Searching for images with filetype: on Google?

 

Yesterday I made an interesting mistake.. 

I'd seen an animated GIF of a cat.  I thought I'd like to see it in detail, so I did what I thought was an obvious search.  I did: 

     [ cat filetype:gif]

on the regular search page.  I was VERY surprised when I saw ZERO results!  That's funny... 

You know and I know there are about a billion images of cats on the internet, so what's going on?  

I asked a bunch of friends, all of whom said "that's odd!"  Until finally a wise person pointed out that... 

... you can't use FILETYPE: on a regular search...
... you have to use Images.Google.com... 

Really? 

Yeah, Really.  Even though the search UI says "All" 

Turns out that it's not really "All."  

In particular, to find an image, you have to use Images.Google.com.  Likewise, if you want to find a scholarly article, you have to use Google Scholar, you can't get it from plain old All search.  

So, if you want to see the Google Scholar version of my 1993 paper on sensemaking, you won't find it by searching on regular Google.  

I mean, you'll FIND it at a repository such as ACM.org or ResearchGate.net, but regular Google search won't take you to Google Scholar--you have to go there first manually (Scholar.Google.com), and then search there to get to the Google Scholar version of the paper.  

Just as with my filetype:gif search, Google's "All" search really means regular web pages, plus a few other kinds of documents--PDF, PPTs, PPTX, XSL, XSLS, KML, KMZ, etc.  (Notice that filetype: works for all of those.) 

It just doesn't work for JPG, GIF, ICO, TIFF, or other image file types.  

Note that if you do a slightly different search, putting GIF in the query, Google will figure out your image-search intent, and give a bunch of images on the SERP.  That's a pretty good workaround.  

But clicking on any of those images jumps you over to Images.Google.com, where you'll see just what you'd expect, regular old Image search for [cat gif] 

Suppose you NOW want to search for a different type of image file--say you'd like JPG files.  It's HERE that you can add in the filetype:jpg filter, like this: 

You could change that JPG to ICO (icons), or PNG, or GIF, or SVG.  They're all different file formats for images.  It's here, in Images.Google.com that the filetype operator for image file types will work, not in "regular" Google search.  

For example, here's the [ cat filetype:ICO ] search in Images:  

You can search for GIFs on Bing search, but you have to use the Tools option (see below).  I don't know of any way to specify the file format type in the query.  (For instance, how would you find a non-animated GIF image on Bing?  Don't know.)  

As someone once said (maybe Issac Asimov?), 

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!”but “That’s funny …”

In this case, my that's funny moment was getting zero results for a query that I thought would give me millions.  A bit of investigation taught me this important lesson: 

FILETYPE: for images only works in Images.Google.com 

That's a useful thing to know.  Remember, "All" doesn't always mean "ALL."  

Search on! 

Fact check labels in search results

A bit more on fact-checking… 

Google puts in a fair bit of effort to surface fact-check information in the results.  As you search, be sure to pay attention to the fact-check labels as they’re put on the page to evaluate questionable information.  You can read the original Google blog post about it here. 

Here's an example of an Image search for the mythical [ black lion ].  Note the red dashed oval I added to the screengrab.  Google adds in the "Fact check from AFP Fact Check" (which is one of the partners who verify such things).  

This label appears in regular Web Search, News Search, and Image Search.  These fact checks and labels come from vetted publishers that use the ClaimReview schema (a way for fact-checkers to annotate content that’s clearly questionable) to mark up fact checks on stories and images.

Here are some examples of fact-check labels when they appear.  Since they’re sometimes not obvious, I’ve highlighted them so you’ll spot them next time you run across one in your searching.  

Note that News.Google.com has a fact-checking section all the time.  (See below--the red dashed box.)  

I also want to point out that Bing does a nice job of making their fact-checks very visible.  Here, I added the red-dashed-oval, but the red False typography is Bing's.  

While we’re talking about fact-checking…  I actually much prefer to call this kind of thing “verification,” since the term “fact-checking” presupposes that the assertion you’re trying to validate already is correct.  That is, after all, what a “fact” is—an assertion that is assumed to be correct.  "Facts" are mostly things that you don't check.  Instead, we verify assertions.  

