> I now know.. You prove it is an acceptable user experience. Of course it's easy to scroll past ads. When I read Encyclopedia Brittanica, there are no sourc

> I now know.. You prove it is an acceptable user experience. Of course it's easy to scroll past ads. When I read Encyclopedia Brittanica, there are no sources. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to grab the book off of the shelf, but it'd still be wrong for Google to copy it. If the data is no better than Wikipedia, why didn't Google copy Wikipedia? With all their PhDs and $100M bonuses, they could not do better. They copied CNW because the CNW dataset was better. The fakes prove it. To deny the CNW's data's worth is illogical, pitchforks or no pitchforks.