The P.A.S.F. planksip Filter

The acronym within the P.A.S.F. filter stands for “People Also Search For” and is a Google search feature found in the schema section of searched results. We are interested in the intellectual Giants, such as Max Planck.

Max Plank and planksip namesake; incipit edification

I typically compile the search results for the intellectual giants of the past and present. The filter also works for place and some concept-based searches. The applications I have used it for are book reviews and literary analysis.

I will share with you the results from the following;

  1. Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now

  2. Roget Thesaurus

  3. A study comparing Catholic, Atheist, and Philosophical Thinkers

  4. Philosopher Café - How is philosophy different from religion?

  5. A personal Index of Interesting Words & Terms from

  6. Scientists and Philosophers are listed on the Information Philosopher website.

The P.A.S.F. filter was also used for George Steiner’s book review on Grammars of Creation; Chapter 23 - Deterministic swirls of goo and a Book Review.

Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker

The index of Steven’s title lists over six-hundred people in the book. Although it’s a little time-consuming and tedious, I transposed this list of people from the index into a spreadsheet, then ran the filter, which returns up to twenty-five “also searched for” persons. This data has always intrigued me. The patterns from the aggregate tell us something significant about who people search for about the other people mentioned in a book, chapter, or series of books.

For reasons that I would consider a conflict of personal interest, not a  potential copyright violation, I have purposely left the data, analysis, and interpretation of data out of this book. Besides, I have plenty of praise for Pinker and my vote for President.

If Steve, as he responds to emails, were to permit to release the data, I would be more than happy to share. I will send him a request.

Roget On Space and the Implicate Order

According to Roget, the top ten quoted phrases in the English language are from the following Giants…

William Shakespeare, John Milton, Horace, Alexander Pope, Vergil (poet), Ovid, Alfred Tennyson, Cicero, Lord Byron, and Terence.

Newtonian Giants within Roget's Thesaurus

The above chart shows the total number of single references in a blue bar, the sum of references greater than one in an orange bar, and trend lines showing the sum of the top ten references and the sum of references to William Shakespeare. A couple of points worthy of discussion include William Shakespeare as the clear choice of phrase for Roget and the fragmentation of section II. Section II refers to words relating to space. By fragmentation, I refer only in comparison to other categories. The sum of references greater than one is seventeen (17), versus the sum of single references, which is eighteen (18). This is almost a 1:1 relationship. I describe space-related words as fragmented, specifically related to quotes from our intellectual giants. Did Shakespeare have much to say about nothing?

The following quote from Richard II, "who can cloy the hungry edge of appetite?" and "now good digestion, wait on appetite, and health on both!" from Macbeth are about eating and filling that space that sustains. "I'll put a girdle about the earth in forty minutes," "swifter than arrow from the Tartar's bow," and "a local habitation and a name” are from Midsummer Night’s Dream.

A Catholic, an Atheist, and a Philosopher

The results are surprising but inconclusive, to say the least, all of which are reduced to insignificance. We are all connected whether we like it or not.

How is philosophy different from religion?

Do these two traditions have different parameters for debate and discussion?

I will start with a little subjective thought and counterpoint these thoughts with an objective framework to work through tonight's question. Let's set the stage for tonight's café. Appreciate the value in the following...

Tonight's narrator is a forensic philosopher, looking for the blind spots and filling the gaps with wisdom from the Hellenic and others.

Then I thought of Nietzsche in the decline of his mind, collapsing around the neck of an abused horse, he sobbed over the wretchedness of the situation. But why did he sob so? Imagine your mind's perception of reality collapsing in on itself to the point where your bind spots were as big as the harness will hold. This is worse than slavery, this is an eradication of truth. Imagine your mind eroding like that. Nietzsche saw the peak of the mountaintop but realized it would be an Überman to make it to the summit.
Caspar David Friedrich 1774-1840 - Dutch Symbolist Painter

Topic: How is philosophy different from religion?

Sub Topic: Do these two traditions have different parameters for debate and discussion?

On to the Empirical - Change Management

In Religion, how does debate happen?

In Philosophy, how does debate happen?

I had to dig deep with this question. My bias places me on the side of philosophy. Knowing this, I focus on any instance of change over time and compare my precious Sofia with the dogma of the world's religions. Remember to the Delta, not the Oracle.

