Ryan explained that the reference to monitoring more closely meant perhaps five or six times a day. Nevertheless, it would involve looking at each of the relevant comments. 76 Ms Ryan was asked some questions about the article that was placed by Nationwide News on the public website and accepted that the article was not favourably disposed to the plaintiff, but could not say whether any member of staff at Nationwide News assessed whether posting the article would excite members of the public to comment adversely about the plaintiff. Apparently, no system is in place for such an assessment or for action to be taken if, notwithstanding the absence of a system, an assessment were to have been made. 77 Ms Ryan accepted that seemingly defamatory material was a “thoroughly predictable” result of posting the relevant article onto the public Facebook page. Further again, Ms Ryan was unable to say whether any monitoring occurred of the comments in relation to the plaintiff. 78 As the evidence of Ms Ryan makes clear, it is important to Nationwide News that there are comments on the webpage, amongst other reasons, because it motivates others to comment and the greater the number of comments, then the rating for the public Facebook page becomes higher, which, in turn, markets the page to a greater number of members of the public and, in turn, markets the newspaper to a greater number. 79 This latter aspect was emphasised in the cross-examination of Ms Phan, who testified to the fact that one of the leading reasons to have a public Facebook page was to engage the interests of Facebook users in order to optimise the number of persons that may, by that process, subscribe to an electronic version of one of the media publications produced. Nevertheless, Ms Phan was a difficult witness who was somewhat obfuscatory, if not obdurate: see, for example, T, p 132.47 to 133.8. Ms Phan seemed to know little, or could recall little about the purpose or operation of the public Facebook page from the perspective of Fairfax. 80 Mr Pfeiffer was in a slightly different position to the other witnesses in that the Centralian Advocate is a much smaller operation and, in terms of the public