a thing .
No you would n't .
Seriously , let 's be real - you absolutely would not pay for a subscription to a search engine .
And neither would anyone else .
Nobody . There are simply too many free alternatives out there ( Google , Yahoo , Alta Vista , etc. , etc. , etc .
) - only a complete and utter twit who was absolutely new to the internet would pay for a subscription to a search engine .
If you 're going to suggest a business model , at least suggest one that has some vague , remote possibility of being successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.
No you wouldn't.
Seriously, let's be real - you absolutely would not pay for a subscription to a search engine.
And neither would anyone else.
Nobody. 
There are simply too many free alternatives out there (Google, Yahoo, Alta Vista, etc., etc., etc.
) - only a complete and utter twit who was absolutely new to the internet would pay for a subscription to a search engine.
If you're going to suggest a business model, at least suggest one that has some vague, remote possibility of being successful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647160</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1269790680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did they need to be in it? I realize that doing something because you can and because you want to be the one with all the marbles and such is part of competition but at some point it becomes obsession. It did so with Microsoft a decade ago. Everything someone does they want to mimic. That's the idiocy, they mimic and essentially have from the beginning. They're the Chevrolet of technology.<br> <br>
They can't except that Google is just better at search. Period. Why can't they just accept that and stop stalking the search market? At some point you have to accept that the chic just doesn't dig ya and move on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did they need to be in it ?
I realize that doing something because you can and because you want to be the one with all the marbles and such is part of competition but at some point it becomes obsession .
It did so with Microsoft a decade ago .
Everything someone does they want to mimic .
That 's the idiocy , they mimic and essentially have from the beginning .
They 're the Chevrolet of technology .
They ca n't except that Google is just better at search .
Period. Why ca n't they just accept that and stop stalking the search market ?
At some point you have to accept that the chic just does n't dig ya and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did they need to be in it?
I realize that doing something because you can and because you want to be the one with all the marbles and such is part of competition but at some point it becomes obsession.
It did so with Microsoft a decade ago.
Everything someone does they want to mimic.
That's the idiocy, they mimic and essentially have from the beginning.
They're the Chevrolet of technology.
They can't except that Google is just better at search.
Period. Why can't they just accept that and stop stalking the search market?
At some point you have to accept that the chic just doesn't dig ya and move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646924</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>LordThyGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269787980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if someone were to find an occasional bit of honesty from Microsoft, you still have to look at the 20+ years of deception, and write it off as an aberration. There is a corporate culture and history there of playing fast and loose with the rules, and placing their own self interests well above all else. Just say no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if someone were to find an occasional bit of honesty from Microsoft , you still have to look at the 20 + years of deception , and write it off as an aberration .
There is a corporate culture and history there of playing fast and loose with the rules , and placing their own self interests well above all else .
Just say no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if someone were to find an occasional bit of honesty from Microsoft, you still have to look at the 20+ years of deception, and write it off as an aberration.
There is a corporate culture and history there of playing fast and loose with the rules, and placing their own self interests well above all else.
Just say no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647332</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1269791940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is always late to the party.  GUI, LANs, the internet, and now internet search.</p><p>They figure they'll make up for it with superior marketing and product placement within their own software; don't underestimate the power that these things can have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is always late to the party .
GUI , LANs , the internet , and now internet search.They figure they 'll make up for it with superior marketing and product placement within their own software ; do n't underestimate the power that these things can have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is always late to the party.
GUI, LANs, the internet, and now internet search.They figure they'll make up for it with superior marketing and product placement within their own software; don't underestimate the power that these things can have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646840</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh...</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1269787140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new [tech], without even knowing how its customers use such a [tech]. Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.</p></div></blockquote><p>Microsoft, doing business by ignoring its own users for the last three decades!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new [ tech ] , without even knowing how its customers use such a [ tech ] .
Yes , that sounds like Microsoft.Microsoft , doing business by ignoring its own users for the last three decades !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new [tech], without even knowing how its customers use such a [tech].
Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.Microsoft, doing business by ignoring its own users for the last three decades!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647978</id>
	<title>Google is perfect</title>
	<author>maroberts</author>
	<datestamp>1269797100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, when it comes to searching, it is almost impossible to complain about the quality of service that Google provides. You may have other issues, like concern for privacy etc, but Google loads quickly and returns accurate results. It does exactly what a search engine should. Google gives no reason for its users to walk away from it.</p><p>In the article, it goes on to talk about generic queries and "consumer dialog"; the thing is that these were done by sites like Ask(Jeeves) or whatever and it still got them nowhere. We don't want a search engine to put its own spin on results; we want it to point us to (preferably authoritative) sources of information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , when it comes to searching , it is almost impossible to complain about the quality of service that Google provides .
You may have other issues , like concern for privacy etc , but Google loads quickly and returns accurate results .
It does exactly what a search engine should .
Google gives no reason for its users to walk away from it.In the article , it goes on to talk about generic queries and " consumer dialog " ; the thing is that these were done by sites like Ask ( Jeeves ) or whatever and it still got them nowhere .
We do n't want a search engine to put its own spin on results ; we want it to point us to ( preferably authoritative ) sources of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, when it comes to searching, it is almost impossible to complain about the quality of service that Google provides.
You may have other issues, like concern for privacy etc, but Google loads quickly and returns accurate results.
It does exactly what a search engine should.
Google gives no reason for its users to walk away from it.In the article, it goes on to talk about generic queries and "consumer dialog"; the thing is that these were done by sites like Ask(Jeeves) or whatever and it still got them nowhere.
We don't want a search engine to put its own spin on results; we want it to point us to (preferably authoritative) sources of information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647562</id>
	<title>Re:Why I switched to Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269793920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what will you do if and when Bing starts showing results from Twitter/Facebook/LiveJournal?  Refuse to use any search engines at all?</p><p>Choices are choices.  If you don't want results from Twitter, then avert your eyes from that part of the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what will you do if and when Bing starts showing results from Twitter/Facebook/LiveJournal ?
Refuse to use any search engines at all ? Choices are choices .
If you do n't want results from Twitter , then avert your eyes from that part of the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what will you do if and when Bing starts showing results from Twitter/Facebook/LiveJournal?
Refuse to use any search engines at all?Choices are choices.
If you don't want results from Twitter, then avert your eyes from that part of the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31663244</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1269861900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>They figure they'll make up for it with</i>
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the exclusive Bing-only search function built into every next release of Windows, thus cornering the entire I-can-barely-turn-on-my-PC market in one fell swoop. These are the people who can't configure their PC for beans, use default everything, have no advertising blocks, and are more likely all around to click on adverts.
</p><p>
Microsoft isn't after the search market, it's after the advertising revenue. Bing is not about returning good results, it's about transferring Google's main source of income to Microsoft's coffers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They figure they 'll make up for it with ...the exclusive Bing-only search function built into every next release of Windows , thus cornering the entire I-can-barely-turn-on-my-PC market in one fell swoop .
These are the people who ca n't configure their PC for beans , use default everything , have no advertising blocks , and are more likely all around to click on adverts .
Microsoft is n't after the search market , it 's after the advertising revenue .
Bing is not about returning good results , it 's about transferring Google 's main source of income to Microsoft 's coffers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They figure they'll make up for it with
 ...the exclusive Bing-only search function built into every next release of Windows, thus cornering the entire I-can-barely-turn-on-my-PC market in one fell swoop.
These are the people who can't configure their PC for beans, use default everything, have no advertising blocks, and are more likely all around to click on adverts.
Microsoft isn't after the search market, it's after the advertising revenue.
Bing is not about returning good results, it's about transferring Google's main source of income to Microsoft's coffers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647286</id>
	<title>Why I switched to Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269791520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The day I searched (a few months ago) for information on the Toyota recall and got an automatically scrolling box of Twitter posts was the day I switched to Bing.</p><p>(That said, Bing really isn't as good as Google... but most of the time it's almost as good, and I really don't want anything to automatically scroll, and I really really don't want any results from Twitter.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The day I searched ( a few months ago ) for information on the Toyota recall and got an automatically scrolling box of Twitter posts was the day I switched to Bing .
( That said , Bing really is n't as good as Google... but most of the time it 's almost as good , and I really do n't want anything to automatically scroll , and I really really do n't want any results from Twitter .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The day I searched (a few months ago) for information on the Toyota recall and got an automatically scrolling box of Twitter posts was the day I switched to Bing.
(That said, Bing really isn't as good as Google... but most of the time it's almost as good, and I really don't want anything to automatically scroll, and I really really don't want any results from Twitter.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647440</id>
	<title>Just Another failed attempt at search by MS</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1269792780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is like everyone around here is too young to remember the last what 3-6 failures MS made at "new" search engine or too old and their memory does not work anymore.</p><p>There is no reason to waist time and effort on bing as webmaster, until bing (or whatever they want to relabel it) starts moving traffic I don't care about bing as a search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is like everyone around here is too young to remember the last what 3-6 failures MS made at " new " search engine or too old and their memory does not work anymore.There is no reason to waist time and effort on bing as webmaster , until bing ( or whatever they want to relabel it ) starts moving traffic I do n't care about bing as a search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is like everyone around here is too young to remember the last what 3-6 failures MS made at "new" search engine or too old and their memory does not work anymore.There is no reason to waist time and effort on bing as webmaster, until bing (or whatever they want to relabel it) starts moving traffic I don't care about bing as a search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652336</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269787320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is not completely fair, very few people complain that Windows is expensive, because it is the cheaper comercial alternative (most people don't even hear about the non-comercial ones), and almost nobody buys it on a box. A sane algorith could easily put a site asking why Macs are more expensive than Windows on the top result (unless you did put the quotation around the phrase).</p><p>I run that experiment on Google. On the fisrt page there are only 2 results complaining that Windows is expensive. Most results are about Bing, and a few are about people complaining that house windows are expensive. That result complaining of Macs is also there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not completely fair , very few people complain that Windows is expensive , because it is the cheaper comercial alternative ( most people do n't even hear about the non-comercial ones ) , and almost nobody buys it on a box .
A sane algorith could easily put a site asking why Macs are more expensive than Windows on the top result ( unless you did put the quotation around the phrase ) .I run that experiment on Google .
On the fisrt page there are only 2 results complaining that Windows is expensive .
Most results are about Bing , and a few are about people complaining that house windows are expensive .
That result complaining of Macs is also there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not completely fair, very few people complain that Windows is expensive, because it is the cheaper comercial alternative (most people don't even hear about the non-comercial ones), and almost nobody buys it on a box.
A sane algorith could easily put a site asking why Macs are more expensive than Windows on the top result (unless you did put the quotation around the phrase).I run that experiment on Google.
On the fisrt page there are only 2 results complaining that Windows is expensive.
Most results are about Bing, and a few are about people complaining that house windows are expensive.
That result complaining of Macs is also there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646808</id>
	<title>Bing Seems No Better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried doing some obscure searches in Bing and it was coming up with a tiny number of relevant results (2-3).  Google, on the other hand, was producing about 20 relevant results which helped me find what I was looking for.  I can't really understand why anyone is using Bing since the quality of the search results still appears to be way below Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried doing some obscure searches in Bing and it was coming up with a tiny number of relevant results ( 2-3 ) .
Google , on the other hand , was producing about 20 relevant results which helped me find what I was looking for .
I ca n't really understand why anyone is using Bing since the quality of the search results still appears to be way below Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried doing some obscure searches in Bing and it was coming up with a tiny number of relevant results (2-3).
Google, on the other hand, was producing about 20 relevant results which helped me find what I was looking for.
I can't really understand why anyone is using Bing since the quality of the search results still appears to be way below Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31655278</id>
	<title>All you need to know about Bing</title>
	<author>gateur</author>
	<datestamp>1269866520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything out of Microsoft about Bing is PR with limited accuracy or any usefulness to predicting future value.  Bing can not be considered of value so long as MS continues to pump out bogus queries to websites in an effort to falsify stats for the purpose of making website owners believe Bing provides more traffic than it truly does.  Of my 4 websites, the number of fake Bing visitors has hit as much as 9\% of total traffic.  It's unfortunate that Microsoft would rather fake traffic than provide a truly valuable search tool to attract consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything out of Microsoft about Bing is PR with limited accuracy or any usefulness to predicting future value .
Bing can not be considered of value so long as MS continues to pump out bogus queries to websites in an effort to falsify stats for the purpose of making website owners believe Bing provides more traffic than it truly does .
Of my 4 websites , the number of fake Bing visitors has hit as much as 9 \ % of total traffic .
It 's unfortunate that Microsoft would rather fake traffic than provide a truly valuable search tool to attract consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything out of Microsoft about Bing is PR with limited accuracy or any usefulness to predicting future value.
Bing can not be considered of value so long as MS continues to pump out bogus queries to websites in an effort to falsify stats for the purpose of making website owners believe Bing provides more traffic than it truly does.
Of my 4 websites, the number of fake Bing visitors has hit as much as 9\% of total traffic.
It's unfortunate that Microsoft would rather fake traffic than provide a truly valuable search tool to attract consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654346</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1269853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing: "Why is Windows so expensive?"<br> <br>