Speaking of the Oracle, a data scrape from the Oracle is acceptable; from the data, we can then look for changes over time.

At the highest level, we have the two terms... Philosophy versus Religion

Using the P.A.S.F. filter, Google structures philosophy with Greek Philosophers (notice the Hellenic Hegemony) and cross-disciplinary fields as follows...

Greek Philosophers Correlated with Philosophy

Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Democritus, Epicurus, Zeno of Elea, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Antisthenes, Gorgias, Plutarch, Hippocrates, Proclus, Chrysippus, Crates of Thebes, Archimedes, Solon, Thucydides, Archytas, Arcesilaus, Posidonius, Hypatia, Eudoxus of Cnidus, Galen, Strato of Lampsacus, Sotion, Adeimantus of Collytus, Socrates, Glaucon, Nicomachus, Hermias, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Stilpo, Empedocles, Anaxarchus, Cornelius Castoriadis, Theophrastus, Euhemerus, Strabo, Hippo, Dio Chrysostom, Diagoras of Melos, Apollodorus of Athens Periander, Aristoxenus, Nausiphanes, Ion of Chios, and Menipppus.

Academic Fields Correlated with Philosophy

Science, Education, Ethics, History, Psychology, Art, Literature, Sociology, Politics, Epistemology, Logic, Music, Aesthetics, Translation, Mathematics, Physics, Language, Biology, Physiology, Spirituality, Law, Economics and Anthropology.

Religious Movies Correlated with the search term, "Religion"

Noah, The Passion of the Christ, Exodus: Gods and Kings, War Room, Courageous, Heaven is for Real, Silence, God's Not Dead, Soul Surfer, I Can Only Imagine, Son of God, Dogma, The Prince of Egypt, Fireproof, Facing the Giants, The Da Vinci Code, Evan Almighty, Bruce Almighty, One Night with the King, Jesus, The Last Temptation o..., The Mission, Monty Python's Life..., The Secrets ... Jonathan Sp..., Religulous, Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Last Days in the Desert, Leap of Faith, The Omega Code, The Apostle, Left Behind: The Movie, The Message, Left Behind II: Tribulation F..., The Greatest Story Ever T..., The Shack, The Nativity Story, Chariots of Fire, The Robe, Kink of Kings, The Gospel According to..., Megiddo: The Omega Cod..., Jesus of Montreal, Elmer Gantry, The Bible: In the Beginning, The Song of Bernadette, The Seventh Seal, PK, This is the End and A Man for All Seasons.

People also search for... (Search term, "Religion")

Politics, History, Science, Education, Translation, Literature, Ethics, Writing, Music, Psychology, Technology, Geography, Mathematics, Violence, Sociology, Archaeology, Biology, Immigration, Biography, and to my biased delight; Evolution.

In Philosophy, which is better? Asking questions or answering questions?

Let's beg the question (implying that asking questions is better), except when theories can be falsified; in that case, answers are preferred. As you can see, a logical order or hierarchy is forming here with evidence-based truth at the top, questions make up the middle ground, and traditions, rituals, and generational wisdom cradling the bottom. For all you religious fundamentalists out there, this structure can easily be reversed by simply saying that evidence-based knowledge is fundamental and the top level of the structure. Doric as it may be, we live in an Ancient Greek Hegemony.  

Google structures a schema panel with "Greek Philosophers" as axiomatic to the search term, "Philosopher." On its own, a response would return nothing but crickets; compared to the search term "Religion," we see 50 movies, most of which appear to be Christian. If these results are not self-evident, we have a fundamental mismatch of what constitutes a difference. Is there geolocation variation in these search results? It doesn't appear so, but you could see if the structure is already in place for some pretty powerful constructivist philosophy with blind spots in the data.

What if truth favored the instrumental outcomes of a ritual-based, dogmatic society? It has happened in the past, and we have the artwork to prove it, the longest of which must certainly be the creative output of Ancient Egypt. The cultural blinding would surely be God's death and the spread of Dogma; careful what you wish for. A shift to this particular paradigm of thought would look more like a smashing blow backward; away from the light has to be a violation of the allegory and embodiment of the Saviour or Prophet or sacred text. oppressive, especially because we too have to see the mountaintop and wait for the embodiment of the Ubermensch to emerge. Waiting would be dark days indeed for Liberty with the blinders of light strapped to our faces. Remember this when you see the domination of search terms populated with pop culture titles and all the dogmatic mechanisms driving them.

