<?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: Blogburst Backlash</title> <atom:link href="http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/</link> <description>Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:03:14 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Pluck on Demand: An Interesting Opportunity - PlagiarismToday</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-123475</link> <dc:creator>Pluck on Demand: An Interesting Opportunity - PlagiarismToday</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:37:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-123475</guid> <description>[...] It is especially refreshing to see how far BlogBurst and Pluck have come after their previous licensing issues. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] It is especially refreshing to see how far BlogBurst and Pluck have come after their previous licensing issues. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Longrider &#187; Blogburst</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-64774</link> <dc:creator>Longrider &#187; Blogburst</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:54:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-64774</guid> <description>[...] Plagiarism Today [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Plagiarism Today [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: PlagiarismToday &#187; Content Licensing: The Sensational Seven</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-29966</link> <dc:creator>PlagiarismToday &#187; Content Licensing: The Sensational Seven</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:27:02 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-29966</guid> <description>[...] When BlogBurst first appeared on the scene, it generated a great deal of controversy for some of its policies. However, as the service has evolved, it has answered most of those initial concerns and even instituted a payment system for its members. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] When BlogBurst first appeared on the scene, it generated a great deal of controversy for some of its policies. However, as the service has evolved, it has answered most of those initial concerns and even instituted a payment system for its members. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: PlagiarismToday &#187; BlogBurst Announces Reward Program</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-24777</link> <dc:creator>PlagiarismToday &#187; BlogBurst Announces Reward Program</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:22:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-24777</guid> <description>[...] BlogBurst, the blog syndication service that became the subject of controversy back in May has announced a new rewards program to pay bloggers that have their works syndicated through their service. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] BlogBurst, the blog syndication service that became the subject of controversy back in May has announced a new rewards program to pay bloggers that have their works syndicated through their service. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: PlagiarismToday &#187; Blogburst Update</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-3442</link> <dc:creator>PlagiarismToday &#187; Blogburst Update</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 21:19:05 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-3442</guid> <description>[...] Previously, I posted about the backlash to Pluck&#8217;s Blogburst service, which is designed to help bloggers get their entries places into &quot;top-tier&quot; mainstream media destinations such as the San Francisco Gate and The Washington Post. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Previously, I posted about the backlash to Pluck&#8217;s Blogburst service, which is designed to help bloggers get their entries places into &quot;top-tier&quot; mainstream media destinations such as the San Francisco Gate and The Washington Post. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: JB</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-2334</link> <dc:creator>JB</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 17:55:01 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-2334</guid> <description>Gary,Just to clarify, the infrastructure I was talking about is the infrastructure to pay bloggers. Currently, when you register for Blogburst, there&#039;s no requirement to input your SSN or any other financial information. I&#039;m forced to assume that, if they had a payment structure in place, they would be taking that information in advanceAlso, I don&#039;t know how accurate BB&#039;s stats are and if they can determine how much profit they gained from each individual blogger. That&#039;s an interesting question that I regret to say I have not posed.Such an infrastructure does take time and money to impliment and, while it might be fair to say that they should have had it in place before going live, if they don&#039;t have it now, it&#039;s going to be a while.Just my thoughts on that...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gary,</p><p>Just to clarify, the infrastructure I was talking about is the infrastructure to pay bloggers. Currently, when you register for Blogburst, there&#8217;s no requirement to input your SSN or any other financial information. I&#8217;m forced to assume that, if they had a payment structure in place, they would be taking that information in advance</p><p>Also, I don&#8217;t know how accurate BB&#8217;s stats are and if they can determine how much profit they gained from each individual blogger. That&#8217;s an interesting question that I regret to say I have not posed.