That is, verification is the process of testing each assertion for its validity.  "The Earth is sphere-like."  That's a fact.  By contrast consider "The Earth is a large disc floating in space."  That's an assertion you probably want to verify, especially since it conflicts with everything else you know about planets floating in space. Going forward, I'll talk about verfication rather than "fact-checking," even though I know it's an uphill battle.  

But this reminds me that I'm not alone in this quixotic quest: A great handbook on verification can be found at the DataJournalism.com site (the Verification Handbook, download for free).  

Search on!  

(With care and your verification lenses fully engaged.)  

 

SearchResearch Challenge (9/23/20): Digging deeper into the story behind a photo?

 

I'm sure this happens to you... 

You're out and about when something captures your eye.  Quick! Pull out the phone/camera and grab the image.  Later, when you get back home, you can look it up.  (Usually.)  

Recently I took a couple of photos that I've puzzled over for a while.  What's going on in these images?  Can you help me figure out what the backstory is for each of these images?  

These are fun Challenges that can go in many different directions.  Where will your curiosity take you?  

1. Here's a pic I took the other day in my back yard.  I live not too far from San Francisco International airport, so it's common to see contrails in the sky.  But this one seems unusual to me.  For lack of a better term, it's unusually poofy with lots of blobs along its length.  What's going on with these poofs on the contrail?  Does this happen often?  Is there a name for this phenomenon? 

2. Here's another photo I took while hiking on a trail next to a channel in the greater Los Angeles area. I'll spare you from having to extract the lat/long from the photo (it's 34.1628333,-117.9922528). It's not the most exciting trail in the world--it follows along a fairly barren path next to this concrete channel for quite a ways before getting to Monrovia Canyon Park (which is quite nice).  

As you can see, for most of its length, the concrete channel has plain square walls.  Here, though, there's a kind of angled buttress on one side of one corner of the place where the ramp enters the channel.  Why is it there?  Why would someone feel the need to build this special buttress?  

As I said, there are all kinds of ways to think about these SRS Challenges.  For instance, you could extrapolate the questions:  Why aren't all contrails poofy like this?  Or, Why does Los Angeles have all of these strange channels that obviously don't have water in them?  Assuming that this channel sometimes does carry water, where does that water go?  (Ultimately, it will go into the Pacific, but where does it stop on the way?   

I'm curious about your curiosity.  What motivates YOU to take a note or snap a photo for later looking-up?  I do it all the time, but I've been led to understand that not everyone does this!  Do you?  If so, what motivates your curiosity?  And how far will you go to figure something out?  Does your mind naturally ask just one more question, the way mine does?  

After The Joy of Search came out I ran into a friend at grocery store.  She told me that "I've been reading your book and now I know a lot about how your mind works.  You know, you're not normal..."  

I assume she meant that in a friendly way as a comment on my curiosity. I think of my level of curiosity as normal, but it's not a common topic of conversation.  

Is your level of curiosity normal?  What do you think? What motivates you to pursue SRS-like investigations in your life?  

Please leave your comments in the blog comments area.  And, as always, let us know HOW you found the answers to these Challenges. 

Search on! 

Answer: Your everyday fact-checking? What do you do?

We all need some basic fact-checking skills... 

This week's Challenge was about what you do in your personal fact-checking.  How often do you check?  How do you check?  What do you check? 

A wave of assertions comes at you every day.
Which are correct? Which ones do you check? How do you check?  

I gave the example of reading that over 1 million acres of California had burned in the past couple of weeks due to the wildfires.  (See my earlier post on searching for maps and charts showing the wildfires: A few wildfire monitoring sites.)  

There's a lot of questioning about what people are saying (or writing)--is it true and believable?  This is going around these days, and leads to our  Challenge for the week.  

A slight update/revision to my post:  After thinking about this all week, I've decided to change my language a little bit.  This post is about "Fact-Checking," but I've changed my mind about this.  The word "fact" has built into it an assumption that it's true.  (The classic definition of fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true.")  Instead, I'm going to change my language to be about verification of assertions.  That is, this is a post about verfication of assertions that people make, and not "fact-checking" per se.  Generally speaking, people rarely check "facts," but they do verify the things people assert to be true.  Note that I've changed the Challenges below to reflect this.   

