I guess pigs are flying!

In this post on March 10, I reported on a snide remark made against "vampire chat rooms" in the "Annie's Mailbox" advice column. I sent the columnists an e-mail, and so did a number of people I know, although many of them are vampire fans, not vampiric people or connected to the OVC.

The columnists must have gotten a lot of well-written, dignified letters--they wouldn't have paid attention to those that sounded like nut jobs--because, to my astonishment, they have printed an apology.

I have to give them credit for that, even if one of the letters still makes a snide remark about the OVC, and even though the columnists can't resist an idiotic crack about "garlic necklaces." (They obviously haven't read Something in the Blood and don't realize that real vampires love garlic!) At least the column backs off from the whole, "woooooo, the Internet is so dangerous!" bullshit.

Book Review: The Saint-Germain Memoirs by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro

The Saint-Germain Memoirs is the third collection of stories featuring Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s popular vampire hero, Count Rogoczy Saint-Germain. The Saint-Germain novels are long, leisurely, meticulously researched books set in historical time periods ranging from dynastic Egypt to the twentieth century. Saint-Germain, who debuted in 1978 in the novel Hotel Transylvania, was among the first wholly sympathetic and moral vampire characters in literature, but his unique nature and his extremely long history (he is some 4,000 years old) make him challenging to depict fairly in a shorter work. The Saint-Germain Memoirs incorporates five tales of varying lengths: two short stories, two novelettes, and the book’s centerpiece, a 42,000-word novella. Of these, the novella is unquestionably the best piece in the book, encapsulating the finest elements of the Saint-Germain series as a whole.

I’ve read nearly all of the Saint-Germain novels, so I can’t gauge how a reader with no previous experience of Yarbro’s character would experience the stories in The Saint-Germain Memoirs. However, as I read them, I sensed that I was picking up on a lot of subtle hints and details that required extensive background information to appreciate. In her Introduction, Sharon Russell argues that the stories have something to offer readers regardless of their familiarity with Saint-Germain, but I remain unconvinced. Individuals who already have a good working knowledge of the character and his history will get the most from these brief glimpses into his life.

“Harpy,” originally published in the anthology, The Secret History of Vampires, is a good example of a story that is full of meaning for those who already know Saint-Germain, but may be puzzling to new readers. One of the Amazon reviewers for The Secret History of Vampires identified the enigmatic “Ragosh-ski” in the story as Dracula! Although “Harpy” presents an interesting character study of a historical person rarely given much thought--I can’t say who without spoiling the twist ending--it took me a while to pin down the time period based on the descriptions. This is a peril of setting a story in a location, Athens, that has been consistently occupied under the same name for 2,500 years. I also remained uncertain, by the story’s end, as to why Saint-Germain picked out this woman for assistance--whether he knew her by reputation or was able, as the story hints, to sense some special quality she possessed.

“A Gentleman of the Old School,” originally published in Dark Delicacies, is one of the very rare Saint-Germain tales set in the present-day. This story concentrates much more on its mortal characters, with Saint-Germain appearing as a wealthy man of mystery who feeds an eager female reporter some clues in a serial murder case. In her Afterword, Yarbro describes her writing process, explaining that her character “talks to her” and that “I’m one of those writers who has to have characters come alive before I can write about them...I immerse myself in the environment of the story, the history, the circumstances, and as much actual information we have regarding how people of the time saw themselves and their world.” I completely sympathize, because I write the same way. But some years ago I had a conversation with Ms. Yarbro and asked her why she hadn’t written a novel about Saint-Germain in the present day. She told me that for some reason, those stories just wouldn’t easily gel for her. “A Gentleman of the Old School” has that in common with the other modern-day Saint-Germain stories: somehow, Yarbro’s hero hasn’t quite found a natural place in the post-Y2K world.