What is an allegory? This is a term that I structured to combine story-telling (allegory) within the structure of a pedagogy. Philosophy should take the lead in this initiative and not govern itself. Doing is the next Dasein or the Neo-Dasien or Dasein version 2.0, and if you are a faithful Hegelian, Doing is the antithesis of Dasein. The contradiction is not definite; Heidegger doesn't own the right to Be in any forest, clearing, or structure. Let's digress to the mean within the general population, which defines Doing as a branch of a new practiced Philosophy called Applied Philosophy. This is my suggestion, and if it were an area of Academic study, I would apply myself.

Interesting Words & Terms

Compiled over two years (and growing), this list is a subjectively selected list of interesting words and terms. Many of the words in this list involved a pause and dictionary look-up to add greater context to the material I was reading.

i-phi Website Pre-Analysis

Using the planksip P.A.S.F. filter as a baseline for data analysis


The Information Philosopher website,, is the cumulative effort of Bob Doyle to present his perspectives as the “Information Philosopher”. I extracted a total of 367 philosophers (220) and scientists (147) from the navigation menu of his website. The data was extracted in March of 2018.

I created independent Google Sheet spreadsheets with links back to the corresponding web pages for quick reference and to support the baseline data in this analysis.

220 Philosophers are available for viewing at:

Information Philosopher - Philosophers
Sheet1 <a href=“”>Mortimer Adler</a><a href=“”>Rogers Albritton</a><a href=“”>Alexand...

147 Scientist available for viewing at:

Information Philosopher - Scientists
Sheet1 <a href=“”>Michael Arbib</a><a href=“”>Walter Baade</a><a href=“…

Using the P.A.S.F. planksip filter, the maximum results per iteration would be as follows...

Iteration #1 - 8,808 (maximum): 367 x 24 = 8,808

Iteration #2 - 211,392 (maximum): 8,808 x 24 = 211,392

Results from Iteration 1 and Iteration 2.

The total number of retrieved results was 63,223. Why not 211,392, as highlighted above as a possible maximum? The 63,223 results we received are approximately one-third of the total possible results. Google offers a maximum of 24 results per person searched in the schema.

In the example above, Max Planck shows where this data is pulled from. What are the results when the 63,223 results are collected and analyzed?

Interpreting the Results

Regarding Big Data, 63,223 results are a relatively small data set and only used as an initial proof of concept. Running these results to a magnitude of ten (ten iterations) will yield maximums as follows…

Assuming the same ⅓ yield of possible results would return 7.76 quadrillions (7,756,346,938,097,660). This assumption is meaningless because a ⅓ yield as we increase from iteration 2 to 10 is unknown. Further data analysis would be required and not covered in this analysis, however, is worthy of future consideration. Patterns can emerge in many ways; algorithms exist to identify patterns we do not notice. A move to A.I. (Augmented Intelligence) is something that I discuss in Will Freeman (a literary fiction title).

Imagine running this every second, twenty-four hours per day on every website, every book, and every interaction on the website. The need for algorithms to make sense of data is the mission of planksip and a foundation of p(x) philosophy.

Iteration 10 (above) is over 23 quadrillion. Although the human mind can “handle” 38 quadrillion computations per second, the portion of our cognition used for mathematics is but a small portion of this potentiality. Making sense of this data or parsing the information is best left to algorithms and Big Data analytics.

Regarding the i-phi website, we only ran to the second iteration with 63,223 results. From these results, the following is a summary…


Duplicate values were found and removed; 5,669 unique values remain. Over 91% of the search terms were duplicates. When comparing other data sets using the P.A.S.F. planksip filter, this comparison between duplicates within the results is tracked and monitored over time.

