Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Technology

Hard-Coded Bias In Google Search Results? 257

Posted by timothy
from the where-the-pigeons-roost dept.
bonch writes "Technology consultant Benjamin Edelman has developed a methodology for determining the existence of a hard-coded bias in Google's search engine which places Google's services at the top of the results page. Searching for a stock ticker places Google Finance at the top along with a price chart, but adding a comma to the end of the query removes the Google link completely. Other variations, such as 'a sore throat' instead of 'sore throat,' removes Google Health from its top position. Queries in other categories provide links to not only Google services but also their preferred partners. Though Google claims it does not bias its results, Edelman cites a 2007 admission from Google's Marissa Mayers that they placed Google Finance at the top of the results page, calling it 'only fair' because they made the search engine. Edelman notes that Google cites its use of unbiased algorithms to dismiss antitrust scrutiny, and he recalls the DOJ's intervention in airlines providing favorable results for their own flights in customer reservation systems they owned."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hard-Coded Bias In Google Search Results?

Comments Filter:
  • by MaxOfS2D (1907678) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:38PM (#34287224) Homepage
    But I believe it'd be better if their own services didn't display as a result and more as a "hey look your favorite search engine has something for that" kind of thing
    • This is the most obvious "discovery" ever.

    • I just checked this and when I type in "stock ticker". the first search result is not for Google Finance. The first result that shows is Google Finance, but that is in the ads section. I always ignore anything in that part of the results when I do a google search. The only reason things are in that area is because they pay to be there, not because they are of any interest to me.
  • No Way!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by revlayle (964221) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:39PM (#34287236) Homepage
    Google's search engine thinks links to Google-related stuff is more relevant? HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!!
  • weird (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:40PM (#34287260)
    When I search goog, in google I get a link to google finance and then in the line right under it yahoo finance, MSN money, CNN money, Daily finance and Reuters. So what exactly is the problem? It seems like perhaps someones just nitpicking.
    • Re:weird (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonbryce (703250) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:11PM (#34287574) Homepage

      And it is quite clear that that isn't a search result, but rather some info at the top of the page.

      The first actual algorithmic search result for AAPL for example is Yahoo Finance (1st two results), then Google Finance, then Wall Street Journal.

      I'm in the UK so uk.finance.yahoo.com is first, then finance.yahoo.com. If you are searching in the US, then probably it doesn't show uk.finance.yahoo.com at all or it is much futher down the page along with the likes of sg.finance.yahoo.com.

    • Re:weird (Score:5, Informative)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:13PM (#34287598)

      When I search goog, in google I get a link to google finance and then in the line right under it yahoo finance, MSN money, CNN money, Daily finance and Reuters. So what exactly is the problem? It seems like perhaps someones just nitpicking.

      Someone seems to think they've "discovered" Google secretly "manipulating" search results when all they've done is "discover" a feature that Google is quite open about that certain search results get a special result which is not a product of the normal web-search put at the top.

      Google has for quite some time been building in features that attempt to recognize the special meaning of search terms, and will respond to searches that match one of the mechanisms they have for potential meaning with a special result.

      This is just as algorithmic as regular web search, but is a result of a term triggering a special algorithm (either a stock ticker symbol, which gives a special result that presents Google Finance info with links to other financial information sources, a formula that can be processed by Google Calculator in which case the calculator result appears before the normal web search results, etc.)

      • Re:weird (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gmack (197796) <gmack@innerfireNETBSD.net minus bsd> on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:20PM (#34287658) Homepage Journal

        It's the same thing that gives me UPS as the first link if I search for a UPS tracking number.

      • Re:weird (Score:5, Informative)

        by Qzukk (229616) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:40PM (#34287824) Journal

        Not only that, but I get the exact same feature with a graph and a link to finance.yahoo.com when I search for GOOG on yahoo and a bing.com/finance link when I search for GOOG on bing.

        omg they're all biased!