The novelette “Intercession” was originally published in Repentants. Presented in epistolary style, “Intercession” consists of letters written by Saint-Germain’s manservant, Rogerio, in his efforts to free his master from incarceration in 17th century Spanish territory in the New World. Readers of the novels already know that Saint-Germain is imprisoned when his oldest friend, the vampire Olivia, dies in an explosion in Rome. This story includes that event. However, I found “Intercession” to be the weakest of the five pieces in this collection. To me, it merely seemed repetitive: the years go by as Rogerio writes letter after letter seeking answers or aid. The point--that in such historical times even a wealthy person could be unjustly imprisoned indefinitely without hope of redress--is made long before the story ends. Including Olivia’s death in that time frame without any mention of its effect on Saint-Germain leaves too large a gap. “Intercession” demands that the reader imagine how Saint-Germain must be feeling: helpless, cut off from all friendly communication and aware that Olivia is gone. This can be an effective device, but in “Intercession,” it simply doesn’t work for me.

The novelette, “Lost Epiphany,” doesn’t actually tell a story, but it delivers a highly entertaining account of how Saint-Germain maneuvers his way among several groups of colorful and hostile antagonists. Despite his vampiric state, Saint-Germain possesses few supernatural powers. He survives primarily through his own resourcefulness and his long knowledge of the human psyche. In “Lost Epiphany,” set in the early first millennium A.D., Saint-Germain’s merchant ship has been captured by pirates in the Mediterranean, and one of his only advantages, enhanced strength and endurance, is severely curtailed by starvation and exposure to running water. Given an opportunity to go ashore on an island and negotiate with a monastery there for supplies, Saint-Germain uses his wits to gain an edge for himself with the monks--who have some surprises of their own. “Lost Epiphany” is an ingenious object lesson in how an immortal might survive a crisis without any of the deus-ex-machina tricks that are usually associated with vampires.

The novella “Tales Out of School” forms the heart of The Saint-Germain Memoirs in every sense. I thoroughly enjoyed this story. Set in 14th century Padua (then Padova), Saint-Germain attempts to help a widow suffering from a terminal disease, as he negotiates the tricky political and social issues related to his teaching alchemy and herbalism to students at Padova University. “Tales Out of School” is rich with historical detail, colorful and interesting characters, and true human drama. Containing all the core elements of the novels, it is complete as is: any longer, and it would be over-stuffed and lose its strong narrative threads. It is worth the price of the book alone.

The Saint-Germain Memoirs was initially issued in a signed and numbered hardcover edition by Elder Signs Press. It includes a brief, but informative Afterword by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro discussing her character and how the series began and evolved, and an Introduction by Sharon Russell. I enthusiastically recommend it to any reader who has enjoyed at least some of the Saint-Germain novels. Those who are new to the character may be mystified by the stories, but can find some answers to their questions on Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s official website.

Another gratuitious swipe at the online vampiric community

I don't usually read mundane advice columns. I'm always suspicious of the veracity of the letters and the advice generally ranges from "calculated to preserve the conventional status quo" to downright dangerous and bad. For example, I've seen people in overtly battering relationships given suggestions that could get them hurt. But a friend brought my attention to today's "Annie's Mailbox" column. In their reply to a purported 18-year-old woman who was worried about telling her parents she met her new boyfriend online, columnists Kathy and Marcy inserted the comment, "We trust it isn't a chat room for, say, vampires."

And what if it is? What the fuck do they mean by that? A rhetorical question, of course: the implication is that parents should be upset if their 18-year-old daughter has met someone from a "vampire chat room." By dropping this stupid and gratuitous smear, the editors promote all the stereotypes about the OVC and vampire-themed websites: that the people in them are predatory, weird, dangerous, or belong to cults. Since the letter-writer hadn't said anything about the online venue in which she met her boyfriend, the speculation was completely uncalled for. While there are certainly dangers on the Internet, as I discuss in "Human Vampire-Like Predators," these dangers are not focused in any topical venue. Predators go wherever their targeted victims do, and there are no more of them, proportionately, in vampire-themed forums than in forums devoted to teenage fandoms or adult singles. (In fact, singles chat rooms and forums are probably the most dangerous places online, hands down. I wouldn't go near them!)

I wrote to Kathy and Marcy objecting to the comment and saying they owed vampire forum members an apology. I don't expect that they'll pay any attention--although, if they receive a number of e-mails, they may have to. You can contact them at anniesmailbox@comcast.net.

Oh, look, someone chewed me out!

