<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Avoiding Google&#8217;s Own Censors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.confidentialresource.com/2010/01/20/avoiding-googles-own-censors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.confidentialresource.com/2010/01/20/avoiding-googles-own-censors/</link>
	<description>Sources &#38; Methods for the Investigator</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:45:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard McEachin</title>
		<link>http://www.confidentialresource.com/2010/01/20/avoiding-googles-own-censors/#comment-40595</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard McEachin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.confidentialresource.com/2010/01/20/avoiding-googles-own-censors/#comment-40595</guid>
		<description>Alex, 

For &quot;climategate&quot; in Google I get about 1,480,000 hits but I get less than 700 results returned. When I include the omitted results, I get less than 1000 based upon 1,420,000 hits. Whereas, Bing returns nearly 51m hits and only delivers 1000. 

It seems you will only get about 1000 hits and have to take their word that they have millions more that you can&#039;t see.

But the difference between about 1.5m and 51m seems substantial to me. But, we don&#039;t know what the wizards are doing behind the curtain, and that is why I recommend using multiple search engines, especially with any topic that may be controversial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, </p>
<p>For &#8220;climategate&#8221; in Google I get about 1,480,000 hits but I get less than 700 results returned. When I include the omitted results, I get less than 1000 based upon 1,420,000 hits. Whereas, Bing returns nearly 51m hits and only delivers 1000. </p>
<p>It seems you will only get about 1000 hits and have to take their word that they have millions more that you can&#8217;t see.</p>
<p>But the difference between about 1.5m and 51m seems substantial to me. But, we don&#8217;t know what the wizards are doing behind the curtain, and that is why I recommend using multiple search engines, especially with any topic that may be controversial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.confidentialresource.com/2010/01/20/avoiding-googles-own-censors/#comment-40594</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.confidentialresource.com/2010/01/20/avoiding-googles-own-censors/#comment-40594</guid>
		<description>Sorry, just isn&#039;t true. Try the examples (Googlegate and Climategate) the articles uses and you&#039;ll see there isn&#039;t that much difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, just isn&#8217;t true. Try the examples (Googlegate and Climategate) the articles uses and you&#8217;ll see there isn&#8217;t that much difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