      • Re:weird (Score:5, Informative)

        by VTI9600 (1143169) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:46PM (#34288682)

        Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).

        The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons. This article, however, makes a logical, empirically supported argument for why Google *should* be subject to such scrutiny; because it is, in fact, engaging in the sorts of activities that anti-trust laws are meant to regulate. Namely, that it is using using its dominance in the search engine market to stifle competition in other areas.

        This is not "nitpicking", as the GP suggests. This is about the flow of global commerce (and the billions of real dollars associated) being unfairly diverted by one company through the seemingly innocuous practice of reordering search results. The question is not about whether or not Google is engaging in this behavior, but is instead about the ethical implications of doing so. It's a question of the point at which service to the public interest overrides Google's right to profit from its proprietary technology.

        When starting a debate over such an important topic, it's necessary to first perform a thorough investigation to reveal the facts of the case, even if most people would consider the results to be obvious. That's what this article does.

        • Re:weird (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DragonWriter (970822) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @03:10AM (#34289674)

          Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).

          Read the article. Its stupid. Seriously.

          The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons.

          Sure, and if you want to make an argument that their actively promoted, publicly announced, documented Universal Search feature is inconsistent with those statements, there may be a legitimate argument to be made about that.

          OTOH, most of TFA was an attempt to "prove" that Google was doing something secret and underhanded by pretending that Universal Search wasn't a publicly disclosed, widely promoted, well-documented feature and pretending to "discover" the feature.

          It's completely intellectually dishonest.

    • by thegarbz (1787294)
      When I searched "Finance" in www.google.com.au for the longest time the first result was Yahoo Finance with Google Finance being 4th or 5th result down the ladder. It's only the past month where this search actually yielded Google's own service first.

      The world is full of nitpicking. Just like the AV companies complaining about MS including their AV product in the windows download page, however they conveniently neglect to tell people that if you click "find antivirus software online" in the security act
  • Stupid Article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bradgoodman (964302) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:41PM (#34287264) Homepage
    That would be like me calling up my local lawnmower store looking for a lawnmower - and getting angry that they recommended I by a lawnmower that they sold, and I should buy it from them!

    If you don't like it...call a different lawnmower store!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by catbutt (469582)
      No, it's not the same. Especially not if they specifically advertise their service as being unbiased. And especially if they want to avoid antitrust scrutiny.

      If you want to make analogies, it's as if the lawn mower store happens to be owned by the same company that owns the local news station, and they do a review of lawn mowers on the news. Then people would be right in complaining about bias / conflict of interest.

      Whether or not Google has a right to do this legally, if they are claiming to be unbi
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Goaway (82658)

        Indeed it is not the same. Because it is even less of an issue.

        Google is detecting a stock symbol and putting some extra information above the actual search results! The actual search results are the same!

        • by catbutt (469582)
          My post assumed they were actually biasing the results themselves. For the case you describe, yeah, I have no problem with google doing that, mostly because it is very obvious what they are doing.
          • by VTI9600 (1143169)

            Deliberately inserting a self-serving link into a result set where one would not otherwise appear is, in fact, a case of bias. People don't mind it too much because they usually end up with good results in either case. Nor do they mind the fact that those results come directly from Google. In fact, some people may find it preferable to get all their info from and do all their shopping on one site.

            However, saying that we should not hold Google accountable because people like the service they provide is li

        • by VTI9600 (1143169)

          The actual search results are the same!

          RTFA...or perhaps just RTFSummary. The search results are not the same as they would otherwise be. That's the whole point.

    • by iammani (1392285)

      The problem is that, the store does not claim to be unbiased, but google does (for anti-trust reason). Anyway the whole thing is non-story, google does not reorder search results, it just adds a widget on top, that can give you more direct information from other google services.

    • how dare they give me something for free and tell me to use more of their products.