Here are my answers, along with some Regular Reader contributions:  

1.  About how often do you spend the time to verify something you learned about?  

As Regular Readers Ramón and Arthur say, "It depends."  For me, I tend to check assertions that people make that seem especially consequential.  That is, is the assertion something that will make a difference to my life or to the progress of something I care about?  I also look up assertions that don't match with what I already know.  

That was the point of my "1 million acres burned" check.  I couldn't imagine what 1M acres would be like.  Is that a lot, or not much?  I care because it's my home state: I love to spend time out in the wildlands and was wondering if this was going to affect my future visits, or affect the experience of future generations.  I have a couple of kids, and want their state to be a place of natural beauty, and not leveled by fire.  

So, I care about this and want to understand this number: Is 1M acres a lot, or a little?  In essence, I want to understand the context of the assertion.  

First, how BIG is 1M acres?  That's why I sketched that map last week to show what 1M acres would look like if it was next to my home in the San Francisco Bay.  

What 1 million acres looks like near my home

When I drew this, I realized that this is a big chunk of California.  As Regular Reader Peter Kidd pointed out, if the article had pointed out that 1M acres is  "...less than 1% of California's 105 million acres, it would have provided context, and readers would have been able to visualise it better."

Another kind of context is to look at California wildfires historically.  Doing the search for:

    [site:.gov california wildfire acres history] 

quickly gets me to the official state firefighting historical data at CALFIRE.  At that site you can quickly find the total acres burned over the past several years: 

2019       259,823

2018     1,671,203

2017     1,248,606

2016        669,534

2015        880,899

And so forth.  You get the idea that 1M acres isn't uncommon for the amount burned per year.  This is especially true when you look at the largest California wildfires, all of the top 10 (by size) are within the past 20 years.

That kind of searching for contextualizing information is important when you do fact-checking.  You want to know how what you're learning fits into the broader picture of the story.  

Bottom line:  These days I tend to spend more time checking up on things I read, primarily assertions that are relevant to me, my work, or issues that I care about.  (And in 2020, that's probably about 1 hour / day, although I realize that's more than most people probably do.)   I included searching for contextualizing information in that number.  

2.  When you DO decide to verify something, what motivates you to do so?  

As I said above, I check when it's personally important to me (or to my work, or to issues that I care deeply about).  

In these pandemic / pre-US election days, I find myself checking on assertions about COVID-19 cures, infection rates, and the various assertions made by politicians that are relevant to me.  No, I don't  check every crazy thing that people write about.  For instance, Pizzagate was a conspiracy theory that seemed outrageous on the face of it.  Some people took it seriously, but I didn't bother to check on the assertion that a pedophile ring was being run by Democrats from a pizza place in DC.  If I checked on all such assertions, I wouldn't do anything else. 

RR's Ramón and ikijibiki both point out that they check things that are big surprises for them.  And I guess I do that too, but mostly for music, science, and technology. I don't verify every surprising thing.  

Bottom line:  I check assertions that make some contact to my world.  These days, that's a lot of stuff, but I carefully limit my checking behavior to things that I can influence or have direct relevance to my life.  (Admittedly, I also do some checking of news stories of global importance, but that's not my usual gig.)  

3.  What do you do to verify?  (Do you have a preferred set of sites that you appeal to for the inside story?  How much backtracking of data do you do?)  

As we've already said, verification is a big, big, big topic.  I teach entire classes on this topic (and would love to teach for an entire semester on this--anyone interested?).  And, in some sense, that's what SearchResearch is all about.  

BUT... let me add a couple of note about what I find myself doing.  

A.  Go to the source.  As RR Jeff points out, "go to the source" of the assertion / story.  A great rule-of-thumb: If you can't backtrack from the story to the source, be very skeptical of the story.  (Don't believe anyone if they say "a friend told me...")  Good writers, credible writers, will list their sources and give a way to validate why they wrote what they wrote.  

B. Use well-known fact-checking sites.  As you know, many high quality fact-checking sites already exist.  Here are a few that I use in my research:  Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org.  (There are others, see this list by the UC Berkeley library, but these are my go-tos.)  