The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.</p></div></blockquote><p>

well you'll start taking Bing seriously far earlier then I will. You also haven't done the search in a while.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=Why+is+Windows+so+expensive\%3F&amp;go=&amp;form=QBLH&amp;filt=all&amp;qs=n&amp;sc=1-28" title="bing.com">"Why is Windows so expensive?" on Bing</a> [bing.com] <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;hs=Ulp&amp;rls=org.mozilla\%3Aen-GB\%3Aofficial&amp;channel=s&amp;q=Why+is+Windows+so+expensive\%3F&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=" title="google.com.au">"Why is Windows so expensive?" on Google</a> [google.com.au] <br> <br>

With Google, the first Mac response is number 3, the first two are for the search you mentioned, on Bing it's the eighth result. Both for the same Tech Radar UK article which using Occams razor leads me to believe that Tech Radar UK is gaming the search engines to get more results.<br> <br>

But Microsoft will always be second place to Google, if Google gets knocked out of top spot (bound to happen eventually) they will be third to Google and the no 1 contender. Why? Because MS cannot create innovative new technologies, the can modify existing ideas but not by much, once a technology is bought by MS it pretty much stops evolving until another tech is bought and integrated into it. MS don't innovate, they buy and assimilate, it's their strength and you cant hate them for doing what they are good at.<br> <br>

Google will get knocked out of the top spot one day, my bet is on a new technology developed by one or two brilliant people in their garage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From time to time , I try out the following query on Bing : " Why is Windows so expensive ?
" The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I 'll start to take Bing seriously .
well you 'll start taking Bing seriously far earlier then I will .
You also have n't done the search in a while .
" Why is Windows so expensive ?
" on Bing [ bing.com ] " Why is Windows so expensive ?
" on Google [ google.com.au ] With Google , the first Mac response is number 3 , the first two are for the search you mentioned , on Bing it 's the eighth result .
Both for the same Tech Radar UK article which using Occams razor leads me to believe that Tech Radar UK is gaming the search engines to get more results .
But Microsoft will always be second place to Google , if Google gets knocked out of top spot ( bound to happen eventually ) they will be third to Google and the no 1 contender .
Why ? Because MS can not create innovative new technologies , the can modify existing ideas but not by much , once a technology is bought by MS it pretty much stops evolving until another tech is bought and integrated into it .
MS do n't innovate , they buy and assimilate , it 's their strength and you cant hate them for doing what they are good at .
Google will get knocked out of the top spot one day , my bet is on a new technology developed by one or two brilliant people in their garage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing: "Why is Windows so expensive?
" 

The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.
well you'll start taking Bing seriously far earlier then I will.
You also haven't done the search in a while.
"Why is Windows so expensive?
" on Bing [bing.com]  

"Why is Windows so expensive?
" on Google [google.com.au]  