    • Search is different. The broker analogy is more accurate -- People's expectation with a search engine is that it's giving them accurate, neutral results. It's like thinking your stock broker is guiding you to buy certain stocks based on what will give you the best retirement -- then you find out actually he's been guiding you to stocks from companies that he does business with. (familiar from recent history.)

      Sure it's free speech and they're a corporation and have the right to make a profit. But there is
    • FWIW - I Googled "stupid articles" and neither google nor Slashdot were in the first page of results...
    • No, it's like asking your gardener what lawnmower is best, buying it on his recommendation, and then finding out he's getting paid to say that because the store owns his company.

    • Slashdot is totally biased!

      They have their name in huge print at the top of the page, and all the links go to various pages on their domain! Clearly they're biased toward themselves!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mysidia (191772)

      That would be like me calling up my local lawnmower store looking for a lawnmower. ..

      It's even worse than that... it's like asking someone at the store to show you the datasheet for a specific lawnmower (compare to: information about a specific stock symbol).

      And people claim the clerk is biased for offering to show you their store's copy of the datasheet, before telling you that you can go to a competitor's store across the street to get a copy of essentially the same datasheet.

      As clicking on Goog

  • by Dunbal (464142) * on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:43PM (#34287280)

    "Edelman notes that Google cites its use of unbiased algorithms to dismiss antitrust scrutiny, and he recalls the DOJ's intervention in airlines providing favorable results for its own flights in customer reservation systems they owned."

    Er, airlines sell tickets for profit. What exactly does Google make from you when you use their search engine?

    • Er, airlines sell tickets for profit. What exactly does Google make from you when you use their search engine?

      I'm sorry, are you high? Live in a cave? Under a rock?

      Google sells ad views (and more).

      • Google sells ad views.

        No, strangely they don't: they sell ad clicks.

        views, though wonderful and tracked: are not sold, infact they provide them for free*. only clicks cost you anything. like the last poster mentioned, the worse the results, the less likely you are to click on the ads, thus the business model is to provide the best searches, to find the add you were looking to click on.

        if you get a bad search on google, the ads (if even present) will reflect people's desire to market towards the terrible keywords you used.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by blair1q (305137)

      1. Sell ads to advertisers and give free ad-placement service to websites.
      2. Direct you to websites.
      3. Profit!

      Note the lack of "???" in step 2. These ain't no underpants gnomes here.

    • "Edelman notes that Google cites its use of unbiased algorithms to dismiss antitrust scrutiny, and he recalls the DOJ's intervention in airlines providing favorable results for its own flights in customer reservation systems they owned."

      Er, airlines sell tickets for profit. What exactly does Google make from you when you use their search engine?

      What do they make? Eight billion dollars a year.
      (bah, can't paste still. slashdot hates chrome. I was going to cite my source.)

      Do you think they do it just for fun? By keeping you in their services for longer, they continue to show you ads and make their money.

      Of course, I'm fine with all that.
      -Taylor

  • and? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by SIR_Taco (467460)

    Isn't that kind of like getting mad at Sears for trying to sell you a Kenmore (their own brand) appliance before offering you an LG?

    There's much more profit in pushing your own products.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SIR_Taco (467460)

      Wow... it's bee a long time since I've been moded redundant because, if I remember correctly, the last time I was moded redundant was a long time ago.

  • Not Search Results (Score:5, Informative)

    by Marc_Hawke (130338) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:49PM (#34287362)

    Did anyone read the article?

    The search results for 'acne' vs 'acne,' were exactly the same. The difference was where the search started.

    With the comma, the search results started immediately. Without the comma, the search results started after a 'Value-Added' section at the top of the page.

    This doesn't show a problem with Google's search engine or algorithm, it shows that in addition to the search feature, Google also has a 'Decision Engine' (to steal a phrase)...or whatever that Wolfram Alpha crap said about itself.

    This is exactly the same thing as the conversion/arithmetic functions that Google has. Is it Anti-trust for Google to automatically show you the "centimeters to inches" conversion instead of simply linking to another page that has a converter app?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by diegocg (1680514)

      Yeah, in think its part of the universal search [google.com] feature.