You can do specific site searches, such as this one to find out about the story that Obama banned immigration from Iraq for six months in 2011.  Note that I've included both fact-checking sites 

[obama iraqi visa ban 2011 site:snopes.com OR site:politifact.com] 

C.  Do a fact check search.  If you're not sure that a story is covered by a Snopes-type site, try adding in the context term "fact check" to your query.  For example: to check the rumor that lasers were used to start wildfires in California, search for: 

 [ lasers used in wildfires in
     california fact check] 

D.  Do one more search.  I say this all the time... but BEFORE you repost anything, please do one more search.  For the internet's sake.  The obvious Google search will at least give you some diversity and perspective.  That alone will be useful.  

Note that, as you might have predicted, there are fake fact-checking sites out there.  Be sure you know the quality of the fact-checking site before you trust it!  

4.  Finally, do you have a story about a fact that you checked recently?  Can you tell us what you did and how you went about checking?  

I told you my wildfires and acreage story.  That was pretty typical--it was an issue I care about, so I spent a few minutes running it down and searching for some additional context information.  

As PBS notes: “Not every topic warrants a “both sides” approach. Some viewpoints are simply not backed by empirical evidence or are based on false information. And researchers have to be careful not to think of them as euqally legitimate sides of a debate. If they do, they are creating a “false equivalence.”

Search ReSearch Lessons 

Well.. the entire post is one big lesson! But take special note of these points: 

1. You can't verify everything.. be selective in how your spend your verification energy. The more efficient you are at skilled research, the better you'll be at verification.  It's an important skill to have, and to be practiced at doing it.   

2. Be sure you understand the context of what you're checking. Often that means doing some additional research to understand what else is going on.  You need to know a bit about the place and time and circumstances to be able to evaluate some things.  Do those context searches as well. 

3.  Go to the source.  All verifiers (aka "fact checkers") learn the basic skill of tracking backwards from the assertion to the source.  Be good at that skill.    

4. Use well-known fact-checking sites.  Consider using the pro fact-checking sites to help out: Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org.  (Also see this list by the UC Berkeley library.)   

5.  Do a fact check search.  Consider adding in "fact check" into your search as a context term to help you find those useful results.  

6.  Do one more search. As always--look for surrounding information from OTHER sources to help you see what else is going on with this story.  

Thanks for all the comments.  

For those  who want to sharpen their verification / fact-checking skills, here are some useful online courses: 

Poynter Institute's Fact-checking class. 

Udemy: Fact-checking class. 

(If you take these course, let me know how you like them!) 

Search on!  

A few wildfire monitoring and satellite image sites (Sept 12, 2020)

 

People keep asking me: 

Dan, what's the best site to monitor the fires in California?  Or a variation on that: What's the best site to get satellite images of fires in the West?  

Without going into all the detail, here's my list of favorite sites, and a brief explanation about what each has that's special.  

1. Zoom.earth – excellent near-real-time imagery – they also have a Fire Spots layer that you can turn on/off.  They also update their images very frequently.  I like to click through hour-by-hour to see a time-lapse of the conditions.  

Zoom.earth

 

2.  NASA Worldview daily summary images, with many overlays of data.  If you're an advanced satellite image user, this is the place to go to get different spectral views.  These can be immensely useful. 

NASA Worldview

 

3.  ARCGIS fire mappers With live wind and fire perimeter updates.  Coverage: US and Canada.  

 

ARCGIS Firemapper

4. San Diego Supercomputer Center / NSF firemap.  Another great map with many (and different!) layers that you can turn on/off.  Use the layer selector widget in the upper right corner of the map.  (Here I've turned on the fire perimeter map, but if you turn on the "housing density" layer, you can see part of the wildland/urban interface problem.)   

SDSC & NSF firemap

 

5.  National Wildfire Coordinating Group  Good maps showing final extent of fires using Public NIFS perimeters (which seem to be from ARCGIS).  Clicking on a fire shows a LOT of data about the fire: name, acreage, %-contained, fire management group assigned, total personnel on the fire, land ownership, etc.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group fire map

There are more, dozens more, but these are the ones I find my self turning to when I need a quick update.  Hope you find them useful.  

If you know of any others that should be here, let me know in the comments.  

Search on! 

SearchResearch Challenge (9/9/20): Your everyday fact-checking? What do you do?

In the swirl of current news and political tempests, we all need some basic fact-checking skills... 

... and I'm curious about what you do to exercise the ability to do some basic checks on the things you read. 

A wave of assertions comes at you every day.
Which are correct? Which ones do you check? How do you check?  