When ignorant little young people write to me and chew me out, I'm going to post their letters here on this blog, with my comments. Here is an e-mail I just received, reproduced exactly:

Shame on you! {Hello to you, too!}
I understand that we all have the right of believing what we like best, some poor souls for instance believe in themselves. {? And "believing in yourself" is bad?} What you bring about however is horrifying. Not only a being who draws "life energy" isn't a vampire, but a necrospectre, {a what????} you also eliminate the tangible mean of the blood and substitute it with prana energy to make the imposture even less detectable and thus more easily appealing. {Which is exactly what I tried -not- to do.} Furthermore the personality kinds you are describing here are best fit for the definitions of manic disorder and bipolar. {Not at all, as I explain more clearly in "Real Vampires Revisited." Are you a mental health professional and qualified to diagnose, Enyl?} If vampire existed and if I were one of them I'd certainly like to pay you a little visit. {Ooooh, a threat! What a friendly guy!} How sexist must you be. There is, all throughout your essay, the feeling that a vampire can only be female. I though of vampires, as I did of angels and demons, that they weren't sexual beings. {Another asshole who thinks vampires are all impotent like Anne Rice's. Folklore vampires are -totally- sexual! Normally, I refer people who ask about the feminine pronouns question to "Real Vampires Revisited," but this guy is just plain hostile--and seems to have trouble with English.}
In any event, let me conclude by saying that your gain must be egotistical here, {he writes an e-mail like this to a total stranger, and he says -I'm- egotistical?} mabe even monetary, {Oh? he paid to read my article?} but mostly you are drawing a kind of attention to yourself that will last. {Gods, I hope so!} The real vampire is you {At least he gets that one right} and in that you are really cursed. {Wow. And I just thought I was having a bad day.}
yours truly, {and sincerely to you, sugarlips}
Enyl.

"Real Vampires" was written twenty years ago and has been online for ten years. Congratulations, Enyl, on finally locating it. Now go read a book on common courtesy, and brush up on basic vampire folklore, because you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Only an obnoxious little shit dashes off a rude e-mail like that to someone who has only authored an article. I'm tired of hearing from people like you. Bother me again and I'll publish your e-mail address.

The Lost Boys 2: The Tribe

The website Shock Till You Drop has an interview with Hans Rodionoff, the screenwriter for Lost Boys 2: The Tribe, currently in post-production. Twenty years after Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys redefined the cinematic vampire and launched the "punk vampire gang" motif, a sequel has finally been made. Warner Brothers has not yet decided whether the movie will get a theatrical release or go straight to DVD.

Shock Till You Drop reports, "Tad Hilgenbrink and Autumn Reeser star as Chris and Nicole, respectively, son and daughter of Michael and Star (Jason Patric and Jamie Gertz's characters from the first film). With their parents gone, they relocate to Luna Bay where Nicole unknowingly takes a vampire for her boyfriend. Chris then turns to the authority on bloodsucker beatdowns Edgar Frog (Corey Feldman reprising his role) for help.

"Leader of the new vamp pack is actor Angus Sutherland, real-life brother of Kiefer, here playing Shane who travels the world with his fanged chums. Yes, they're surfing vampires. But Rodionoff is quick to dismiss that these are not the stereotypical "bro" and "dude"-dropping wave riders we've seen in cinema countless times. Roving gypsies is more like it. Traveling the world and pissed off that they've been deprived of sunlight."

The film's story does pick up from the original, with cameos by minor actors as well as character continuity. Attractive 53-year-old Canadian actress Gabrielle Rose appears as "eccentric Aunt Jillian," who takes in Chris and Nicole after their parents are killed in a car accident. The vampire "gang" in this movie are surfers, but we're assured by Mr. Rodionoff that not much surfing is done on film. The movie is scheduled to be released in summer, 2008.

Book Review: Sundays with Vlad

Paul Bibeau, Sundays with Vlad (978-0-307352778-1)
Three Rivers Press, 2007
Paperback, 292 pages, $13.95
Available on Amazon.com and in bookstores

One thing I can confidently say about Sundays with Vlad is that it is completely unpretentious. Author Paul Bibeau's previous published writing consists of magazine and newspaper articles. Sundays with Vlad, his first book, reads like a loosely assembled collection of those articles, giving the reader a leisurely, meandering ramble through a series of topics more-or-less associated with vampires. Ultimately, we learn more about Bibeau himself than anything new about Dracula, Vlad or vampire fandom. Even the rambles have rambles as Bibeau frequently wanders off on various tangents. By the time I reached the book's conclusion, my copy was bristling with half a pad of sticky notes, and I still wasn't sure just what the entire opus was trying to say.