</p><p>Such an infrastructure does take time and money to impliment and, while it might be fair to say that they should have had it in place before going live, if they don&#8217;t have it now, it&#8217;s going to be a while.</p><p>Just my thoughts on that&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: JB</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-121794</link> <dc:creator>JB</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 17:55:01 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-121794</guid> <description>Gary,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just to clarify, the infrastructure I was talking about is the infrastructure to pay bloggers. Currently, when you register for Blogburst, there&#039;s no requirement to input your SSN or any other financial information. I&#039;m forced to assume that, if they had a payment structure in place, they would be taking that information in advance&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Also, I don&#039;t know how accurate BB&#039;s stats are and if they can determine how much profit they gained from each individual blogger. That&#039;s an interesting question that I regret to say I have not posed.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Such an infrastructure does take time and money to impliment and, while it might be fair to say that they should have had it in place before going live, if they don&#039;t have it now, it&#039;s going to be a while.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just my thoughts on that...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gary,</p><p>Just to clarify, the infrastructure I was talking about is the infrastructure to pay bloggers. Currently, when you register for Blogburst, there&#8217;s no requirement to input your SSN or any other financial information. I&#8217;m forced to assume that, if they had a payment structure in place, they would be taking that information in advance</p><p>Also, I don&#8217;t know how accurate BB&#8217;s stats are and if they can determine how much profit they gained from each individual blogger. That&#8217;s an interesting question that I regret to say I have not posed.</p><p>Such an infrastructure does take time and money to impliment and, while it might be fair to say that they should have had it in place before going live, if they don&#8217;t have it now, it&#8217;s going to be a while.</p><p>Just my thoughts on that&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Gary Farber</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-2333</link> <dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 17:31:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-2333</guid> <description>&quot;It would require that all of their partners remove Blogburst-referred content automatically after X number of years and have a system in place to deal with bloggers that change their mind. A license requiring payment would demand a financial infrastructure they do not have in place.&quot;This is actually not remotely a problem, as witness the contract offered by competitors such as TexTile, which I&#039;ll get around to blogging about.And their excuse about not having money upfront is nonsense.  The whole point of a royalty is that it isn&#039;t money upfront.  It&#039;s money that is a percentage of profits earned.  No profits into Blogburst, no outlay by them to bloggers.Claiming otherwise is a lie.The point of a royalty is that it calls for a percentage of &lt;i&gt;profits&lt;/i&gt;, not a percentage of income (this can cause problems and a need for audits of dishonest publishers, but I won&#039;t go into that here).But claiming that it&#039;s a strain to not grant royalties, a grant only of a share of deserved profits, and not income, is blatantly dishonest, given that it glosses over this basic fact.If there&#039;s no profit to the company, in this case Blogburst, they have no outlays to make, and no problem.What they&#039;re objecting to us sharing &lt;i&gt;profits&lt;/i&gt;, not income.  That&#039;s the Big Lie they&#039;re making.  And that makes me doubt their good faith (though possibly they&#039;re simply completely clueless).I&#039;ve updated my post to link to yours.I&#039;ll probably get around to expanding on this in a while, though I expect to be busy and not blogging much for a couple of days.Incidentally, recent posts on plagiarism include &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/fournier-recapitulates-lizza.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; not quite example by Ron Fournier,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/plagiarism-isnt-so-bad-when-you-head.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this about William H. Swanson, chief of Raytheon&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-only-stole-it-from-kids-also-wouldnt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, amongst various others in the past.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It would require that all of their partners remove Blogburst-referred content automatically after X number of years and have a system in place to deal with bloggers that change their mind. A license requiring payment would demand a financial infrastructure they do not have in place.