With Google, the first Mac response is number 3, the first two are for the search you mentioned, on Bing it's the eighth result.
Both for the same Tech Radar UK article which using Occams razor leads me to believe that Tech Radar UK is gaming the search engines to get more results.
But Microsoft will always be second place to Google, if Google gets knocked out of top spot (bound to happen eventually) they will be third to Google and the no 1 contender.
Why? Because MS cannot create innovative new technologies, the can modify existing ideas but not by much, once a technology is bought by MS it pretty much stops evolving until another tech is bought and integrated into it.
MS don't innovate, they buy and assimilate, it's their strength and you cant hate them for doing what they are good at.
Google will get knocked out of the top spot one day, my bet is on a new technology developed by one or two brilliant people in their garage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648846</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh...</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1269803100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps, but consider that for searches from mobile devices the variability likely drops by an order of magnitude, and Bing, I hate to admit it, delivers pretty good results when you put in queries such as restaurant near GPS location.  To a restaurant owner in downtown Chicago which is more valuable, the query from the guy on his smartphone two blocks away, or the one from a guy at home on his desktop PC in the far west suburbs?  The growth is in mobile search and dealing with that is a good strategy, better than playing catchup on the deep searches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps , but consider that for searches from mobile devices the variability likely drops by an order of magnitude , and Bing , I hate to admit it , delivers pretty good results when you put in queries such as restaurant near GPS location .
To a restaurant owner in downtown Chicago which is more valuable , the query from the guy on his smartphone two blocks away , or the one from a guy at home on his desktop PC in the far west suburbs ?
The growth is in mobile search and dealing with that is a good strategy , better than playing catchup on the deep searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps, but consider that for searches from mobile devices the variability likely drops by an order of magnitude, and Bing, I hate to admit it, delivers pretty good results when you put in queries such as restaurant near GPS location.
To a restaurant owner in downtown Chicago which is more valuable, the query from the guy on his smartphone two blocks away, or the one from a guy at home on his desktop PC in the far west suburbs?
The growth is in mobile search and dealing with that is a good strategy, better than playing catchup on the deep searches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649192</id>
	<title>Re:Bing sucks</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1269805380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>#5 on Google, #6 on Bing. So Bing doesn't suck? <p> How much traffic as a result of your shameless self promotion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 5 on Google , # 6 on Bing .
So Bing does n't suck ?
How much traffic as a result of your shameless self promotion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#5 on Google, #6 on Bing.
So Bing doesn't suck?
How much traffic as a result of your shameless self promotion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649436</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh...</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269807180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new "bet the ranch" search engine, without even knowing how its customers use such a service. Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.</p></div></blockquote><p>It looks more like they tried to go for the low-hanging fruit: the most frequent searches. That's a rational approach: why try to do the expensive hard stuff when you can first try the easier route?</p><p>Say you conclude you have a 30\% of succeeding if you spend 5 bil on the most frequent searches but a 70\% chance if you spend 20 bil on everything searches.  Doing the first doesn't necessarily preclude the second such that it looks like spending the 5 bil <b>first</b> is the <b>better gamble</b>. True, you may have to dump most the 5 bil spent on the "easy way" if it fails, but even with that the econ math may favor it. Investments are all about optimizing probabilistic choices. There are no sure-shot guarantees.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new " bet the ranch " search engine , without even knowing how its customers use such a service .
Yes , that sounds like Microsoft.It looks more like they tried to go for the low-hanging fruit : the most frequent searches .
That 's a rational approach : why try to do the expensive hard stuff when you can first try the easier route ? Say you conclude you have a 30 \ % of succeeding if you spend 5 bil on the most frequent searches but a 70 \ % chance if you spend 20 bil on everything searches .
Doing the first does n't necessarily preclude the second such that it looks like spending the 5 bil first is the better gamble .
True , you may have to dump most the 5 bil spent on the " easy way " if it fails , but even with that the econ math may favor it .
Investments are all about optimizing probabilistic choices .
There are no sure-shot guarantees .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new "bet the ranch" search engine, without even knowing how its customers use such a service.
Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.It looks more like they tried to go for the low-hanging fruit: the most frequent searches.
That's a rational approach: why try to do the expensive hard stuff when you can first try the easier route?Say you conclude you have a 30\% of succeeding if you spend 5 bil on the most frequent searches but a 70\% chance if you spend 20 bil on everything searches.
Doing the first doesn't necessarily preclude the second such that it looks like spending the 5 bil first is the better gamble.
True, you may have to dump most the 5 bil spent on the "easy way" if it fails, but even with that the econ math may favor it.
Investments are all about optimizing probabilistic choices.
There are no sure-shot guarantees.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648928</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Rimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1269803640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think Bing will ever out-Google Google.  So it's strange that they don't try to identify problems with Google and address them.  They seem to start out with the assumption that Google is perfect, so the best path forward is to do everything just like Google, only more so.</p></div><p>But this is what Microsoft does, isn't it?  It's what they've always done -- see what the competition does that works, then do the same thing and leverage their Windows monopoly to make it big.  Even Windows itself borrowed heavily from Mac OS; DOS before it was a CP/M rip-off.  (As an aside:  I'm not the only person who noticed how much Windows 7 looks like KDE, am I?)  Microsoft almost never the first-mover in anything, and they never were.</p><p>But people have recognized this now.  It's no longer the cool place for the kids to go work after getting their degrees, so they're having a much more difficult time recruiting the best and the brightest.  The people behind their successes have mostly left, and are elsewhere in the industry.</p><p>This isn't predicting the "death" of Microsoft -- rather, it's the fall into mediocrity that happens to all large, mature corporations.  Microsoft will need a new CEO to break this pattern, and he will be a very different kind of CEO from the kind who got them here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Bing will ever out-Google Google .
So it 's strange that they do n't try to identify problems with Google and address them .
They seem to start out with the assumption that Google is perfect , so the best path forward is to do everything just like Google , only more so.But this is what Microsoft does , is n't it ?
It 's what they 've always done -- see what the competition does that works , then do the same thing and leverage their Windows monopoly to make it big .
Even Windows itself borrowed heavily from Mac OS ; DOS before it was a CP/M rip-off .
( As an aside : I 'm not the only person who noticed how much Windows 7 looks like KDE , am I ?
) Microsoft almost never the first-mover in anything , and they never were.But people have recognized this now .
It 's no longer the cool place for the kids to go work after getting their degrees , so they 're having a much more difficult time recruiting the best and the brightest .
The people behind their successes have mostly left , and are elsewhere in the industry.This is n't predicting the " death " of Microsoft -- rather , it 's the fall into mediocrity that happens to all large , mature corporations .
Microsoft will need a new CEO to break this pattern , and he will be a very different kind of CEO from the kind who got them here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Bing will ever out-Google Google.
So it's strange that they don't try to identify problems with Google and address them.
They seem to start out with the assumption that Google is perfect, so the best path forward is to do everything just like Google, only more so.But this is what Microsoft does, isn't it?
It's what they've always done -- see what the competition does that works, then do the same thing and leverage their Windows monopoly to make it big.
Even Windows itself borrowed heavily from Mac OS; DOS before it was a CP/M rip-off.
(As an aside:  I'm not the only person who noticed how much Windows 7 looks like KDE, am I?
)  Microsoft almost never the first-mover in anything, and they never were.But people have recognized this now.
It's no longer the cool place for the kids to go work after getting their degrees, so they're having a much more difficult time recruiting the best and the brightest.
The people behind their successes have mostly left, and are elsewhere in the industry.This isn't predicting the "death" of Microsoft -- rather, it's the fall into mediocrity that happens to all large, mature corporations.
Microsoft will need a new CEO to break this pattern, and he will be a very different kind of CEO from the kind who got them here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652086</id>
	<title>Re:MapReduce Thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269784680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MapReduce is not innovative in the slightest (as anyone with any academic CS background should know), and yes, MSR does a lot of research in massive parallelization, and had been doing so for as while. You know that Haskell is one of favorite MSR research languages (two top devs of GHC are both from MSR), largely because it is a good vehicle specifically for automated parallelization research?</p><p>Now, I do not really know how Bing backend works, but I would imagine that is massively parallelized and scalable in largely the same way Google one is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only major difference they did was change the name from the stale MSN Search name to something they thought was cooler - Bing. Nothing else changed.</p></div><p>Did you ever see the useless crap that MSN Search produced, calling it "search results"? Bing is an incredibly sane search engine compared to that, and this fact alone clearly indicates that the backend was thoroughly reworked, and it wasn't just a rebadging.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MapReduce is not innovative in the slightest ( as anyone with any academic CS background should know ) , and yes , MSR does a lot of research in massive parallelization , and had been doing so for as while .
You know that Haskell is one of favorite MSR research languages ( two top devs of GHC are both from MSR ) , largely because it is a good vehicle specifically for automated parallelization research ? Now , I do not really know how Bing backend works , but I would imagine that is massively parallelized and scalable in largely the same way Google one is.The only major difference they did was change the name from the stale MSN Search name to something they thought was cooler - Bing .
Nothing else changed.Did you ever see the useless crap that MSN Search produced , calling it " search results " ?
Bing is an incredibly sane search engine compared to that , and this fact alone clearly indicates that the backend was thoroughly reworked , and it was n't just a rebadging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MapReduce is not innovative in the slightest (as anyone with any academic CS background should know), and yes, MSR does a lot of research in massive parallelization, and had been doing so for as while.
You know that Haskell is one of favorite MSR research languages (two top devs of GHC are both from MSR), largely because it is a good vehicle specifically for automated parallelization research?Now, I do not really know how Bing backend works, but I would imagine that is massively parallelized and scalable in largely the same way Google one is.The only major difference they did was change the name from the stale MSN Search name to something they thought was cooler - Bing.
Nothing else changed.Did you ever see the useless crap that MSN Search produced, calling it "search results"?
Bing is an incredibly sane search engine compared to that, and this fact alone clearly indicates that the backend was thoroughly reworked, and it wasn't just a rebadging.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650370</id>
	<title>Re:MapReduce Thinking?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically Bing spent the whole time trying to emulate Google without really understanding what makes Google so great.</p><p>It isn't the clean interface (though that's nice), it isn't the "do no evil" policy (though again, it's nice), none of that peripheral stuff really matters.  It's simple really, when you search in Google, you almost always find what you are looking for.  Sometimes not, but as a general rule you don't even have to go past the first page of results - what you want is probably there.</p><p>This was not the case for Bing, or any of Google's other competitors.  That's why they decimated the market.  Google could be the most dirtbag evil company in the world and people would still use their search because it is just plain better.  It's really nice that they try to be a good company, but that isn't really pertinent.</p><p>They had a very fundamental flaw in the way they understood search engines, and they are starting to realize they aren't going to be able to do the same old thing and win, they'll have to do something <i>better</i> or stay on the sidelines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically Bing spent the whole time trying to emulate Google without really understanding what makes Google so great.It is n't the clean interface ( though that 's nice ) , it is n't the " do no evil " policy ( though again , it 's nice ) , none of that peripheral stuff really matters .
It 's simple really , when you search in Google , you almost always find what you are looking for .
Sometimes not , but as a general rule you do n't even have to go past the first page of results - what you want is probably there.This was not the case for Bing , or any of Google 's other competitors .
That 's why they decimated the market .
Google could be the most dirtbag evil company in the world and people would still use their search because it is just plain better .
It 's really nice that they try to be a good company , but that is n't really pertinent.They had a very fundamental flaw in the way they understood search engines , and they are starting to realize they are n't going to be able to do the same old thing and win , they 'll have to do something better or stay on the sidelines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically Bing spent the whole time trying to emulate Google without really understanding what makes Google so great.It isn't the clean interface (though that's nice), it isn't the "do no evil" policy (though again, it's nice), none of that peripheral stuff really matters.
It's simple really, when you search in Google, you almost always find what you are looking for.
