Sean is a clean-cut radio personality.  I seek his date of birth.

Hello.

The Library of Congress identifies Sean Hannity's year of birth as
1961.
Source: LOC catalog entry for a book that Sean wrote:
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&DB=local&CMD=010a+2002068107&CNT=10+records+per+page

Sean's web site identifies December 30 as his birthday.

"On 12/30/02:   Happy Birthday Sean! We did a 'Hannitizing' birthday
card for the occasion. You may also sign your own birthday wishes."
source: Hannity.com
http://www.hannity.com/index.cfm/bay/content.siteupdates.htm

Thus, we can conclude that Sean's date of birth is December 30, 1961.

search strategy:
"sean hannity" birthday
catalog.loc.gov: author: hannity sean

I hope this helps.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by bluestreak-ga on 12 Jun 2003 22:31 PDT

Dear juggler, missy and magnesium,                                    
         This is bluestreak.  I have requested the google.answers team
to allow me to correct those answers that were as complete as could
be, but were low-rated by me, due to I didn't feel the question wasn't
hard enough to merit a 5 rating. Now that I know about how the
researchers are rated by google.answeres, I want to go back and
correct my low-rating of my researchers friends.  Out of a total of 51
sucessful answers, I had given 36 a 5 rating. Of the 15 remaining
correct answers, I have requested correcting 9 questions by 5
researchers (luciaphile,juggler,bizguy,skermit, websearcher). There
were 6 questions, where I had to take good leads and milk them hard
until I came up with sucessful answers.  So I didn't feel it was
unfair to award a 4 rating where I wasn't given the answers, but good
leads.  On many of my good leads, I still awarded 5 stars.  So
hopefully, google will let me correct my low-rating my heroes. Much
goodwill & apologies.  Best regards.  bluestreak

---

Clarification of Answer by juggler-ga on 12 Jun 2003 23:15 PDT

Hello Bluestreak,
Thank you for your message. I appreciate your good intentions, but
please don't go to any trouble.  A few stars here or there aren't a
big deal to me. Don't worry about it.
Thanks.
-juggler

Juggler,                                                              
        Your speed hasn't diminished one iota!  And your accuracy is
100 %, as usual.  Thank you so much for looking over my question. 
It's good to work with you again, old friend.  bluestreak

Thanks for the tip, Bluestreak.  Nice to see you back!
-juggler

It is very puzzling to see a customer lavish praise on a researcher
and give him a tip, then slap him with a 3-star rating that indicates
mediocrity. This looked like 5-star work to me.

Magnesium,                                                            
         Good afternoon, magnesium.  I hadn't been aware that 3 stars
was considered a low rating.  But perhaps this is a case where I can
learn something.  Is there a place where the number of stars is
designated a valuation?  If not, I will certainly give your point a
major re-consideration!  I thank you very much for taking the time to
bring this awareness to my attention.  I appreciate the opportunity to
improve my ratings.  Thank you so much for helping me.  bluestreak

Bluestreak,

My comment may have sounded rude. I am sorry if that was the case,
since I did not mean it in a disrespectful sense. In the matter of the
valuation of "stars", I can think of two useful analogies for the
5-star rating system.

In American public schools, many students receive grades of A, B, C,
D, or F. Since that's a scale with five options, I think it is a good
parallel for the Google Answers scale. So a three-star rating would be
like a grade of C, which means "acceptable." A four-star rating would
be a B, which means "good." And a five-star rating would be an A,
which means "excellent."

Another valid way to look at it is in percentages. 3 stars out of 5 is
60%, so in rating an answer at 3 stars, you are saying you're only 60%
satisfied, or that the answer was only 60% complete. 4 stars would be
80%, 5 stars would be 100%, and such. If a question has a single
definitive "correct" answer, I beleive that a rating of 5 stars is
called for when the researcher comes up with that answer, and
documentation to back it up.

If you examine the ratings profiles of the researchers (do this by
clicking on the researcher's name) you can see that the very best
researchers (like juggler-ga) have an average rating of 4.5 stars and
above. A single 3 star rating is going to drag that down quite a bit.
If I were a researcher with a 4.5 point average, I think I would feel
that I had let down my customer if I got less than a 4 star rating. I
would wonder "What more did he want?"

I have seen several researchers mention that their ratings are
important because it is by ratings that Google decides whether or not
to retain a researcher on the Google Answers team. I would hate to
contribute to the downfall of a good researcher by giving him lower
ratings when he had, in fact, answered my question completely.

Again, I apologise if I sound harsh or bossy. I suppose I am defensive
of these researcher folks who have given me so much interesting
reading, and more than a few good laughs!

-Mag

Dear Magnesium,                                                       
         I did not know about the inside stuff.  How google evaluates
its researchers.  You have given me a new level to consider, that
previously I was unaware of.  I take off my hat to no one in my
admiration of our google researchers.  I once had a lot of questions
concurrently and they became my heroes.  I wish I knew then what you
have just told me.  At that time, I rated my questions on difficulty
factor.  I knew most of my questions were not going to be found, but I
had to try.  But shockingly, several of my "impossible" questions WERE
found.  And that perhaps distorted my perception of difficulty. For my
Hannity question, I had it pegged at about a 3 star level of
difficulty, due to his prominence as a media personality.  So even
though a researcher answers a question as perfectly as is humanly
possible, I was using a "difficulty factor" evaluation. So that is how
perceptions differed on that question.  But now I stand fortified with
newly added awareness, and I can assure you that my ratings will
reflect a more fair reality for researchers, regardless of
"difficulty".  Thank you for such a valuable lesson.  I am indebted. 
bluestreak

Hi Bluestreak,

Welcome back! 

I knew that the ratings were a bit of a puzzlement to some of our
customers, but I had no idea they were interpreted in the fashion you
have.

Do you have any suggestions for how the purpose of the ratings can be
made more clear to customers?  I'm sure the Editors would be happy to
hear them, and I know the Researchers would be thrilled.

Magnesium, thank you for your thorough explanation, I'm sure it'll
clear up a lot of confusion for *many* customers.  Perhaps the Editors
should add it to the FAQ!

--Missy

Hello Misssy!                                                         
         Now that this question has been brought to my attention, I
would have to say that there needs to be a focused introduction to
this process.  If at the beginning of my own involment, I had been sat
down and made aware of how the researchers are been rated and
evaluated, I could have then rated my researchers on a different, more
fair basis.  This is something I will communicate to google.answers
management team in the most clear, direct way possible.  In fact, I
will try to call them, which I have done in the past, and go to bat
for the google researchers.  They certainly deserve it, after I
low-rated many perfect answers, in innocent ignorance.  They deserve
no less!  This is an education for me.  This is such a valuable
service, it deserves fine-tuning and perfecting.  Long live the
fighters!!  Much love for my past "crimes".  bluestreak