&#8221;</p><p>This is actually not remotely a problem, as witness the contract offered by competitors such as TexTile, which I&#8217;ll get around to blogging about.</p><p>And their excuse about not having money upfront is nonsense.  The whole point of a royalty is that it isn&#8217;t money upfront.  It&#8217;s money that is a percentage of profits earned.  No profits into Blogburst, no outlay by them to bloggers.</p><p>Claiming otherwise is a lie.</p><p>The point of a royalty is that it calls for a percentage of <i>profits</i>, not a percentage of income (this can cause problems and a need for audits of dishonest publishers, but I won&#8217;t go into that here).</p><p>But claiming that it&#8217;s a strain to not grant royalties, a grant only of a share of deserved profits, and not income, is blatantly dishonest, given that it glosses over this basic fact.</p><p>If there&#8217;s no profit to the company, in this case Blogburst, they have no outlays to make, and no problem.</p><p>What they&#8217;re objecting to us sharing <i>profits</i>, not income.  That&#8217;s the Big Lie they&#8217;re making.  And that makes me doubt their good faith (though possibly they&#8217;re simply completely clueless).</p><p>I&#8217;ve updated my post to link to yours.</p><p>I&#8217;ll probably get around to expanding on this in a while, though I expect to be busy and not blogging much for a couple of days.</p><p>Incidentally, recent posts on plagiarism include <a
href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/fournier-recapitulates-lizza.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> not quite example by Ron Fournier, <a
href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/plagiarism-isnt-so-bad-when-you-head.html" rel="nofollow">this about William H. Swanson, chief of Raytheon</a>, and <a
href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-only-stole-it-from-kids-also-wouldnt.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, amongst various others in the past.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Gary Farber</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-121793</link> <dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 17:31:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-121793</guid> <description>&quot;It would require that all of their partners remove Blogburst-referred content automatically after X number of years and have a system in place to deal with bloggers that change their mind. A license requiring payment would demand a financial infrastructure they do not have in place.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This is actually not remotely a problem, as witness the contract offered by competitors such as TexTile, which I&#039;ll get around to blogging about.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And their excuse about not having money upfront is nonsense.  The whole point of a royalty is that it isn&#039;t money upfront.  It&#039;s money that is a percentage of profits earned.  No profits into Blogburst, no outlay by them to bloggers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Claiming otherwise is a lie.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The point of a royalty is that it calls for a percentage of &lt;i&gt;profits&lt;/i&gt;, not a percentage of income (this can cause problems and a need for audits of dishonest publishers, but I won&#039;t go into that here).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But claiming that it&#039;s a strain to not grant royalties, a grant only of a share of deserved profits, and not income, is blatantly dishonest, given that it glosses over this basic fact.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If there&#039;s no profit to the company, in this case Blogburst, they have no outlays to make, and no problem.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What they&#039;re objecting to us sharing &lt;i&gt;profits&lt;/i&gt;, not income.  That&#039;s the Big Lie they&#039;re making.  And that makes me doubt their good faith (though possibly they&#039;re simply completely clueless).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I&#039;ve updated my post to link to yours.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I&#039;ll probably get around to expanding on this in a while, though I expect to be busy and not blogging much for a couple of days.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Incidentally, recent posts on plagiarism include &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/fournier-recapitulates-lizza.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; not quite example by Ron Fournier,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/plagiarism-isnt-so-bad-when-you-head.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this about William H. Swanson, chief of Raytheon&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-only-stole-it-from-kids-also-wouldnt.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, amongst various others in the past.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It would require that all of their partners remove Blogburst-referred content automatically after X number of years and have a system in place to deal with bloggers that change their mind. A license requiring payment would demand a financial infrastructure they do not have in place.&#8221;</p><p>This is actually not remotely a problem, as witness the contract offered by competitors such as TexTile, which I&#8217;ll get around to blogging about.