There are two critical problems that handicap Sundays with Vlad right out of the gate. Bibeau opens his book with a description of his honeymoon trip to Romania in 1999, visiting some of the sites promoted (or not) for their association with the 15th century warlord, Prince Vlad Tepes Dracula. "The tale of how this medieval ruler became the most recognizable figure in the world without changing his image back home was baffling. And more than a story about vampires, it was about globalism, history and national pride," Bibeau writes. But herein lies a dilemma. The fictional Dracula has nothing whatsoever to do with the Romanian warlord. All they share is a name. Dracula, the vampire, was an icon the world over long before In Search of Dracula launched the myth that "Stoker was inspired to write his novel by stories about a real person." There are two completely distinct questions here: first, why vampires, per se, are so popular in American culture, and second, why the myth that Dracula, the vampire, was based on a real person has such a deep emotional appeal that it resists all efforts to debunk it. Bibeau doesn't seem to recognize that these are two different questions, and he never addresses the second one. Sundays with Vlad alternates between poking around in various popular vampire-related enthusiasms (most of which have nothing in particular to do with Dracula--Stoker's or Romania's) and exploring the attitudes held toward their famous Prince and his namesake in Romania and Hungary.

The second critical problem is an omission so glaring, I'm amazed that Bibeau could have overlooked it. Sundays with Vlad dabbles at vampire movies, vampire role-playing games, vampire carnival attractions, vampire (or at least Goth) clubbing, vampire merchandizing, vampire-identification, vampire theatre, and vampire fan groups--but not once does he examine vampire fiction. If your sole guide to the topic was Sundays with Vlad, you would conclude that Dracula was the only vampire novel ever published. Bibeau does not interview or discuss a single vampire fiction author, book or reader. Yet the vampire is a literary phenomenon in English-speaking cultures--since 1819, the vampire has been a metaphor, an icon, and an endlessly malleable image on the printed page. It is in fiction that the vampire attains all its depth, variety and emotional impact, which the games, films and other cultural froth merely borrow. It's no wonder that Bibeau had trouble pulling his themes together--by ignoring vampire fiction, he essentially stood on the side of the well skimming leaves off the surface.

Often, as I read through a chapter, I felt frustrated by the lack of context for what was going on. Bibeau tends to drop us into the middle of his topic and then do backing-and-filling. That may work well for magazine articles but is less effective with book chapters, and sometimes there isn't enough fill. Did Bibeau have any criteria for choosing the films he decided to watch during his "lost weekend" vampire movie marathon? It would have made the most sense to choose movies that were undeniably successful or influential, and watch them in chronological order, but Bibeau does neither. I had absolutely no idea how Bibeau ended up marching in a parade costumed as a puppet bulb of garlic. I wondered how Bibeau found, or selected, the representatives of the real vampiric community whom he chose to highlight (and how he missed me, which in the interests of full disclosure I will confess feeling jealous about). Why MemoryandDream's site, out of the dozen or so major such websites? Why BellaDonnaDrakul, who is not representative of the OVC as a whole--frankly, I have to agree with Jonathon Sharkey's opinion of her. Why give Sebastiaan Todd even more undeserved publicity--why not Michelle Belanger or Merticus of the Atlanta Vampire Association?

Sundays with Vlad would have benefited immensely from a strong editing job. There are many minor errors: it's Imogene Coca, not Cocoa (pg. 43), for example, Acetone, not Acatone (pg. 79), Cthulhu, not Cuthulu (pg. 126) and barbaric horde, not hoarde (pg. 139). There are other careless statements that go beyond spelling gaffes, but I can't address that sheaf of sticky notes in this limited space.

With no index or references, Sundays with Vlad doesn't presume to be a comprehensive treatment of its topic, and Bibeau never condescends to his material or his interview subjects. Even as a personal journey, it would have been a more coherent book had it avoided the magazine article structure and been more tightly edited. The chapters set in Eastern Europe make lively reading, however, and I appreciated the chapters about the figures in the real life vampiric community. Since I am presently attempting to assail the whole notion of "energy-feeding," I especially enjoyed Bibeau's notes on "Breatharianism." Reading Sundays with Vlad is like shopping at Building #19: there's a lot here to like, but you have to sort through the bins on your own.