From this point, I reduced the list further and removed any name that did not return a full list of twenty-four P.A.S.F. results (independently). This reduced the list of 5,669 by 18% to 4,639. This reduction aims to identify other academically recognized Thought Leaders and strip people of “lesser” consequences. I am hesitant to label certain searches for people as “lesser” or “inconsequential.” However, it has more to do with available information than prejudice. Consider a book review and structure the review's framework on the general public's search patterns. This is appealing to planksip for propagating thought concepts and other academics and non-fiction authors. More can be said on this subject but is beyond the scope of this analysis. Or consider a framework for literary analysis. Many universities worldwide study literature, and I propose this framework, or a variation thereof, as a praxis of planksip.


Total of Single Occurrences: 1,262
Percentage: 27.17%

Sum of Occurrences Greater than 1: 3,383
Percentage: 72.83%

Sum of Top Ten Occurrences: 473
Percentage: 10.18%

At this point, I would like to find out who has the highest mentions or number of occurrences by searching for the person.

For a full list of the 1,845 instances without duplicates, view the Google Spreadsheet with the link below…

The very first thing that you should notice is cell A2; Socrates and Plato are combined into one single unit with 62 occurrences. This means that between Plato and Socrates and the 63,223 results, the highest repeating searched person was Socrates and Plato. The combined total was 62. The reason for combining the Socrates and Plato occurrences is because it makes the subsequent comparisons interesting. I refer to the ranked comparison by occurrences or the searched for people compared to Socrates and Plato as an S&P multiplier. “S” refers to Socrates, and “P” refers to Plato. Below are the top 11, with Socrates and Plato combined for the top position.

Newtonian Giant | Instances

Socrates & Plato | 62

Immanuel Kant | 57

Ludwig Wittgenstein | 54

Aristotle | 53

David Hume | 48

Bertrand Russell | 46

René Descartes | 43

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | 38

Rudolf Carnap | 37

Friedrich Nietzsche | 35

S&P Multiplier

Essentially what the S&P Multiplier does is that it assigns the total number of instances of Plato and Socrates a 1.0. Next on the list is Immanuel Kant, with 57 instances. 57 divided by 62 returns an S&P multiplier of 0.92. I carry this forward for the top 10 occurrences as follows…

Newtonian Giant | Instances | S&P Multiplier

Socrates & Plato | 62 | 1.00

Immanuel Kant | 57 | 0.92

Ludwig Wittgenstein | 54 | 0.87

Aristotle | 53 | 0.85

David Hume | 48 | 0.77

Bertrand Russell | 46 | 0.74

René Descartes | 43 | 0.69

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | 38 | 0.61

Rudolf Carnap | 37 | 0.60

Friedrich Nietzsche | 35 | 0.56

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz | 35 | 0.56

Albert Einstein |31 | 0.50

Gottlob Frege | 31 | 0.50

Willard Van Orman Quine | 31 | 0.50

G. E. Moore | 28 | 0.45

John Stuart Mill | 28 | 0.45

Hilary Putnam | 27 | 0.44

Michael Dummett | 27 | 0.44

Baruch Spinoza | 26 | 0.42

Karl Marx | 26 | 0.42

Edmund Husserl | 25 | 0.40

Isaac Newton Sr. | 25 | 0.40

Martin Heidegger | 24 | 0.39

Max Planck | 24 | 0.39

Niels Bohr | 24 | 0.39

John Locke | 23 | 0.37

Charles Sanders Peirce | 22 | 0.35

Saul Kripke | 22 | 0.35

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz | 35 | 0.56

Albert Einstein | 31 | 0.50

Gottlob Frege | 31 | 0.50

Willard Van Orman Quine | 31 | 0.50

G. E. Moore | 28 | 0.45

John Stuart Mill | 28 | 0.45

Hilary Putnam | 27 | 0.44

Michael Dummett | 27 | 0.44

Baruch Spinoza | 26 | 0.42

Karl Marx | 26 | 0.42

Edmund Husserl | 25 | 0.40

Isaac Newton Sr. | 25 | 0.40

Martin Heidegger | 24 | 0.39

Max Planck | 24 | 0.39

Niels Bohr | 24 | 0.39

John Locke | 23 | 0.37

Charles Sanders Peirce | 22 | 0.35

Saul Kripke | 22 | 0.35

As you will see in the S.P.A multiplier (below), Aristotle is combined into a new multiplier, unifying the foundational triad of Hellenic sensibilities and philosophy. I would like to point out that Aristotle represents 85% of the total instances of Plato and Socrates combined. Indeed he is, “The Philosopher”, at least in relation to the list used in this analysis.