</p><p>And their excuse about not having money upfront is nonsense.  The whole point of a royalty is that it isn&#8217;t money upfront.  It&#8217;s money that is a percentage of profits earned.  No profits into Blogburst, no outlay by them to bloggers.</p><p>Claiming otherwise is a lie.</p><p>The point of a royalty is that it calls for a percentage of <i>profits</i>, not a percentage of income (this can cause problems and a need for audits of dishonest publishers, but I won&#8217;t go into that here).</p><p>But claiming that it&#8217;s a strain to not grant royalties, a grant only of a share of deserved profits, and not income, is blatantly dishonest, given that it glosses over this basic fact.</p><p>If there&#8217;s no profit to the company, in this case Blogburst, they have no outlays to make, and no problem.</p><p>What they&#8217;re objecting to us sharing <i>profits</i>, not income.  That&#8217;s the Big Lie they&#8217;re making.  And that makes me doubt their good faith (though possibly they&#8217;re simply completely clueless).</p><p>I&#8217;ve updated my post to link to yours.</p><p>I&#8217;ll probably get around to expanding on this in a while, though I expect to be busy and not blogging much for a couple of days.</p><p>Incidentally, recent posts on plagiarism include <a
href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/fournier-recapitulates-lizza.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> not quite example by Ron Fournier, <a
href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/05/plagiarism-isnt-so-bad-when-you-head.html" rel="nofollow">this about William H. Swanson, chief of Raytheon</a>, and <a
href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-only-stole-it-from-kids-also-wouldnt.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, amongst various others in the past.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Eric Newman</title><link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/05/18/blogburst-backlash/comment-page-1/#comment-2330</link> <dc:creator>Eric Newman</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 16:40:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=245#comment-2330</guid> <description>Thanks for the balanced assessment.  Just a bit of clarity around some of the click through rate issues.Two different topics here when it comes to CTR and hence two different numbers. For explanation&#039;s sake, there are three steps in the process we&#039;re describing:- Headline impression - This is the fair use content for a blog: headline + abstract + blog name.  These are shown 1-20 at a time on publisher pages in a &quot;headline widget&quot;
- Post view on the publisher site representing the full post content + full attribution a reader sees if they click on a headline
- The original blog visit which results when a reader reads a post on the publisher&#039;s site and clicks on the attribution or other links to visit the blogThe 15-30% number represents the Click Thru Rate of people who see a blog&#039;s full post on the publisher site and click through to the original blog.  We emphasized this number at the moment because some bloggers expressed concerns here that no one would bother to click from a full post on a publisher site to visit the original blog.  While the data is anectdotal, gathered from a few bloggers with pickup on our publisher sites, we are encouraged by this result as it shows that a sizeable percentage of readers visit a blog to learn more after reading a post on a publisher&#039;s site.  We are working to track this globally as part of blogger reporting so we have something more conclusive going forward.The 1% number is accurate as well.  It represents the CTR from headline impressions on publisher sites all the way through to a visit to the original blog.  While this number is low right now, if the 15-30% CTR from post view to original blog holds true as we scale, then the the goal should be to get more online newspaper readers to click on a headline and read a post on the publisher site as the CTR from the post to the original blog is already strong.  We are working on a number of ways to improve this number for everyone&#039;s benefit.Stay tuned for more info a www.burstblog.com.  We are making additional changes to smooth out the process and requirements for the service and will have updates on stats, etc going forward.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the balanced assessment.  Just a bit of clarity around some of the click through rate issues.</p><p>Two different topics here when it comes to CTR and hence two different numbers. For explanation&#8217;s sake, there are three steps in the process we&#8217;re describing:</p><p>- Headline impression &#8211; This is the fair use content for a blog: headline + abstract + blog name.  These are shown 1-20 at a time on publisher pages in a &#8220;headline widget&#8221;<br
/> - Post view on the publisher site representing the full post content + full attribution a reader sees if they click on a headline<br