For instance, I recently read an article that claimed that over 1 million acres of California had burned this year.  True or not?  

As you lead your life, hearing or reading the news, you'll get many such assertions:  Politician X said outrageous statement Y.  Or that some terrible / horrifying policy is have such-and-such an effect on the environment / group of people /  city / state.  

There's a lot of this going around these days.  I know what I do, but I'm curious about what you do in your day-to-day practice.  And this leads to our  Challenge for the week: 

1.  About how often do you spend the time to fact-check something you learn about?  

2.  When you DO decide to look up something, what motivates you to do so?  

3.  What do you do to fact-check?  (Do you have a preferred set of sites that you appeal to for the inside story?  How much backtracking of data do you do?)  

4.  Finally, do you have a story about a fact that you checked recently?  Can you tell us what you did and how you went about checking?  

In my case, when I read about the "1 million acres of California had burned this year" I was suspicious.  That seemed like a really large number. 

A quick back of the envelope calculation (aka Fermi Estimation, as we discussed a while back) told me that 1M acres is roughly 1600 square miles (about 4600 square km).  A space that size would be 40 miles on a side.  The distance from San Francisco to Mountain View (the Googleplex) is about 40 miles, and going east from there takes you to the edge of the Central Valley.  

I did a quick sketch in Google Maps to get a sense of the size of 1M acres (that is, 1600 square miles).  Here's what I drew.  (The calculation is done automatically by Google Maps.)  

 Now that I see it this way, the 1M acres number is fairly plausible.

So I went back to the SF Chronicle fire tracker and added up the first few fires by acreage burned: 

     LNU Lightning Complex:  375,209

     SCU Lightning Complex: 396,624

     Creek Fire:                    152,833

     CZU Lightning Complex:   86,509

     W-5 Cold Springs:            74,819

 

375,209 + 396,624 + 152,833 + 86,509 + 74,819 = 1,085,994

And that's just the top 5 fires in the state, and none of them are contained.  There are 58 fires listed on that page--so this implausible / outrageous number is in fact a low estimate.  The reality is much higher and we're still a couple of months away from the end of fire season.  

But you see my point: the number sounded too large to be true, but a quick estimate of what 1M acres looks like suggests that it's not an implausible number.  Doing a quick search to get some data from a reliable source tells me that it's way low.  The reality is, by the end of the year, going to be more like 2M acres of California consumed by wildfire.  

In this case my fact-check strategy was to find a reliable source of data (the SF Chronicle Fire Map, which collects data directly from satellite data).  In their methodology section (which they actually included in the article--hurrah!), the fire perimeters are based on infrared and thermal imaging from NASA's MODIS and VIIRS-I data products.  

This isn't a complex fact-check, but it shows my key point.  

But now I'm curious about your behavior.  What do YOU do to fact-check things you see and hear?   

Let us know by posting in the comments.  

Search on! 

Answer: Find a time-lapse MAP of wildfire growth in California?

 Since our last post, the situation has gotten worse...  

When I originally posted this SRS Challenge, the fire map for the Bay area looked like this: 

Aug 26, 2020

 

Now, it looks like this: 

Sep 7, 2020

While it's easy to get the news about the fires, and easy to find information about the CURRENT extent of the fires, it's a little harder to find a kind of time-lapse of fire growth over the past several days. 

How did fire map 1 turn into fire map 2?  That's what I want to see--the change over time of the fire outlines.  

(Reminder: current fire map from ARCGIS)

But it's not trivial to find such an animated map.  Can you help me with this week's SRS Challenge and locate one for us?  

1.  Can you find a time-lapse map of the growth of the current fires in the San Francisco Bay Area?  (Roughly, the area shown in the map above.)  Ideally, the animated map should go back to around August 16, 2020, the date the CZU Lightning Fire Complex was started by a sudden flurry of lightning strikes.

This turns out to be harder than I thought.  I naively assumed that such a time-lapse photo would be fairly straightforward.  

As usual, our Regular Readers came up with some impressive finds. 

Mike searched for [CZU fire animation ] (recall that "CZU" is the name of the fire complex near me (and near Mike).  That led to this animation of Central California from Aug 15 - 25.  

Single frame from GIF showing fire spread.