Sometimes not, but as a general rule you don't even have to go past the first page of results - what you want is probably there.This was not the case for Bing, or any of Google's other competitors.
That's why they decimated the market.
Google could be the most dirtbag evil company in the world and people would still use their search because it is just plain better.
It's really nice that they try to be a good company, but that isn't really pertinent.They had a very fundamental flaw in the way they understood search engines, and they are starting to realize they aren't going to be able to do the same old thing and win, they'll have to do something better or stay on the sidelines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648558</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh...</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1269801240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Search engines are also about driving customers or marks to certain sites. Google came about because simple keyword identifiers were to easy to use to fool the search engines.  Key word robots came about because the web go to big to manually organize on popular key words and such indexes missed the niches.
<p>
On one hand, MS did good because google is not very good for popular searches. Inevitably many of the front page results will include link farms, some delivering mal ware.  OTOH, many people do not use google for such searches, as they know specific sites to go and find the information.  What makes google useful is finding the new stuff.  So what MS did wrong is put us back at the Yahoo stage of search engines, just updated to the contemporary bot situation.
</p><p>
I am not going to say anything about Bing.  It is the default search engine on IE, and I don't like that.  The good thing is that is has forced me to use bing, and for the most part it does not yet return the results I need.  But Bing is young, and Google is broken, so maybe there will be a horse race and one of them will become fully functional,though I have no confidence in such a case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search engines are also about driving customers or marks to certain sites .
Google came about because simple keyword identifiers were to easy to use to fool the search engines .
Key word robots came about because the web go to big to manually organize on popular key words and such indexes missed the niches .
On one hand , MS did good because google is not very good for popular searches .
Inevitably many of the front page results will include link farms , some delivering mal ware .
OTOH , many people do not use google for such searches , as they know specific sites to go and find the information .
What makes google useful is finding the new stuff .
So what MS did wrong is put us back at the Yahoo stage of search engines , just updated to the contemporary bot situation .
I am not going to say anything about Bing .
It is the default search engine on IE , and I do n't like that .
The good thing is that is has forced me to use bing , and for the most part it does not yet return the results I need .
But Bing is young , and Google is broken , so maybe there will be a horse race and one of them will become fully functional,though I have no confidence in such a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search engines are also about driving customers or marks to certain sites.
Google came about because simple keyword identifiers were to easy to use to fool the search engines.
Key word robots came about because the web go to big to manually organize on popular key words and such indexes missed the niches.
On one hand, MS did good because google is not very good for popular searches.
Inevitably many of the front page results will include link farms, some delivering mal ware.
OTOH, many people do not use google for such searches, as they know specific sites to go and find the information.
What makes google useful is finding the new stuff.
So what MS did wrong is put us back at the Yahoo stage of search engines, just updated to the contemporary bot situation.
I am not going to say anything about Bing.
It is the default search engine on IE, and I don't like that.
The good thing is that is has forced me to use bing, and for the most part it does not yet return the results I need.
But Bing is young, and Google is broken, so maybe there will be a horse race and one of them will become fully functional,though I have no confidence in such a case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646922</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can always try an image search for Bill Gates. The first image returned is his police mugshot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can always try an image search for Bill Gates .
The first image returned is his police mugshot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can always try an image search for Bill Gates.
The first image returned is his police mugshot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647028</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>anss123</author>
	<datestamp>1269789240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doing a Bing and Google search on 'why is windows so expensive' returns similar results here (note, I use quotation marks when I search since it usually helps Google return more relevant results).
<br> <br>
The few times I've tried bing it has always returned worse results than Google, even when searching for Microsoft stuff. Google isn't without issues though as it is spammed with "linkfarms" or whatever it's called, making Google far less useful today that it was five years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing a Bing and Google search on 'why is windows so expensive ' returns similar results here ( note , I use quotation marks when I search since it usually helps Google return more relevant results ) .
The few times I 've tried bing it has always returned worse results than Google , even when searching for Microsoft stuff .
Google is n't without issues though as it is spammed with " linkfarms " or whatever it 's called , making Google far less useful today that it was five years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing a Bing and Google search on 'why is windows so expensive' returns similar results here (note, I use quotation marks when I search since it usually helps Google return more relevant results).
The few times I've tried bing it has always returned worse results than Google, even when searching for Microsoft stuff.
Google isn't without issues though as it is spammed with "linkfarms" or whatever it's called, making Google far less useful today that it was five years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648094</id>
	<title>A search engine is to ... find stuff??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269797940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how MS can spend all day polling people about what they expect from this or that query and not get that people expect to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *find what's out on the web*.</p><p>The thing about Page Rank is that it doesn't begin with searches, it begins with websites and figures out their significance. It processes queries from there - Google takes the web seriously as a source of information. MS wants to colonize the web the way it colonized the desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how MS can spend all day polling people about what they expect from this or that query and not get that people expect to ... * find what 's out on the web * .The thing about Page Rank is that it does n't begin with searches , it begins with websites and figures out their significance .
It processes queries from there - Google takes the web seriously as a source of information .
MS wants to colonize the web the way it colonized the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how MS can spend all day polling people about what they expect from this or that query and not get that people expect to ... *find what's out on the web*.The thing about Page Rank is that it doesn't begin with searches, it begins with websites and figures out their significance.
It processes queries from there - Google takes the web seriously as a source of information.
MS wants to colonize the web the way it colonized the desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647264</id>
	<title>retrospective excusing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269791400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason MS lost at search was Google was better at it, and MS couldn't leverage their desktop monopoly to make using Google a <a href="http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0\_5071.pdf" title="slated.org" rel="nofollow">jolting experience</a> [slated.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason MS lost at search was Google was better at it , and MS could n't leverage their desktop monopoly to make using Google a jolting experience [ slated.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason MS lost at search was Google was better at it, and MS couldn't leverage their desktop monopoly to make using Google a jolting experience [slated.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647494</id>
	<title>The long tail</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1269793260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that there was a lot of ridicule of the long-tail hypothesis of the internet.  People sometimes like to debunk things that are plainly obvious.  I think it is because everyone wants to be edgy and contrary from time to time.  The long tail isn't just a reality on the internet it is also probably the most important part of the internet for advertisers.  The great hump in the middle can be served by TV or other standard advertising platforms.
<br> <br>
The whole reason Altavista knocked over Yahoo is the long tail.  And Google eventually took the lead because they service the long tail like no other search engine and they nail the advertising for those search queries.  Further, it is one of those cases where the more data you have the smarter you get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that there was a lot of ridicule of the long-tail hypothesis of the internet .
People sometimes like to debunk things that are plainly obvious .
I think it is because everyone wants to be edgy and contrary from time to time .
The long tail is n't just a reality on the internet it is also probably the most important part of the internet for advertisers .
The great hump in the middle can be served by TV or other standard advertising platforms .
The whole reason Altavista knocked over Yahoo is the long tail .
And Google eventually took the lead because they service the long tail like no other search engine and they nail the advertising for those search queries .
Further , it is one of those cases where the more data you have the smarter you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that there was a lot of ridicule of the long-tail hypothesis of the internet.
People sometimes like to debunk things that are plainly obvious.
I think it is because everyone wants to be edgy and contrary from time to time.
The long tail isn't just a reality on the internet it is also probably the most important part of the internet for advertisers.
The great hump in the middle can be served by TV or other standard advertising platforms.
The whole reason Altavista knocked over Yahoo is the long tail.
And Google eventually took the lead because they service the long tail like no other search engine and they nail the advertising for those search queries.
Further, it is one of those cases where the more data you have the smarter you get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649912</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1269767640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just tried that because I thought that that was some sort of urban legend or long-fixed faux pas.</p><p>Query: "why is windows so expensive"</p><p>1) "Why are Mac's So Expensive? - Yahoo! Answers"<br>2) "Slashdot | Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?"</p><p>Pretty unbelievable. Number 3 is a page mocking this particular phenomenon. Why the hell would Microsoft do something so transparent and easily mocked? Do they have no PR sense whatsoever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just tried that because I thought that that was some sort of urban legend or long-fixed faux pas.Query : " why is windows so expensive " 1 ) " Why are Mac 's So Expensive ?
- Yahoo !
Answers " 2 ) " Slashdot | Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive ?
" Pretty unbelievable .
Number 3 is a page mocking this particular phenomenon .
Why the hell would Microsoft do something so transparent and easily mocked ?
Do they have no PR sense whatsoever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just tried that because I thought that that was some sort of urban legend or long-fixed faux pas.Query: "why is windows so expensive"1) "Why are Mac's So Expensive?
- Yahoo!
Answers"2) "Slashdot | Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?
"Pretty unbelievable.
Number 3 is a page mocking this particular phenomenon.
Why the hell would Microsoft do something so transparent and easily mocked?
Do they have no PR sense whatsoever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646974</id>
	<title>Stay different!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269788580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this is actually quite useful. If they'd do exactly the same as Google, then there's no advantage for consumers, both do the same.</p><p>When they're different, that means Bing may actually have a use, namely for these cases where you specifically need something from the "short tail".</p><p>P.S. I've never used Bing so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is actually quite useful .
If they 'd do exactly the same as Google , then there 's no advantage for consumers , both do the same.When they 're different , that means Bing may actually have a use , namely for these cases where you specifically need something from the " short tail " .P.S .
I 've never used Bing so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is actually quite useful.
If they'd do exactly the same as Google, then there's no advantage for consumers, both do the same.When they're different, that means Bing may actually have a use, namely for these cases where you specifically need something from the "short tail".P.S.
I've never used Bing so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647176</id>
	<title>Why was it necessary to want to "crush" Google?</title>
	<author>Theovon</author>
	<datestamp>1269790740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, so since they screwed up, they're not going to be able to completely destroy Google, so they'll settle for even competition?  It's this kind of thinking that's gotten Microsoft into trouble in the past, the philosophy that they can be the only one, so they have to destroy anything that remotely competes with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so since they screwed up , they 're not going to be able to completely destroy Google , so they 'll settle for even competition ?
It 's this kind of thinking that 's gotten Microsoft into trouble in the past , the philosophy that they can be the only one , so they have to destroy anything that remotely competes with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so since they screwed up, they're not going to be able to completely destroy Google, so they'll settle for even competition?
It's this kind of thinking that's gotten Microsoft into trouble in the past, the philosophy that they can be the only one, so they have to destroy anything that remotely competes with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646898</id>
	<title>MapReduce Thinking?</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1269787680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was just thinking about the role MapReduce plays in all of this search malarky, and then I came across a telling Joel Spolsky post from a few years ago:<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html</a> [joelonsoftware.com]<blockquote><div><p>"The very fact that Google invented MapReduce, and Microsoft didn't, says something about why Microsoft is still playing catch up trying to get basic search features to work, while Google has moved on to the next problem: building Skynet^H^H^H^H^H^H the world's largest massively parallel supercomputer. <b>I don't think Microsoft completely understands just how far behind they are on that wave.</b>"</p></div></blockquote><p>