/> - The original blog visit which results when a reader reads a post on the publisher&#8217;s site and clicks on the attribution or other links to visit the blog</p><p>The 15-30% number represents the Click Thru Rate of people who see a blog&#8217;s full post on the publisher site and click through to the original blog.  We emphasized this number at the moment because some bloggers expressed concerns here that no one would bother to click from a full post on a publisher site to visit the original blog.  While the data is anectdotal, gathered from a few bloggers with pickup on our publisher sites, we are encouraged by this result as it shows that a sizeable percentage of readers visit a blog to learn more after reading a post on a publisher&#8217;s site.  We are working to track this globally as part of blogger reporting so we have something more conclusive going forward.</p><p>The 1% number is accurate as well.  It represents the CTR from headline impressions on publisher sites all the way through to a visit to the original blog.  While this number is low right now, if the 15-30% CTR from post view to original blog holds true as we scale, then the the goal should be to get more online newspaper readers to click on a headline and read a post on the publisher site as the CTR from the post to the original blog is already strong.  We are working on a number of ways to improve this number for everyone&#8217;s benefit.</p><p>Stay tuned for more info a <a
href="http://www.burstblog.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.burstblog.com</a>.  We are making additional changes to smooth out the process and requirements for the service and will have updates on stats, etc going forward.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>

<!-- W3 Total Cache: Minify debug info:
Engine:             disk
Group:              single
JavaScript info:
   Location     |    Last modified    |         Size | Path
  include-nb    | 2010-03-17 19:49:38 |          422 | http://files.plagiarismtoday.com/scripts/dropdowns.js (/home/plagiari/public_html/wp-content/w3tc/min/minify_eee85f9a0229376e1be9e983e2ebaced.js)
-->

<!-- W3 Total Cache: CDN debug info:
Engine:             cf
-->

<!-- W3 Total Cache: Db cache debug info:
Engine:             disk
Total queries:      19
Cached queries:     4
Total query time:   0.047
SQL info:
    # | Time (s) |    Caching (Reject reason)     |   Status   | Query
    1 |    0.001 |  disabled (query is rejected)  | Not cached | SELECT option_name, option_value FROM wp_options WHERE autoload = 'yes'
    2 |        0 |  disabled (query is rejected)  | Not cached | SELECT option_value FROM wp_options WHERE option_name = 'aiosp_post_title_format' LIMIT 1
    3 |    0.001 |  disabled (query is rejected)  | Not cached | SHOW TABLES LIKE 'wp_feedfooter_rss_map'
    4 |    0.002 |            enabled             |   Cached   | SELECT comment_date_gmt FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_approved = '1' ORDER BY comment_date_gmt DESC LIMIT 1
    5 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT   wp_posts.* FROM wp_posts  WHERE 1=1  AND YEAR(wp_posts.post_date)='2006' AND MONTH(wp_posts.post_date)='5' AND DAYOFMONTH(wp_posts.post_date)='18' AND wp_posts.post_name = 'blogburst-backlash' AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post'  ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC
    6 |    0.023 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT wp_comments.* FROM wp_comments  WHERE comment_post_ID = '245' AND comment_approved = '1'  ORDER BY comment_date_gmt DESC LIMIT 10
    7 |    0.002 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT t.*, tt.*, tr.object_id FROM wp_terms AS t INNER JOIN wp_term_taxonomy AS tt ON tt.term_id = t.term_id INNER JOIN wp_term_relationships AS tr ON tr.term_taxonomy_id = tt.term_taxonomy_id WHERE tt.taxonomy IN ('category', 'post_tag') AND tr.object_id IN (245) ORDER BY t.name ASC
    8 |        0 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT post_id, meta_key, meta_value FROM wp_postmeta WHERE post_id IN (245)
    9 |        0 |            enabled             |   Cached   | SELECT post_id, meta_value FROM wp_postmeta WHERE meta_key='_pprredirect_url' and post_id in (SELECT post_id FROM wp_postmeta WHERE meta_key='_pprredirect_active')
   10 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2008-11-07 16:37:48'
   11 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2007-09-29 08:54:46'
   12 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-12-14 19:27:02'
   13 |    0.009 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-11-08 23:22:19'
   14 |    0.003 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-05-25 21:19:05'
   15 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-05-19 17:55:01'
   16 |        0 |            enabled             |   Cached   | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-05-19 17:55:01'
   17 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-05-19 17:31:52'
   18 |        0 |            enabled             |   Cached   | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-05-19 17:31:52'
   19 |    0.001 |            enabled             | Not cached | SELECT COUNT(comment_ID) FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 245 AND comment_parent = 0 AND comment_approved = '1' AND comment_date_gmt < '2006-05-19 16:40:34'
-->

<!-- W3 Total Cache: Page cache debug info:
Engine:             disk
Key:                w3tc_38f83a8a91137b00579cf1daa7aafb07_page_40d21e6e32c51e23ba9859fa1b7e3f9e
Caching:            disabled
Reject reason:      user agent is rejected
Status:             not cached
Creation Time:      0.600s
Header info:
X-Powered-By:       W3 Total Cache/0.8.5.2
X-Pingback:         http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/xmlrpc.php
Last-Modified:      Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:03:14 GMT
ETag:               "770181b5998a8d2590908f1e3f8bc811"
Content-Type:       text/xml; charset=UTF-8
-->