S.P.A. Multiplier

Taking the S&P Multiplier one step further we add Aristotle into the mix, giving the combined instances of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle a 1.0 and looking at the results.

Newtonian Giant | Instances | S.P.A. Multiplier

Immanuel Kant | 57 | 0.50

Ludwig Wittgenstein | 54 | 0.47

David Hume | 48 | 0.42

Bertrand Russell | 46 | 0.40

René Descartes | 43 | 0.37

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel | 38 | 0.33

Rudolf Carnap | 37 | 0.32

Friedrich Nietzsche | 35 | 0.30

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz | 35 | 0.30

Albert Einstein | 31 | 0.27

Gottlob Frege | 31 | 0.27

Willard Van Orman Quine | 31 | 0.27

G. E. Moore | 28 | 0.24

John Stuart Mill | 28 | 0.24

Hilary Putnam | 27 | 0.23

Michael Dummett | 27 | 0.23

Baruch Spinoza | 26 | 0.23

Karl Marx | 26 | 0.23

Edmund Husserl | 25 | 0.22

Isaac Newton Sr. | 25 | 0.22

Martin Heidegger | 24 | 0.21

Max Planck | 24 | 0.21

Niels Bohr | 24 | 0.21

John Locke | 23 | 0.20

Charles Sanders Peirce | 22 | 0.19

Saul Kripke | 22 | 0.19

Meditations on Propagation & Analysis

We have a total list of individual People that others have searched for, and the pattern that emerges gives us an archetype of data structured around the search habits of internet users. These internet users are searching for people related to the original list of 220 philosophers and 147 scientists listed in the Background of this analysis.

NOTE: None of the original 367 philosophers or scientists were part of the final results; only the people also searched for the data freely available for review by anyone so requesting.

Footnotes to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; Ex Nihilo

Let’s consider the top three intellectual Giants from the results and exclude Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This exclusion is not irrelevant but because they are always an underlining influence in Western culture and philosophy. I would remind you that there are no hard and fast rules to this except consistency. If you want to use this strategy, then feel free to use it as a benchmarking tool, but remember to be consistent with your approach.

Newtonian Giant | Instances | S.P.A. Multiplier

Immanuel Kant | 57 | 0.50

Ludwig Wittgenstein | 54 | 0.47

David Hume | 48 | 0.42

Saying that Immanuel Kant has a 0.50 S.P.A. multiplier tells us that Kant makes up 50% of the general public searches, by instance, when compared to searches for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle combined. Of course, it’s important to remind you that it’s generated from the list of scientists and philosophers on the Information Philosopher website. This is a useful metric compared to other lists (books, websites, or publications). As an owner of a marketing company promoting academics and non-fiction authors, as well as being an author myself, I find this data extremely useful in strategizing over what content to promote for the author and where to focus my research efforts on subjective interpretations. This is what the public is looking for. Literally.

The registered trademark for planksip indicates the following…

Application number 1770458
Registration number TMA979232

Agency services, namely, promoting the interests of academics and authors through the exhibition of their works and the distribution of electronic versions of their works; Media agencies specializing in promoting the interests of academics and authors through the exhibition of their works and the distribution of electronic versions of their works; Search engine optimization for individual promotion; Social Media engagement strategies promoting author's intellectual property, namely books and articles, intended to enhance the comprehension of an author's intellectual property.

Filed 2016-03-02
Registered 2017-08-23

When I review literature (for my edification), I use this data to contextualize my subjective interpretation of the author’s information. This is central to the theme of my book p.(x) = Big Data Determinism. If I were to build a strategy for a client, an organic propagation strategy focuses on the thought concept and building equity in information. Information Equity is a term that I refer to often when discussing strategy with academics.

As a useful exercise, I encourage academics and non-fiction authors to return to their book or series of books and try and contextualize their understanding of the material with an objective approach to making the material relevant to the widest audience. A good starting point is the index of your book. You can use people or concepts. I tend to focus on the Newtonian Giants.