Perhaps Microsoft just cannot think like that? To be clear, Microsoft saying that maybe Google and Bing can perhaps exist side-by-side is a clear admission of defeat. Microsoft <b>never</b> says that, so you know the situation is bad. I just can't understand why they got a bee in their bonnet and wanted to chase Google in the way that they have. It was clearly a knee-jerk thing and they hadn't clearly thought about it. The only major difference they did was change the name from the stale MSN Search name to something they thought was cooler - Bing. Nothing else changed.<br> <br>

To not take into account that people search for many random and obscure things put together that won't have been recorded before (language is a very broad thing and what people search for is also time-based i.e. NOW), and not to have some sort of logic to aid with that, is utterly unforgiveable. What the hell are Microsoft Research doing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just thinking about the role MapReduce plays in all of this search malarky , and then I came across a telling Joel Spolsky post from a few years ago : http : //www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html [ joelonsoftware.com ] " The very fact that Google invented MapReduce , and Microsoft did n't , says something about why Microsoft is still playing catch up trying to get basic search features to work , while Google has moved on to the next problem : building Skynet ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H the world 's largest massively parallel supercomputer .
I do n't think Microsoft completely understands just how far behind they are on that wave .
" Perhaps Microsoft just can not think like that ?
To be clear , Microsoft saying that maybe Google and Bing can perhaps exist side-by-side is a clear admission of defeat .
Microsoft never says that , so you know the situation is bad .
I just ca n't understand why they got a bee in their bonnet and wanted to chase Google in the way that they have .
It was clearly a knee-jerk thing and they had n't clearly thought about it .
The only major difference they did was change the name from the stale MSN Search name to something they thought was cooler - Bing .
Nothing else changed .
To not take into account that people search for many random and obscure things put together that wo n't have been recorded before ( language is a very broad thing and what people search for is also time-based i.e .
NOW ) , and not to have some sort of logic to aid with that , is utterly unforgiveable .
What the hell are Microsoft Research doing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just thinking about the role MapReduce plays in all of this search malarky, and then I came across a telling Joel Spolsky post from a few years ago: 

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html [joelonsoftware.com]"The very fact that Google invented MapReduce, and Microsoft didn't, says something about why Microsoft is still playing catch up trying to get basic search features to work, while Google has moved on to the next problem: building Skynet^H^H^H^H^H^H the world's largest massively parallel supercomputer.
I don't think Microsoft completely understands just how far behind they are on that wave.
"