    • Maps and tickers are pretty clearly value-added features, as are the arithmetic operators, etc.

      Google health or the patent database, on the other hand, are a little more complicated. Just a little. They are an attempt to compete with existing companies in an advertising / content business where google doesn't yet have a toehold in the market.

      There's no way that the patent listing referred to in the article (999999), or the acne article, are more useful to the searcher than real algorithmic results wou
    • by chrb (1083577)

      This is exactly the same thing as the conversion/arithmetic functions that Google has. Is it Anti-trust for Google to automatically show you the "centimeters to inches" conversion instead of simply linking to another page that has a converter app?

      I was about to say something similar. Searching for "csco" versus "csco$", the results are identical, apart from the link to Google Finance at the top of the "csco" results. There is the issue that the Google Finance box appears identical to a regular search result, and gets a graphic icon, however, I would say that this is strongly compensated for by Google's inclusion of multiple links to competing web sites within the "value added Finance box" (links are "Google Finance Yahoo Finance MSN Money Dail

    • by VTI9600 (1143169)

      Why do people seem so oblivious to the notion that Google should be held accountable for anti-competetive behavior regardless of how much their customers love these "Value-Added" features, as you call them?

      Consider Microsoft or Apple, who have often attempted to block competition under the premise of delivering a consistent "user experience" or some other mumbo jumbo. This isn't about the millions of adoring fans who are already drinking the Kool-Aid, but is rather about protecting the rights of those who

    • It also shows that Google has lazy programmers... they can't regular expression out a comma?

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Superken7 (893292) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:51PM (#34287384) Journal

    The article is inaccurate. Google does not bias search results, the results which appear on top aren't regular search results, they are more like services.

    If I search for "the social network" as the article provides as proof of bias, I am happy to see a service presenting me with additional info which is certainly NOT a search result, but rather dynamically generated content. No search result can provide that, only google can because after all its their site.

    Besides, how awful would it be to have that special "generated" information not showing up first?? why would it be displayed in the 3rd, 4th, 6th position? It makes no sense! Because it ISN'T a web search result. It would also be an awful user experience.

    If I wasn't new here I would ask: "Why is this even news in slashdot land?" :P

    • by ildon (413912)

      I think one thing Google could do to address these kinds of complaints is to delineate it more clearly. To computer savvy people, it's pretty obviously a different, discrete "section" of the page than the actual search results, but to people like my grandma (and apparently the author of this article) it appears to simply be the first search result.

    • If you worked at a web startup whose business model is to charge theaters to syndicate movie times, you would feel differently.

      I am not saying google shouldn't be allowed to do this. They should. But people should understand Google's search results page is an expression of their business strategy. Not a scientific formula.
      • Except that they claim it is a scientific formula. That's what the article claims google said to the antitrust people at least.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by radish (98371)

          They claim that the search results portion is based on a formula. Not the whole page - and specifically not the "smart" stuff like calculator, stock prices, flight status etc.

  • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <.elmuerte. .at. .drunksnipers.com.> on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:53PM (#34287404) Homepage

    There's a difference between website search result and inline information from other google services.

    The first search result for GOOG yahoo finance, but the first thing shown, before the search results, is google's finance data (as if you were searching via google finance).

    "World map", "map of the usa", "shopping", no top places for google.

    "6*9" gives "54", but no webpage results... OMG HAX

  • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:53PM (#34287406) Homepage

    ... is the bloody stupid "autocorrect" thing. You know, where you type in something that doesn't have a lot of hits, and it comes back with "Showing results for . Click for results for ". A good example is "mkiss" which is a networking utility - type that in and you get millions of results for "kiss" which is totally the wrong thing.

    Google has become increasingly unusable. The stupid javascript preview thing is just about the last straw. I've since switched back to Altavista.

    • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:57PM (#34287454)
      Comrade, are you suggesting that you know better than Google? Please remain where you are, and someone will be there shortly to assist you to a re-education center.
    • by Flipao (903929)
      Right, so you got tired of Google what, yesterday?, and now you just happen to use Altavista who actually died a long time ago, it is now owned by Yahoo, who gets search results from Microsoft.

      What a coincidence!
    • by KiloByte (825081)

      I've since switched back to Altavista.

      Except that Altavista is long gone. And Yahoo is beyond useless, worse than even Bing with which it's going to merge.

    • by iammani (1392285)

      Start searching for +mkiss instead of mkiss. Case closed. Next!

      • it boggles my mind that people expect a search engine to read their thoughs. do you know how many people likely use google to search for "mkiss" vs the number that misspell "miss"? I'm guessing that's a hell of a slanted ratio.
  • So the left hand is not talking to the right and vice-versa. This is nothing new for companies, and especially not for ones the size of Google. Is the preference towards self-promotion appropriate? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Given that most nearly any company you make a purchase from will suggest you try their own related products instead of their competitors it certainly isn't out the realm of consumer expectations.
  • TFA is F stupid (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:53PM (#34287414)
    The things this moron is complaining about are not the "search results". Those are Google's helpful subject-based results. Like when I google "2+2", it helpfully returns 4. (OMG! Google is biased toward 4!) Whether adding helpful subject-based information that I didn't explicitly ask for is really helpful might be something to think about, but it has no bearing on any purported bias in the search results themselves.
  • Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pushing-robot (1037830) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:55PM (#34287426)

    On Google, Yahoo, Bing, and even WolframAlpha the "top link" for stock quotes is actually a widget that shows current stock info. Google's widget is the only one of the four that has links to all their competitors' finance sites.

    The same is true of health searches, travel searches, you name it... Google's widgets give you choices, the rest shuffle you to their sponsored site.

    Mod article troll.

  • by Lehk228 (705449) on Friday November 19, 2010 @07:56PM (#34287434) Journal
    they only do this with search results that "break out" with more than the standard web snippet, as a user this means that you can usually type your query for any google service (a map location, etc.) into the regular google input rather than first navigating to the relevant subdomain. i find this very helpful if i am doing a series of things, such as looking up information about something local to me finding the website, then using that to pull up a map from google.

    they are not messing with search results order, they are putting a breakout at the top of the results when your query hits potentially relevant results on one of their other functions.
  • by Flipao (903929) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:01PM (#34287486)
    First result was MSN money.

    Benjamin Edelman is a troll.
  • I call shenanigans. I'm quite sure it is algorithmic and properly parametrized.

  • Why is this presented as if it was a discovery of a secret nefarious plot? Google is very open with the fact that for certain search terms, they put a special result (often from another Google service) as the first result, before the normal web search results. (This is true of, aside from terms that are Google Health keywords and stock ticker symbols, anything that matches a pattern that is a valid Google Calculator calculation [e.g., "1 furlong/fortnight"]

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:39PM (#34287816) Homepage

    There's a lot going on here.

    First, the "comma" thing strongly affects Google Suggest, which drives Google Instant. It also affects Google Web Search, but not as strongly. Google Suggest, which comes up with those alternatives for Instant, isn't driven by Google PageRank; it's driven by Google Trends. Or rather, it used to be; it's not as strongly trend-driven as it was a few months ago. That's really a side issue.

    Then there are the special-purpose subengines - stocks, health, celebrities, weather, sports, travel, etc. That was actually a Yahoo innovation. Yahoo introduced that in early 2008, with about fifty subengines, and for six months, their search was more on topic than Google's. Few noticed. (I found out about it at a talk by a Yahoo VP.) Then Google copied that idea, and now every major search engine has it. Some of the subengines won't fire with a trailing comma present. The subengines are what the article author is talking about as "hard-coded bias".