How does this all fit into the p.(x) philosophy? Our subjective interpretations fit the framework and “forme” the basis of our subjective experiences. My intention, and philosophical method, is to add form to the subjective experience. This works well for others to comment from the same baseline. In this instance, I would see how Bob Doyle (The Information Philosopher) refers to, summarizes, or contextualizes Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and David Hume. Of course, I could take this further and discuss the top 30 or whatever makes the most sense. For this analysis, I will keep the analysis to the top three. Fortunate for us, Bob Doyle’s website is easily searchable.

A direct way to search the Information Philosopher website is from the search bar at the top, as shown below.

Or you can simply use the following variable in the Google search bar.


Popular schema search concepts include;

  • Hume beliefs
  • Kant copernican revolution
  • Hume on free will
  • Kant soft determinism
  • Descartes determinism
  • What is freedom of will according to Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)  - 912 results and begins with...

Kant reacted to the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and Newtonian mechanics (which he probably understood better than any other philosopher), by accepting determinism as a fact in the physical world, which he calls the phenomenal world. Kant's goal was to rescue the physical sciences from the devastating and …

The top 10 pages on the Information Philosopher website, when using the search term “Kant,” returned the following…

Immanuel Kant - The Information Philosopher

The Idea of Freedom - The Information Philosopher

Critique of Practical Reason - The Information Philosopher

Christine Korsgaard - The Information Philosopher

Preface to the Second Edition, Critique of Pure Reason

Two Standpoints - The Information PhilosopherThe History of the Free Will Problem - The Information Philosopher

History of the Problem of Knowledge - The Information Philosopher

Introduction to the Second Edition, Critique of Pure Reason

The Problem of Knowledge - The Information Philosopher  

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) - 715 results and begins with...

Later he became engrossed in a new problem. It was the question of the nature of the significant proposition. There is a story of how the idea of language as a picture of reality occurred to Wittgenstein. In the autumn of 1914, on the Eastern Front, Wittgenstein was reading in a magazine about a lawsuit in Paris …The top 10 pages on the Information Philosopher website, when using the search term “Wittgenstein,” returned the following…

Ludwig Wittgenstein - The Information Philosopher

The Pseudo-Problem of Free Will - The Information Philosopher

[PDF]The Collected Works of Ludwig Wittgenstein - The Information ...

xoaico - The Information Philosopher

Coherence Theory of Truth - The Information Philosopher

History of the Problem of Knowledge - The Information Philosopher

The History of the Free Will Problem - The Information Philosopher

Richard Rorty - The Information Philosopher

G. H. von Wright - The Information Philosopher

David Chalmers - The Information Philosopher

David Hume (1711-1776) - 865 results and begins with…

R. E. Hobart developed Hume's compatibilism in his landmark 1934 essay Free Will As Involving Determination And Inconceivable Without It. But Hobart did not deny chance, as did Hume. P. H. Nowell-Smith in 1948 strengthened the attack on chance. But Philippa Foot in her 1957 article Free Will As Involving Determinism …

The top 10 pages on the Information Philosopher website when using the search term, “hume” returned the following…

David Hume - The Information Philosopher

David Hume - Of Liberty and Necessity - The Information Philosopher

David Hume - Letter from a Gentleman - The Information Philosopher

David Hume - Treatise of Human Nature - The Will and Direct Passions

Naturalism - The Information Philosopher

Fatalism - The Information Philosopher

History of the Problem of Knowledge - The Information Philosopher

Paul Russell - The Information Philosopher

Liberty of Indifference - The Information Philosopher

The Ego or Psyche - The Information Philosopher


My intention is not to “throw out the baby out with the bath water” by using the S&P or S.P.A. multipliers, only to compare, contrast and discuss within the Hellenic whole. The next step in the process for the analysis is to summarize and interpret what I read on the Information Philosopher website with this structure. I elaborate further in my book on the philosophy of planksip, p.(x) = Big Data Determinism. The section relating to this analysis is found under the heading, i-phi Interpretations and the new Triad of Philosophy.

The subjective interpretation I am using is firmly placed within a data framework. Because this data is anchored in the search habits of the general public, I know where to focus the campaign for propagation. Back to the data.