Perhaps Microsoft just cannot think like that?
To be clear, Microsoft saying that maybe Google and Bing can perhaps exist side-by-side is a clear admission of defeat.
Microsoft never says that, so you know the situation is bad.
I just can't understand why they got a bee in their bonnet and wanted to chase Google in the way that they have.
It was clearly a knee-jerk thing and they hadn't clearly thought about it.
The only major difference they did was change the name from the stale MSN Search name to something they thought was cooler - Bing.
Nothing else changed.
To not take into account that people search for many random and obscure things put together that won't have been recorded before (language is a very broad thing and what people search for is also time-based i.e.
NOW), and not to have some sort of logic to aid with that, is utterly unforgiveable.
What the hell are Microsoft Research doing?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</id>
	<title>It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269786660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> 'It turned out the long tail was much more important,' said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi.</p></div></blockquote><p>Someone should tell Medhi that it also helps when you don't game the search results to fit your corporate agenda.</p><p>From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing:  "Why is Windows so expensive?"</p><p>The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.  Until then, I'm sticking with Google, which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'It turned out the long tail was much more important, ' said Bing 's Yusuf Mehdi.Someone should tell Medhi that it also helps when you do n't game the search results to fit your corporate agenda.From time to time , I try out the following query on Bing : " Why is Windows so expensive ?
" The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I 'll start to take Bing seriously .
Until then , I 'm sticking with Google , which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'It turned out the long tail was much more important,' said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi.Someone should tell Medhi that it also helps when you don't game the search results to fit your corporate agenda.From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing:  "Why is Windows so expensive?
"The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.
Until then, I'm sticking with Google, which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648488</id>
	<title>No, it's not the "long tail"</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1269800700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Remember <a href="http://www.cuil.com/" title="cuil.com">Cuil</a> [cuil.com]?  They were originally talking about the "long tail"; they wanted to have a bigger index than Google.  Cuil is mostly ex-Google people, and they thought they could re-do Google at lower cost.
</p><p>
Didn't help Cuil.
</p><p>
There's ongoing effort in search engine development.  Unless you pay close attention, though, it's invisible.
A few years ago, around 2007, Yahoo introduced about fifty specialized search sub-engines. These understood weather, stocks, sports, celebrities, movies, and similar popular search topics.  They focused on areas that have a strong structure, and need a lookup engine that understands that structure.  For about six months, Yahoo was way ahead of Google on such searches.
</p><p>Didn't help Yahoo.  Google implemented something similar and caught up.  Now everybody does that.
</p><p>
It's not clear that the Twitter search is a win.  Bing announced they were going to do Twitter and Facebook searches, and a day later, Google announced they'd do that too.  Google implemented Twitter search, and apparently Bing didn't.  Twitter search just seems to clutter up Google results.
</p><p>
In the last year, Google has become much more aggressive about interpreting queries.  Google tries hard to infer from the query words what the user is really looking for.  This tends to work for popular queries (since it's based on statistics from other queries) and doesn't work too well for unusual queries.  For hard queries, you need to use explicit operators ('+' and '"') with Google more than you did a year ago.
</p><p>
The big search engines are still doing badly at de-rating sites which are basically link farms. When you're searching for a product, and you get a hit that's just some site with ad links to other sites, that's a fail. Search for auto parts, and you're likely to get "parts.com", "thepartsbin.com" and "who-sells-it.com", which are just "portals".  They don't even return pages that are actually about the part in question. ("thepartsbin.com" pages are all essentially the same, except for keywords inserted for SEO purposes.) Search engines need to look at the business behind the web site.  If a business has a million commercial-looking web pages, and a total business volume of a few million dollars, they're probably bogus. That's a part of the "long tail" you don't need to visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Cuil [ cuil.com ] ?
They were originally talking about the " long tail " ; they wanted to have a bigger index than Google .
Cuil is mostly ex-Google people , and they thought they could re-do Google at lower cost .
Did n't help Cuil .
There 's ongoing effort in search engine development .
Unless you pay close attention , though , it 's invisible .
A few years ago , around 2007 , Yahoo introduced about fifty specialized search sub-engines .
These understood weather , stocks , sports , celebrities , movies , and similar popular search topics .
They focused on areas that have a strong structure , and need a lookup engine that understands that structure .
For about six months , Yahoo was way ahead of Google on such searches .
Did n't help Yahoo .
Google implemented something similar and caught up .
Now everybody does that .
It 's not clear that the Twitter search is a win .
Bing announced they were going to do Twitter and Facebook searches , and a day later , Google announced they 'd do that too .
Google implemented Twitter search , and apparently Bing did n't .
Twitter search just seems to clutter up Google results .
In the last year , Google has become much more aggressive about interpreting queries .
Google tries hard to infer from the query words what the user is really looking for .
This tends to work for popular queries ( since it 's based on statistics from other queries ) and does n't work too well for unusual queries .
For hard queries , you need to use explicit operators ( ' + ' and ' " ' ) with Google more than you did a year ago .
The big search engines are still doing badly at de-rating sites which are basically link farms .
When you 're searching for a product , and you get a hit that 's just some site with ad links to other sites , that 's a fail .
Search for auto parts , and you 're likely to get " parts.com " , " thepartsbin.com " and " who-sells-it.com " , which are just " portals " .
They do n't even return pages that are actually about the part in question .
( " thepartsbin.com " pages are all essentially the same , except for keywords inserted for SEO purposes .
) Search engines need to look at the business behind the web site .
If a business has a million commercial-looking web pages , and a total business volume of a few million dollars , they 're probably bogus .
That 's a part of the " long tail " you do n't need to visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Remember Cuil [cuil.com]?
They were originally talking about the "long tail"; they wanted to have a bigger index than Google.
Cuil is mostly ex-Google people, and they thought they could re-do Google at lower cost.
Didn't help Cuil.
There's ongoing effort in search engine development.
Unless you pay close attention, though, it's invisible.
A few years ago, around 2007, Yahoo introduced about fifty specialized search sub-engines.
These understood weather, stocks, sports, celebrities, movies, and similar popular search topics.
They focused on areas that have a strong structure, and need a lookup engine that understands that structure.
For about six months, Yahoo was way ahead of Google on such searches.
Didn't help Yahoo.
Google implemented something similar and caught up.
Now everybody does that.
It's not clear that the Twitter search is a win.
Bing announced they were going to do Twitter and Facebook searches, and a day later, Google announced they'd do that too.
Google implemented Twitter search, and apparently Bing didn't.
Twitter search just seems to clutter up Google results.
In the last year, Google has become much more aggressive about interpreting queries.
Google tries hard to infer from the query words what the user is really looking for.
This tends to work for popular queries (since it's based on statistics from other queries) and doesn't work too well for unusual queries.
For hard queries, you need to use explicit operators ('+' and '"') with Google more than you did a year ago.
The big search engines are still doing badly at de-rating sites which are basically link farms.
When you're searching for a product, and you get a hit that's just some site with ad links to other sites, that's a fail.
Search for auto parts, and you're likely to get "parts.com", "thepartsbin.com" and "who-sells-it.com", which are just "portals".
They don't even return pages that are actually about the part in question.
("thepartsbin.com" pages are all essentially the same, except for keywords inserted for SEO purposes.
) Search engines need to look at the business behind the web site.
If a business has a million commercial-looking web pages, and a total business volume of a few million dollars, they're probably bogus.
That's a part of the "long tail" you don't need to visit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650824</id>
	<title>Re:So they say</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1269774300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.</p></div><p>Well, from those awful "search overload" ads, it appears Bing's target market is people who are somehow still using 1999's version of AltaVista. For them, I guess Bing would be a pretty massive improvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.Well , from those awful " search overload " ads , it appears Bing 's target market is people who are somehow still using 1999 's version of AltaVista .
For them , I guess Bing would be a pretty massive improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.Well, from those awful "search overload" ads, it appears Bing's target market is people who are somehow still using 1999's version of AltaVista.
For them, I guess Bing would be a pretty massive improvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646978</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1269788640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And 2nd result criticises XP OEM cost, the 3rd and 4th results are about Windows, the 5th is about Bing being a bit rubbish.<br> <br>
Whereas if I search on Google, the first result is them rubbishing the competition, and the one about Macs is second.  So is Google biasing its search results to fit an agenda?  I'm nit sure why that accusation can be levelled at Bing and not Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And 2nd result criticises XP OEM cost , the 3rd and 4th results are about Windows , the 5th is about Bing being a bit rubbish .
Whereas if I search on Google , the first result is them rubbishing the competition , and the one about Macs is second .
So is Google biasing its search results to fit an agenda ?
I 'm nit sure why that accusation can be levelled at Bing and not Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And 2nd result criticises XP OEM cost, the 3rd and 4th results are about Windows, the 5th is about Bing being a bit rubbish.
Whereas if I search on Google, the first result is them rubbishing the competition, and the one about Macs is second.
So is Google biasing its search results to fit an agenda?
I'm nit sure why that accusation can be levelled at Bing and not Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647362</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269792180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad</p></div></blockquote><p>You're comparing oranges to apples, so to speak.  An operating system is not equivalent to a single product put out by a company.</p><p>Tell me, is the Xbox more open than the iPad?  Because those two products are the ones you should be comparing.  Closed, tightly regulated ecosystems in both cases, although I'd still give the iPad the edge for ease of developer access.</p><p>On the other hand, is Windows more open than OS X?  Clearly, the answer to that is a resounding NO, as you quickly realize as you jump through Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage" license code hoops.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPadYou 're comparing oranges to apples , so to speak .
An operating system is not equivalent to a single product put out by a company.Tell me , is the Xbox more open than the iPad ?
Because those two products are the ones you should be comparing .
Closed , tightly regulated ecosystems in both cases , although I 'd still give the iPad the edge for ease of developer access.On the other hand , is Windows more open than OS X ?
Clearly , the answer to that is a resounding NO , as you quickly realize as you jump through Microsoft 's " Genuine Advantage " license code hoops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPadYou're comparing oranges to apples, so to speak.
An operating system is not equivalent to a single product put out by a company.Tell me, is the Xbox more open than the iPad?
Because those two products are the ones you should be comparing.
Closed, tightly regulated ecosystems in both cases, although I'd still give the iPad the edge for ease of developer access.On the other hand, is Windows more open than OS X?
Clearly, the answer to that is a resounding NO, as you quickly realize as you jump through Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage" license code hoops.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652430</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269788280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The big problem with Google is privacy. Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?"</p></div> </blockquote><p>Microsoft!? Who would trust them to keep your information confidential?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The big problem with Google is privacy .
Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
" Microsoft ! ?
Who would trust them to keep your information confidential ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The big problem with Google is privacy.
Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
" Microsoft!?
Who would trust them to keep your information confidential?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647012</id>
	<title>Re:They need to do something more radically differ</title>
	<author>Fex303</author>
	<datestamp>1269789060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do? I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.</p></div><p>How would they keep track of who has subscribed if they're not tracking people?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
I 'd pay a subscription for such a thing.How would they keep track of who has subscribed if they 're not tracking people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.How would they keep track of who has subscribed if they're not tracking people?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649098</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1269804780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that much is true, but maybe there's more.</p><p>Of THE HUNDREDS OF THINGS THEY'VE TRIED, only Office and the OS make any money or go anywhere. Remember the plush animals? They've "done well" with keyboards and mice, etc but I don't see that as a huge spoke in their business. Are they still pushing WebTV?</p><p>Remember the Slashdot story where they patented a hinge? Not even a special one- it looks like one I have in my tool box someplace.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>They killed MSFlightSim, for some reason 'they were running out of money' and the $40B in cash, followed by the seemingly unending stream of Office purchases (at 85\% margin) wasn't enough to make up for the tiny development group. Something tells me other spending is leaking cash.</p><p>I'm seeing a lot of scattered ideas at MS; their attempt with Bing is not only annoying for those of us actually READING stories with pop-ups, but only about 20 years late, and having the narrow view that's so natural with Microsoft people.</p><p>To clarify:</p><p>I have a friend who's worked in the business at a pretty high level. He complains how for the last 15 years *every* MS project he's seen has collapsed under it's own weight. When one of those management teams manage to produce anything in ASP.NET, they've all wound up bogged down so badly it takes perhaps a full minute to get a few hundred bytes of data to the user.And that's *after* adding more servers to the 'fire' as MS suggests.</p><p>He's pulling out his hair.</p><p>The hired a guy to set up a domain, and given the equipment. My friend watched as he spent A YEAR AND A HALF and never completed the task. What's worse is that my friend installed the base OS on the first server, for him!</p><p>Now, I'm a Linux Zealot; ask anyone. I've been burned enough early-on that I no longer care to dance in the Microsoft circus of shareware/malware/mobware, and haven't since 1999.  But EVEN TO ME A YEAR AND A HALF SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME to set up an Active Directory server.</p><p>I've seen as Microsoft "clear-cuts" huge sections of code to replace it along the way. Alternatively, Linux, like all classical development spends it's time polishing-the-apple along the way. Sure, some small parts are cut-n-pasted (I'm thinking of the string-handling code) but MS even did this with TCP/IP!  Even so, it *still* doesn't meet the original standard, and works funky.</p><p>My thoughts have always been, "How can they continue to do this?" and I believe we're starting to see that Bill thought the same thing, and boarded the corporate lifeboat in plenty of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that much is true , but maybe there 's more.Of THE HUNDREDS OF THINGS THEY 'VE TRIED , only Office and the OS make any money or go anywhere .
Remember the plush animals ?
They 've " done well " with keyboards and mice , etc but I do n't see that as a huge spoke in their business .
Are they still pushing WebTV ? Remember the Slashdot story where they patented a hinge ?
Not even a special one- it looks like one I have in my tool box someplace .
: ) They killed MSFlightSim , for some reason 'they were running out of money ' and the $ 40B in cash , followed by the seemingly unending stream of Office purchases ( at 85 \ % margin ) was n't enough to make up for the tiny development group .
Something tells me other spending is leaking cash.I 'm seeing a lot of scattered ideas at MS ; their attempt with Bing is not only annoying for those of us actually READING stories with pop-ups , but only about 20 years late , and having the narrow view that 's so natural with Microsoft people.To clarify : I have a friend who 's worked in the business at a pretty high level .
He complains how for the last 15 years * every * MS project he 's seen has collapsed under it 's own weight .
When one of those management teams manage to produce anything in ASP.NET , they 've all wound up bogged down so badly it takes perhaps a full minute to get a few hundred bytes of data to the user.And that 's * after * adding more servers to the 'fire ' as MS suggests.He 's pulling out his hair.The hired a guy to set up a domain , and given the equipment .
My friend watched as he spent A YEAR AND A HALF and never completed the task .
What 's worse is that my friend installed the base OS on the first server , for him ! Now , I 'm a Linux Zealot ; ask anyone .
I 've been burned enough early-on that I no longer care to dance in the Microsoft circus of shareware/malware/mobware , and have n't since 1999 .
But EVEN TO ME A YEAR AND A HALF SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME to set up an Active Directory server.I 've seen as Microsoft " clear-cuts " huge sections of code to replace it along the way .
Alternatively , Linux , like all classical development spends it 's time polishing-the-apple along the way .
Sure , some small parts are cut-n-pasted ( I 'm thinking of the string-handling code ) but MS even did this with TCP/IP !
Even so , it * still * does n't meet the original standard , and works funky.My thoughts have always been , " How can they continue to do this ?
" and I believe we 're starting to see that Bill thought the same thing , and boarded the corporate lifeboat in plenty of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that much is true, but maybe there's more.Of THE HUNDREDS OF THINGS THEY'VE TRIED, only Office and the OS make any money or go anywhere.
Remember the plush animals?
They've "done well" with keyboards and mice, etc but I don't see that as a huge spoke in their business.
Are they still pushing WebTV?Remember the Slashdot story where they patented a hinge?
Not even a special one- it looks like one I have in my tool box someplace.
:)They killed MSFlightSim, for some reason 'they were running out of money' and the $40B in cash, followed by the seemingly unending stream of Office purchases (at 85\% margin) wasn't enough to make up for the tiny development group.
Something tells me other spending is leaking cash.I'm seeing a lot of scattered ideas at MS; their attempt with Bing is not only annoying for those of us actually READING stories with pop-ups, but only about 20 years late, and having the narrow view that's so natural with Microsoft people.To clarify:I have a friend who's worked in the business at a pretty high level.
He complains how for the last 15 years *every* MS project he's seen has collapsed under it's own weight.
When one of those management teams manage to produce anything in ASP.NET, they've all wound up bogged down so badly it takes perhaps a full minute to get a few hundred bytes of data to the user.And that's *after* adding more servers to the 'fire' as MS suggests.He's pulling out his hair.The hired a guy to set up a domain, and given the equipment.
My friend watched as he spent A YEAR AND A HALF and never completed the task.
What's worse is that my friend installed the base OS on the first server, for him!Now, I'm a Linux Zealot; ask anyone.
I've been burned enough early-on that I no longer care to dance in the Microsoft circus of shareware/malware/mobware, and haven't since 1999.
But EVEN TO ME A YEAR AND A HALF SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME to set up an Active Directory server.I've seen as Microsoft "clear-cuts" huge sections of code to replace it along the way.
Alternatively, Linux, like all classical development spends it's time polishing-the-apple along the way.
Sure, some small parts are cut-n-pasted (I'm thinking of the string-handling code) but MS even did this with TCP/IP!
Even so, it *still* doesn't meet the original standard, and works funky.My thoughts have always been, "How can they continue to do this?
" and I believe we're starting to see that Bill thought the same thing, and boarded the corporate lifeboat in plenty of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647202</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269790980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why is Windows so expensive?"</p><p>HA HA!!  I'm just ROFLMAO, thinking about creating a bot that sends that query to BING about 24,000 times a day, from every computer infected. To bad I'm not a black hat, huh?  Cool name for it would be the Bing virus.  Yeah, I know, a bot ain't a virus, but we could call it that, and use it to scare the ignorant away from Bing!  Beauty!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why is Windows so expensive ?
" HA HA ! !
I 'm just ROFLMAO , thinking about creating a bot that sends that query to BING about 24,000 times a day , from every computer infected .
To bad I 'm not a black hat , huh ?
Cool name for it would be the Bing virus .
Yeah , I know , a bot ai n't a virus , but we could call it that , and use it to scare the ignorant away from Bing !
Beauty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why is Windows so expensive?
"HA HA!!
I'm just ROFLMAO, thinking about creating a bot that sends that query to BING about 24,000 times a day, from every computer infected.
To bad I'm not a black hat, huh?
Cool name for it would be the Bing virus.
Yeah, I know, a bot ain't a virus, but we could call it that, and use it to scare the ignorant away from Bing!
Beauty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647424</id>
	<title>history of Microsoft and Search</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269792660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>First Era: Human-Powered Search (1997-2002)</strong> <br> <br>

