<div class="wrapper">
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/sidebar.jsp">
        <jsp:param name="menuCategoryType" value="suggest"/>
        <jsp:param name="menuType" value="badWord"/>
    </jsp:include>
    <div class="content-wrapper">
        <div class="content-header">
            <div class="container-fluid">

<div class="wrapper">
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/sidebar.jsp">
        <jsp:param name="menuCategoryType" value="suggest"/>
        <jsp:param name="menuType" value="elevateWord"/>
    </jsp:include>
    <div class="content-wrapper">
        <div class="content-header">
            <div class="container-fluid">

<div class="wrapper">
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/sidebar.jsp">
        <jsp:param name="menuCategoryType" value="suggest"/>
        <jsp:param name="menuType" value="elevateWord"/>
    </jsp:include>
    <div class="content-wrapper">
        <div class="content-header">
            <div class="container-fluid">

 *       suppression. This would follow the precedent of many of our annotation processors, which
 *       look for any annotation named, e.g., "GwtIncompatible," regardless of package.
 *   <li>An annotation named just "Suppress" might suggest to users that the test is suppressed
 *       under all environments. We could fight this by fully qualifying the annotation, but the
 *       result will be verbose and attention-grabbing.

                    }
                } catch (final Exception e) {
                    logger.warn("Failed to read a sugget elevate word: {}", list, e);
                }
            }
            elevateWordBhv.refresh();
        } catch (final IOException e) {
            logger.warn("Failed to read a sugget elevate word.", e);
        }
    }

    public void exportCsv(final Writer writer) {

    }

    protected GeoInfo createGeoInfo(final HttpServletRequest request) {
        return new GeoInfo(request);
    }

    public enum SearchRequestType {
        SEARCH, ADMIN_SEARCH, JSON, GSA, SUGGEST;
    }

    public String[] getResponseFields() {
        return ComponentUtil.getQueryFieldConfig().getResponseFields();
    }

   * such as:
   *
   * - Make checkOpen return the non-null `seq`. Then callers can assign that to a local variable or
   *   even back to `this.seq`. However, that may suggest that we're defending against concurrent
   *   mutation, which is not an actual risk because we use `synchronized`.
   * - Make `remaining` require a non-null `seq` argument. But this is a bit weird because the

   * such as:
   *
   * - Make checkOpen return the non-null `seq`. Then callers can assign that to a local variable or
   *   even back to `this.seq`. However, that may suggest that we're defending against concurrent
   *   mutation, which is not an actual risk because we use `synchronized`.
   * - Make `remaining` require a non-null `seq` argument. But this is a bit weird because the

   * process in any way, for example being sent over RPC, or saved to disk. For a general-purpose,
   * non-cryptographic hash function that will never change behavior, we suggest {@link
   * #murmur3_128}.
   *
   * <p>Repeated calls to this method on the same loaded {@code Hashing} class, using the same value
   * for {@code minimumBits}, will return identically-behaving {@link HashFunction} instances.

    this.pattern = Preconditions.checkNotNull(pattern);
  }

  /*
   * Our implementation works fine with a null `dir`. However, there's nothing in the documentation
   * of the supertype that suggests that implementations are expected to tolerate null. That said, I
   * see calls in Google code that pass a null `dir` to a FilenameFilter.... So let's declare the