Baby vampires and disturbed grown-ups

I read a number of vampiric community messageboards. Several of them include a forum for "troll baiting." Posts made by abusive, or clueless, individuals are moved to this forum and other members of the board are given free rein to ridicule, abuse and denigrate the poster to their heart's content, in this forum only. I suppose the intention is to divert the flamewars that often follow certain kinds of posts from the main body of the board. Whatever their intention, these "troll-baiting" forums are nothing but an excuse for self-indulgent and immature behavior of the worst sort by purported adults. The provoking posts are rarely worth bothering with at all, but the "troll-baiters" quickly surpass even the most abusive of their targets in sheer mean-spiritedness and infantilism. It's amazing how much time some people have on their hands to waste on such trash.

Eight years ago, when I was running my own messageboard, and contributing to others, I tried to convince other moderators that there was only one way to deal with trolls, abusers and nuisance posters--only one, no exceptions. The problem posts are instantly deleted on sight and never discussed, replied to or mentioned ever again. Period. Trolls are usually trying to stir up conflict, and they thrive on flamewars--they get a tremendous sense of self-importance from upsetting other people on the messageboard. But no matter how often this scenario was repeated, and how much I tried to demonstrate to other moderators that they were contributing to the problem, not helping it, people in the OVC never learned. They continued to play suckers and fall into the trolls' trap, every single time. Troll-baiting forums only corral the nonsense into a limited area.

For the most part, this would only be annoying. But recently I watched a "troll-baiting" unfold that had some very unsavory elements indeed. I won't say which messageboard this was on, nor identify the principals involved. I stumbled across the thread because I was looking for updates in a different topic that had been moved into the troll-baiting forum.

A new member of the board, who stated that she was 14 years old, had responded to an "Intro" post by criticizing the poster's grammar. Yes, it was a bit snotty--but no more than 14-year-old girls often are. If it had been my board, I'd have just deleted the post, no comment.

But of course, the purportedly adult suckers on the messageboard started sniping at the young person, and the whole thread was moved into the troll forum, where it proceeded to simply blow up--page after page of long posts attacking the young person for her subsidy-published book, her MySpace page, and other completely irrelevant things. They just wouldn't let it alone.

Now, there's nothing unusual about that--except that these were all self-proclaimed adults, ganging up on a 14-year-old. Not one of them seemed to feel they were doing anything inappropriate. The ringleader in the attacks was a 45-year-old (so claimed, anyway) who made lengthy posts diagnosing the young person as a "Narcissist" and expounding on why "Narcissists" could never change and are intolerable to be around. As far as I know, this 45-year-old is not a mental health professional and is not qualified to diagnose--although this 45-year-old evidently has extensive personal experience with mental health issues. As the 45-year-old continued to pummel the 14-year-old in this thread, I found myself getting more and more queasy. I hate the "troll baiting," anyway. It's stupid and juvenile, which is also how I'd characterize the alleged adults who indulge in it. But this went beyond that. For a 45-year-old to spend that much time and energy heaping public abuse on a 14-year-old for so little provocation was just...wrong. More than wrong, it was sick.

My main concern with the young person was the fact that she'd "borrowed" the name of my website, By Light Unseen, for her MySpace screenname. I reported this to MySpace and shortly afterwards the young person changed her screenname. As far as I was concerned, that settled things. I was curious enough to download the young person's book, which was free of charge, from the subsidy publisher's website. It's...well, it's stories written by a 13-year-old. But it could be far worse, and at least it's not fanfic, that cancer of creativity that is draining the last vestiges of original thought from most aspiring writers these days. Predictably, the troll-baiters crowed that they deserved credit for the young person changing the screenname, although we have no idea why that happened. The troll-baiters also jeered at the young person's listing her age, in her MySpace profile, as "100," as though the young person was pretending to be an "immortal vampire." The young person was claiming nothing of the sort. Many minors use ridiculous numbers for their age in their MySpace profile, because MySpace includes age in the page title. 14-year-old girls who don't want to be harassed by creeps and perverts usually fudge their age. But this young person was honest about her age everywhere else.