"<i>Search isn't some relatively new effort that dates back to 2003 at Microsoft. Search, especially web search, is something the company has seriously pursued since <a href="http://searchengineland.com/microsofts-third-era-of-search-begins-with-departure-of-search-chief-christopher-payne-10690" title="searchengineland.com" rel="nofollow">1997</a> [searchengineland.com]. In its first era, Microsoft started out with a crawler-based search engine, one that creates listings by using automation to harvest material from across the web. It then migrated to building a very good service that relied primarily on human power, human beings to either catalog the web or customize top search results with hand-picked answers. Bill Bliss was the person in charge during most of this period. Here's how it unfolded, over the years</i>"<br> <br>

"<i>I was always told "<a href="http://searchengineland.com/former-microsoft-search-chief-bill-bliss-on-early-search-missteps-10702" title="searchengineland.com" rel="nofollow">Search is not core to our business</a> [searchengineland.com], Google is not a competitor, Yahoo is not the competition, AOL is the competitor to beat, subscription services is how we're going to win.</i>", Bill Bliss, Former Microsoft Search Chief</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Era : Human-Powered Search ( 1997-2002 ) " Search is n't some relatively new effort that dates back to 2003 at Microsoft .
Search , especially web search , is something the company has seriously pursued since 1997 [ searchengineland.com ] .
In its first era , Microsoft started out with a crawler-based search engine , one that creates listings by using automation to harvest material from across the web .
It then migrated to building a very good service that relied primarily on human power , human beings to either catalog the web or customize top search results with hand-picked answers .
Bill Bliss was the person in charge during most of this period .
Here 's how it unfolded , over the years " " I was always told " Search is not core to our business [ searchengineland.com ] , Google is not a competitor , Yahoo is not the competition , AOL is the competitor to beat , subscription services is how we 're going to win .
" , Bill Bliss , Former Microsoft Search Chief</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Era: Human-Powered Search (1997-2002)  

"Search isn't some relatively new effort that dates back to 2003 at Microsoft.
Search, especially web search, is something the company has seriously pursued since 1997 [searchengineland.com].
In its first era, Microsoft started out with a crawler-based search engine, one that creates listings by using automation to harvest material from across the web.
It then migrated to building a very good service that relied primarily on human power, human beings to either catalog the web or customize top search results with hand-picked answers.
Bill Bliss was the person in charge during most of this period.
Here's how it unfolded, over the years" 

"I was always told "Search is not core to our business [searchengineland.com], Google is not a competitor, Yahoo is not the competition, AOL is the competitor to beat, subscription services is how we're going to win.
", Bill Bliss, Former Microsoft Search Chief</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646996</id>
	<title>Privacy enhanced search?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269788880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ixquick.com/</a> [ixquick.com] -- there ya go.</p><p>You can even google it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd pay a subscription for such a thing .
http : //www.ixquick.com/ [ ixquick.com ] -- there ya go.You can even google it ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.
http://www.ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com] -- there ya go.You can even google it ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646882</id>
	<title>Typical MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269787500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if they stay true to form they will say their customers demanded it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they stay true to form they will say their customers demanded it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they stay true to form they will say their customers demanded it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647740</id>
	<title>Re:Same old</title>
	<author>Matt Perry</author>
	<datestamp>1269795180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're right. It's the new Microsoft company slogan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We messed up " is n't really an excuse.You 're right .
It 's the new Microsoft company slogan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.You're right.
It's the new Microsoft company slogan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647118</id>
	<title>tag it 'bung'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269790200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>smells like micro$oft all right</p><p><a href="http://www.msversus.org/" title="msversus.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.msversus.org/</a> [msversus.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>smells like micro $ oft all righthttp : //www.msversus.org/ [ msversus.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smells like micro$oft all righthttp://www.msversus.org/ [msversus.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646916</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>plankrwf</author>
	<datestamp>1269787860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, not buying this.<br>I am no fan of MS, but typing 'why is windows so expensive' in my search bar on firefox (which defaults to results on Google.com) gives as FIRST hit a newstory about how this query turns up a query about Apple, the second is about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Apple.</p><p>Seriously, did you try it with quotes? (No, didn't try it myself).<br>Surely, there are more articles on WHY the hardware of APPLE is relatively EXPENSIVE, compared to laptops &amp; pc's which run WINDOWS?</p><p>As long as you do not put "" around the query, I would not put it down to dishonesty.<br>(I would expect that the query "why is windows not so expensive" also gives a first hit to Apple?").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , not buying this.I am no fan of MS , but typing 'why is windows so expensive ' in my search bar on firefox ( which defaults to results on Google.com ) gives as FIRST hit a newstory about how this query turns up a query about Apple , the second is about ... Apple.Seriously , did you try it with quotes ?
( No , did n't try it myself ) .Surely , there are more articles on WHY the hardware of APPLE is relatively EXPENSIVE , compared to laptops &amp; pc 's which run WINDOWS ? As long as you do not put " " around the query , I would not put it down to dishonesty .
( I would expect that the query " why is windows not so expensive " also gives a first hit to Apple ?
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, not buying this.I am no fan of MS, but typing 'why is windows so expensive' in my search bar on firefox (which defaults to results on Google.com) gives as FIRST hit a newstory about how this query turns up a query about Apple, the second is about ... Apple.Seriously, did you try it with quotes?
(No, didn't try it myself).Surely, there are more articles on WHY the hardware of APPLE is relatively EXPENSIVE, compared to laptops &amp; pc's which run WINDOWS?As long as you do not put "" around the query, I would not put it down to dishonesty.
(I would expect that the query "why is windows not so expensive" also gives a first hit to Apple?
").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648702</id>
	<title>Ignore less common queries?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1269802200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely ignoring the least common queries is the most stupid thing to do... For the most common things, most people generally know where to go anyway... Search engines are for when you're actually looking for something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely ignoring the least common queries is the most stupid thing to do... For the most common things , most people generally know where to go anyway... Search engines are for when you 're actually looking for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely ignoring the least common queries is the most stupid thing to do... For the most common things, most people generally know where to go anyway... Search engines are for when you're actually looking for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647324</id>
	<title>Google and privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269791880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>The big problem with Google is privacy. Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?</i>"<br> <br>

Why not just delete your cookies ?<br> <br>

"<i>windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad</i>"<br> <br>

You're kidding here aren't you.<br> <br>

"<i>all they want is to catch up so they can turn the same screws on us that Apple and Google turn</i>"<br> <br>

A single company monopolizing the desktop and online commerce, is a good thing? And I don't see either Apple or Google ever engaged in the sharp practices out of Redmond. <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">Microsoft Litigation</a> [groklaw.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The big problem with Google is privacy .
Why not try to make a search engine that does n't track what you do ?
" Why not just delete your cookies ?
" windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad " You 're kidding here are n't you .
" all they want is to catch up so they can turn the same screws on us that Apple and Google turn " A single company monopolizing the desktop and online commerce , is a good thing ?
And I do n't see either Apple or Google ever engaged in the sharp practices out of Redmond .
Microsoft Litigation [ groklaw.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The big problem with Google is privacy.
Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do?
" 

Why not just delete your cookies ?
"windows is a heck of a lot more open than the iPad" 

You're kidding here aren't you.
"all they want is to catch up so they can turn the same screws on us that Apple and Google turn" 