While you can see that this GIF is derived from some data source, but no attribution is given.  By squinting hard enough, you can make out the watermark in the upper left and identify the source as NASA's FIRMS (Fire Information Resource Management System).  By searching for that [ NASA FIRMS fire ] you'll find their remarkable website:  NASA Worldview.  At that site, you can create these GIFs for a given time span and location on Earth.  Here's a GIF I made for the SF Bay Area from Aug 23 - Sep 7, 2020.  You can see the fires when they're active (marked in orange dots), and the smoke plumes. 

Animated GIF from NASA Worldview. 
Not quite a map, but showing where the fires are.

That's good, but can we do better?  

Ramón used variations on queries like [California fires 2020 map timelapse] to find a few more maps that are nice, but show the current state of the fire.  Example: The SF Chronicle's fire map of the state. (Interestingly, it's the same as the LATimes fire map. Hmm...)   Even Google's fire map is fairly disappointing as it shows only current fires, no time lapse (and, frankly, is missing a few fires).  

But here's the Times/Chronicle map, which shows how bad the situation is at the moment (Sep 8, 2020): 

P/C LA Times

And a closeup, which shows the Creek fire (the large blob in the center-right): 

By using a query like [ California animated fire map ], Ramón found the remarkable YouTube video,  California wildfires: 1910-2019 by the geo-mapping company ESRI.  This is well worth watching for the historic context of wildfire in our state.  

These are nice pieces of work, but not quite what I was looking for.  I want to see how the local fires started, grew, and built-up over time.  How can we do that? 

Jon managed to find a useful Tweet from CALFIRE and learned that the kind of maps we're looking for are called progression maps, which led him to find this animated map on Twitter.  This is pretty good, and almost exactly what I'm looking for!  

(I can read that this map is from "Incident Management Team 3" but I can't find the source.  Does anyone know what the source is?)  

The big winner of the week was Terry, who started with [California fire map multi-day] and other variations on the last term (including "tracker" which seems to equate to "real-time" in practice). Terry looked at the local news coverage on the SF Chronicle site where she found this page, which was really what I had in mind when I posed the Challenge--it shows the fires, their perimeters, and lets you drag the time slider back and forth to see exactly what you need to see.  This is an interactive progression map, although they don't call it that on the page.  Interestingly, Terry ran across this page by accident (and doesn't now remember exactly how).  Interestingly, 

A view of the fires over time from the SF Chronicle.

From this interactive visualization I extracted a few key dates in the fires burning nearest to my home: 

While I was writing this post, I spent (too much!) time with the FIRMS data set and found that it's pretty simple to create a time-lapse video of a region of the world and then download it to your computer.  (Use Worldview Snapshots.)  

I made a video segment showing the relevant part of California over several days (Sep 6-9, 2020).  Here's the YouTube version of it.  Note that you can pause the video, then advance it manually by clicking judiciously on the scrubber bar to go from hour-to-hour, day-to-day.  

Or, if you'd like, you can download the original Quicktime MOV format here.  If you watch it using Quicktime from your desktop, it's much easier to browse back-and-forth, hour-by-hour, to get a sense of the drama of California wildfires.  

Search Lessons 

This wasn't a straightforward task.  Here are a few lessons I take away from this Challenge.  

1. Finding the right terminology wasn't easy.  We learned about progression maps and perimeter maps.  Both are better ways to describe what I was looking for than just "time lapse" or "animated."   Those terms don't hurt, but if you can find the precise language, so much the better.  

2. Looking for the original source is almost always a great idea.  In a couple of cases, we found examples of maps we wanted (often as animated GIFs), but looking for the original source almost always revealed more information (in different formats, with more precise time and location) that we wanted.  Track backwards!  (It should an instinct in all Regular SRSers!) 

3. Keep track of what you find.  As Terry pointed out in her comment, she stumbled across the interactive wildfire progressive map viewer, and then had to go back through her search history to re-find it.  I have to admit that I never saw this page when doing MY searching.  But her experience points out the value of remembering that you can search through your own search history by visiting google.com/history -- browse through THAT if you want to re-find something that, in retrospect, seems about right.  I try to keep pretty good notes when I'm searching, and I usually leave the tab of a good page open until I'm all done with my research! 

Hope you found this an entertaining search!  We're still living with orange skies and flakes of ash falling down all over outside.  Hope it's calmer where you are.  

Search on!