    Subengines have been around since 2008. What's changing is that some of them now actually sell something. The "weather" and "stocks" subengines don't try to sell anything. The "travel" subengine is different. Try "flight from london to new york". Google has partners ready to sell you tickets. There's a "products" subengine. "dvd player" gets Google results for brands, stores, and types, directing you to Google partners. For neither travel nor products are these entries identified as advertisements.

    This is where Google is pushing the line between search results and paid ads. This previously got them into trouble with the Federal Trade Commission back in 2002. [ftc.gov] Now it's more subtle, but it's back.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      Then there are the special-purpose subengines - stocks, health, celebrities, weather, sports, travel, etc. That was actually a Yahoo innovation. Yahoo introduced that in early 2008

      An "innovation" that Ask.com had since at least 2002. But hey, who's counting? :)

      What's changing is that some [subengines] now actually sell something.

      Again, not as new as you think.

  • by wiredlogic (135348) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:52PM (#34287920)

    Google has only claimed that they don't bias results of one third party in favor of another (provided no one is playing SEO games). They've never claimed to treat their own services impartially in their search results. They shouldn't be expected to.

    • by khchung (462899)

      They've never claimed to treat their own services impartially in their search results. They shouldn't be expected to.

      Just like Microsoft should be expected to give unequal treatment to 3rd party apps vs MS apps on windows, eh? So you fully support MS apps using secret APIs to get preferential treatment on Windows?

  • by noidentity (188756) on Friday November 19, 2010 @08:56PM (#34287952)
    Check this out... I search for "bing", and what do I get? A big Google link to the left of the search box. It's even above the search results, in special colors and everything. Talk about biasing the results in favor of Google services! Even worse, the tile bar... TITLE BAR of the window says "Google Search", even though I searched for Bing! The nerve of these people. The DOJ should come down HARD on them for this clear monopoly abuse.
  • Edelman cites a 2007 admission from Google's Marissa Mayers that they placed Google Finance at the top of the results page, calling it 'only fair' because they made the search engine

    How is this any different than MSFT saying "We made IE as the default browser because we made the OS"?

  • come on people (Score:2, Insightful)

    nothing in life is free...

  • Perhaps.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by QuietLagoon (813062) on Friday November 19, 2010 @09:44PM (#34288324)
    Perhaps it really shows how great google has been at acquiring businesses that are relevant in the Internet Age.
  • Pick One: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Friday November 19, 2010 @10:12PM (#34288498) Homepage Journal

    1. Don't be evil

    2. Get filthy rich

  • I TRY to get Google finance when looking at how money exchange and stock. Google likes to point to Yahoo and others (which are all junk).
  • The finance tickers and other things like weather in Google are called "One Boxes," which are ways to trigger off custom results based on regular expressions. We use them in my work as Google Search Appliance customers, and they work in very much the same way on a search appliance. If someone puts in a ticker with a comma, for example, it might make the One Box disappear because the rules governing it don't allow for that. I don't think that should be considered a bias in the case of specific queries which

  • Cisco (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jk379 (734476)
    Searching for switch on Cisco's web site only returns results that have to do with Cisco equipment news at 11. Duh, Google is going to cross promote.
  • by herojig (1625143) on Friday November 19, 2010 @11:54PM (#34288954) Homepage
    This is silly, if I type acne vs acne, i get the same exact results list. There are no google-biased links at the top. But there are almost 1 million more hits for acne then when Edelman created the posted screen captures...that's telling.
  • by ideonexus (1257332) * on Saturday November 20, 2010 @12:40AM (#34289112) Homepage Journal

    I saw this article earlier in the week and decided not to submit it to /. because it said the following:

    But for a subset of search terms, adding a trailing comma yields a large change in results. Add a comma to a finance term, for example requesting "CSCO," rather than "CSCO". Suddenly, the prominent Google Finance links disappear.

    I tried this. Without the comma, Yahoo Finance came up as the first result. With the comma, Yahoo Finance came up as the first result. If I can't reproduce your experiment's results, then I view your whole hypothesis with skepticism.

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...