A single company monopolizing the desktop and online commerce, is a good thing?
And I don't see either Apple or Google ever engaged in the sharp practices out of Redmond.
Microsoft Litigation [groklaw.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650120</id>
	<title>Re:It helps to be honest, as well</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1269769620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that day would be today for me - I don't get anything about macs, just a site about Why is Windows so expensive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that day would be today for me - I do n't get anything about macs , just a site about Why is Windows so expensive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that day would be today for me - I don't get anything about macs, just a site about Why is Windows so expensive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647870</id>
	<title>They simply cannot help themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269796320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By playing the game that Microsoft has played for so long, they are simply incapable of reacting any differently now. After playing dirty for so many years to get to and keep a monopoly position, they simply cannot believe that any other way would work.</p><p>They looked at search engine profits and decided that, hey, we want a piece of that. To get profit quickly, drive out competitors and build market share quickly, they took the same approach they always do: make their product do 80\% of what all users want to do fairly well, forget, downplay or refuse to fix bugs in the last 20\% and just wait for the money to roll in. And, because they got where they are today by ignoring technical innovation while concentrating on marketing (translate: downright lying about their products whenever it is cheaper than actually making the product any better) they figured that,once again, they didn't have to be good at search, they just had to convince everyone that they were good at it - "Daaahling, it is better to look good than to be good!" So they gamed their search results to make themselves look good without doing anything to improve the search engine itself.</p><p>Do you see the trend here? Microcoft is incapable of seeing that excellence is the way to succeed in the market. Because of their past successes, they believe that it would be stupid to actually analyze how search works and to do a good job at it - that takes time and money that is better spent marketing the hell out of an inferior product. And market Bing! they do. Over the last year, I have been bombarded with so many Bing! ads on every site I visit that I am sick of seeing them! How about spending 1/10 of that marketing budget to actually making the search engine better? Nope, that's something that just wouldn't occur to Microsoft. Instead we get discussions about the "long tail" and analysis of specific points where they failed rather than a re-examination of the basic philosophy of product development that is really where the problem lies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By playing the game that Microsoft has played for so long , they are simply incapable of reacting any differently now .
After playing dirty for so many years to get to and keep a monopoly position , they simply can not believe that any other way would work.They looked at search engine profits and decided that , hey , we want a piece of that .
To get profit quickly , drive out competitors and build market share quickly , they took the same approach they always do : make their product do 80 \ % of what all users want to do fairly well , forget , downplay or refuse to fix bugs in the last 20 \ % and just wait for the money to roll in .
And , because they got where they are today by ignoring technical innovation while concentrating on marketing ( translate : downright lying about their products whenever it is cheaper than actually making the product any better ) they figured that,once again , they did n't have to be good at search , they just had to convince everyone that they were good at it - " Daaahling , it is better to look good than to be good !
" So they gamed their search results to make themselves look good without doing anything to improve the search engine itself.Do you see the trend here ?
Microcoft is incapable of seeing that excellence is the way to succeed in the market .
Because of their past successes , they believe that it would be stupid to actually analyze how search works and to do a good job at it - that takes time and money that is better spent marketing the hell out of an inferior product .
And market Bing !
they do .
Over the last year , I have been bombarded with so many Bing !
ads on every site I visit that I am sick of seeing them !
How about spending 1/10 of that marketing budget to actually making the search engine better ?
Nope , that 's something that just would n't occur to Microsoft .
Instead we get discussions about the " long tail " and analysis of specific points where they failed rather than a re-examination of the basic philosophy of product development that is really where the problem lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By playing the game that Microsoft has played for so long, they are simply incapable of reacting any differently now.
After playing dirty for so many years to get to and keep a monopoly position, they simply cannot believe that any other way would work.They looked at search engine profits and decided that, hey, we want a piece of that.
To get profit quickly, drive out competitors and build market share quickly, they took the same approach they always do: make their product do 80\% of what all users want to do fairly well, forget, downplay or refuse to fix bugs in the last 20\% and just wait for the money to roll in.
And, because they got where they are today by ignoring technical innovation while concentrating on marketing (translate: downright lying about their products whenever it is cheaper than actually making the product any better) they figured that,once again, they didn't have to be good at search, they just had to convince everyone that they were good at it - "Daaahling, it is better to look good than to be good!
" So they gamed their search results to make themselves look good without doing anything to improve the search engine itself.Do you see the trend here?
Microcoft is incapable of seeing that excellence is the way to succeed in the market.
Because of their past successes, they believe that it would be stupid to actually analyze how search works and to do a good job at it - that takes time and money that is better spent marketing the hell out of an inferior product.
And market Bing!
they do.
Over the last year, I have been bombarded with so many Bing!
ads on every site I visit that I am sick of seeing them!
How about spending 1/10 of that marketing budget to actually making the search engine better?
Nope, that's something that just wouldn't occur to Microsoft.
Instead we get discussions about the "long tail" and analysis of specific points where they failed rather than a re-examination of the basic philosophy of product development that is really where the problem lies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647374</id>
	<title>Bing sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269792300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have my own website which is absolutely authoritative on its rather narrow topic.  This website is easily findable by its unique keyword that identifies the topic (similar to searching for "slashdot", you won't find any cooking websites or shopping, only tech stuff).  I'm at #5 on Google and my number one competitor is at #6.  Neither of us shows up on a Bing.com search, I quit looking after page 10 of results.  The results just have a bunch of websites that I've never heard of before.  Even more galling, Bing.com tries to play games with my results because I'm overseas.  I search for "mykeyword" and select "Only English".  Bing.com helpfully comes back with "Results are included for XXX XXX (foreign word that is the translation of my keyword)".  Two of the sites on the first page say "Parse error: syntax error" as their preview.  Yes, my site is in Bing's index and regularly submits XML sitemaps.</p><p>In conclusion, Bing sucks if it can't put my site in the first 10 search results.  Hell, it should at least be in the top 100.  I don't game Google, either, other than some basic SEO that any responsible business owner should do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my own website which is absolutely authoritative on its rather narrow topic .
This website is easily findable by its unique keyword that identifies the topic ( similar to searching for " slashdot " , you wo n't find any cooking websites or shopping , only tech stuff ) .
I 'm at # 5 on Google and my number one competitor is at # 6 .
Neither of us shows up on a Bing.com search , I quit looking after page 10 of results .
The results just have a bunch of websites that I 've never heard of before .
Even more galling , Bing.com tries to play games with my results because I 'm overseas .
I search for " mykeyword " and select " Only English " .
Bing.com helpfully comes back with " Results are included for XXX XXX ( foreign word that is the translation of my keyword ) " .
Two of the sites on the first page say " Parse error : syntax error " as their preview .
Yes , my site is in Bing 's index and regularly submits XML sitemaps.In conclusion , Bing sucks if it ca n't put my site in the first 10 search results .
Hell , it should at least be in the top 100 .
I do n't game Google , either , other than some basic SEO that any responsible business owner should do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my own website which is absolutely authoritative on its rather narrow topic.
This website is easily findable by its unique keyword that identifies the topic (similar to searching for "slashdot", you won't find any cooking websites or shopping, only tech stuff).
I'm at #5 on Google and my number one competitor is at #6.
Neither of us shows up on a Bing.com search, I quit looking after page 10 of results.
The results just have a bunch of websites that I've never heard of before.
Even more galling, Bing.com tries to play games with my results because I'm overseas.
I search for "mykeyword" and select "Only English".
Bing.com helpfully comes back with "Results are included for XXX XXX (foreign word that is the translation of my keyword)".
Two of the sites on the first page say "Parse error: syntax error" as their preview.
Yes, my site is in Bing's index and regularly submits XML sitemaps.In conclusion, Bing sucks if it can't put my site in the first 10 search results.
Hell, it should at least be in the top 100.
I don't game Google, either, other than some basic SEO that any responsible business owner should do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648242</id>
	<title>That is simple, starvation</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1269799020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google makes it money with ads. Search is one of their means to display said ads. Kill their search, kill their ads, kill their income, kill them putting more and more of productivity on the web, stop them killing MS products.
</p><p>MS is not directly intrested in seach, but they are intrested in keeping control over where applications run. The more they can control that, the more they can keep selling their products.
</p><p>Take gmail. Nobody who wants to be taken serious uses hotmail anymore, but that is not the point. With gmail for businesses, how many companies have lifted themselves OUT of the need for exchange? And with that windows on the server AND with that windows on the client for Outlook?
</p><p>Gee, all of the sudden you can use a Mac or Linux machine without paying MS a dime. It is being used more and more, and it is not just that lost revenue that MS fears. The more people do NOT uses the latest word/outlook to generate their office documents, the more you as a MS shop cannot do it, because nobody can read your documents.
</p><p>And that could be the beginning of the end for MS. Not because nobody uses Word anymore to create doc files, but because they use the old version they have, with the format everyone can read.
</p><p>The biggest enemy of MS is NOT people to stop using their product, but not buying the latest version.
</p><p>Software after all does not run out. If XP works, you can use it for years to come. Decades even.
</p><p>Googles Search is not the enemy, it is the income Google has that allows it to launch other products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google makes it money with ads .
Search is one of their means to display said ads .
Kill their search , kill their ads , kill their income , kill them putting more and more of productivity on the web , stop them killing MS products .
MS is not directly intrested in seach , but they are intrested in keeping control over where applications run .
The more they can control that , the more they can keep selling their products .
Take gmail .
Nobody who wants to be taken serious uses hotmail anymore , but that is not the point .
With gmail for businesses , how many companies have lifted themselves OUT of the need for exchange ?
And with that windows on the server AND with that windows on the client for Outlook ?
Gee , all of the sudden you can use a Mac or Linux machine without paying MS a dime .
It is being used more and more , and it is not just that lost revenue that MS fears .
The more people do NOT uses the latest word/outlook to generate their office documents , the more you as a MS shop can not do it , because nobody can read your documents .
And that could be the beginning of the end for MS. Not because nobody uses Word anymore to create doc files , but because they use the old version they have , with the format everyone can read .
The biggest enemy of MS is NOT people to stop using their product , but not buying the latest version .
Software after all does not run out .
If XP works , you can use it for years to come .
Decades even .
Googles Search is not the enemy , it is the income Google has that allows it to launch other products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google makes it money with ads.
Search is one of their means to display said ads.
Kill their search, kill their ads, kill their income, kill them putting more and more of productivity on the web, stop them killing MS products.
MS is not directly intrested in seach, but they are intrested in keeping control over where applications run.
The more they can control that, the more they can keep selling their products.
Take gmail.
Nobody who wants to be taken serious uses hotmail anymore, but that is not the point.
With gmail for businesses, how many companies have lifted themselves OUT of the need for exchange?
And with that windows on the server AND with that windows on the client for Outlook?
Gee, all of the sudden you can use a Mac or Linux machine without paying MS a dime.
It is being used more and more, and it is not just that lost revenue that MS fears.
The more people do NOT uses the latest word/outlook to generate their office documents, the more you as a MS shop cannot do it, because nobody can read your documents.
And that could be the beginning of the end for MS. Not because nobody uses Word anymore to create doc files, but because they use the old version they have, with the format everyone can read.
The biggest enemy of MS is NOT people to stop using their product, but not buying the latest version.
Software after all does not run out.
If XP works, you can use it for years to come.
Decades even.
Googles Search is not the enemy, it is the income Google has that allows it to launch other products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647160</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31663244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31656866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31655804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31658704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_28_1212207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31656866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31658704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31663244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31654452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31655804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31652712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31651426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31649192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31650544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31646808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31647788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_28_1212207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_28_1212207.31648876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