The troll-baiters got bored and moved on, finally, and I'm sure that hapless young person will never trouble that messageboard again. Meanwhile, this news item appeared in my online news filters.

It's difficult to imagine an adult, and the parent of a teenager, who could justify being that cruel and deceptive. She definitely has no business being a parent, I'm certain of that. I shudder to think of the model she has been for her own teenager. Whether the young victim would ultimately have committed suicide anyway--since there are numerous clues in the article that her life was filled with problems and she had a history of mental health issues and medications--is something no one can say. But when the victim's mother says, "But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old, with or without mental problems, it is absolutely vile," she is absolutely correct. Vile, and sick. How could anyone be an adult in America these days and still not realize that?

Fun With Search Engines...

For a multiplicity of reasons, I've been running a lot of tests on search engine results. Last night, just out of curiosity to see what actually got the best Google rankings (at least at that moment in time), I did a Google search on "vampire." Not surprisingly, that term returned 39,400,000 hits. I wanted to see, first, what a person who typed "vampire" into Google would immediately be presented with; and second, how close to the top any "real vampire" sites were, and which sites were top rated. What I saw was...interesting.

The top-rated Google site for "vampire" is the Wikipedia page with that name, dealing with vampire folklore. Next came Vampire Wine, which I believe is the old domain that used to be Pathway to Darkness, and hence may be riding on that now long-vanished site's extensive linkage and popularity. Then VampireRave.com, which is a commercial Goth/punk site aimed at Lifestylers and vampire fans more than vampiric people. Then came the two main pages for Vampire: The Masquerade and Vampire: Requiem at White Wolf Games. Then the Skeptic's Dictionary page on "vampire," which links Sanguinarius.org and Dr. Elizabeth Miller's Dracula page. A technical page was number 7, then VampireFreaks.com, which is a very disturbing site. 9th and 10th on the first page of hits were Sanguinarius.org and Temple of the Vampire. So, two "real vampire" sites appeared among the first 10 hits.

The second page started with two gaming sites, "the vampire random name generator" and the "vampire" section in the site "How Stuff Works," titled "How Vampires Work." This is kind of sketchy, and has a handful of links that need updating. (Among other things, it links a page on this site that is no longer there.) But the fifth entry, the vampire section on Monstrous.com, is a candidate for my Hall of Shame--it's entirely plagiarized! I started to read it and immediately recognized big chunks of text from my old "Human Living Vampires" articles and from Sanguinarius' site, all just jumbled together without attribution or credit. The whole section consists of unashamedly ripped off material. The rest of the page was technical sites, gaming sites, and VampireMeetups.com.

The technical sites are intriguing. There seems to be a trend to name technical products, businesses or projects "vampire" something. There was "Vampire, an extension module for mod_python," "Net Vampire, a file download manager," "VAMPIRE--Visual Active Memory Processes and Interactive REtrieval," and "Vampire Wire," an online store for cables and wiring.

The third page of Google hits included Damien Deville's organization The Vampire Church, and one of my friend Bev's articles on vampire myths. It also contained Vampire Wear, the IMDb page for "John Carpenter's Vampires," a gaming site, a photographer's gallery site, the spoof website "Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency," and the website for the band Vampire Weekend.

And so it went, for pages and pages. Very few serious information sites or real vampire sites appeared among the top, say, 200. Obviously, anyone running a Google search on just the word "vampire" is going to have a hard time finding much information of substance--and not because the information isn't on the 'Net. But Google's method of ranking sites is not angled toward returning the highest quality material. Apparently, it's related primarily to the number of links a site has from other "important" websites.

The results from the same search on Yahoo! are entirely different. Yahoo! returns far more hits, 54,100,000, to start with. The first site on the list is Vampires Among Us, followed by Vampires Only, Dr. Miller's Dracula Page, Sanguinarius.org, Beverly Richardson's Vampire's Vault, and Vampyres Online. By Light Unseen is number 11, top of the second page, and with the correct name. Google still lists us as "Living Vampires," which hasn't been the site's name since 2002. (It still comes up if you Google By Light Unseen, however). Unfortunately, Yahoo! also returns Monstrous.com on the first page of hits, so I really will be contacting Monstrous about their little copyright problem. But the bottom line is: Yahoo! returns a much more substantial assortment of websites at the top of a simple keyword search than Google does.