visual graphics i mean i don't think anybody is disputing that the emphasis there is on the utility and importance of visual graphics but doesn't suggest does it ever state that you won't use you shouldn't use there's some problem with using information is now what you would do you wouldn't necessarily say ok well forget everything i said before your utter write me because it doesn't say the information is misleading or wrong or inaccurate those sorts of things might lead an ordinary person to say well and that information shouldn't be included but the fact that something is cursory seems to me doesn't it to quite strongly imply it needs to be supplemented and not necessarily that it needs to be replaced and the bottom line is even if i thought well maybe it a reliable should i interpret that word is as meaning unreliable sure i think when you're sure you think the definition of cryptic is unreliable search engines cryptic is under a lot of cryptic facts that summaries are do you think sell but again this is substantial evidence and you're not evidence number one and number two i'm reviewing a body that is an expert agency that already made a was found to be teaching the way things are taught that script checks are reliable we should replace that with the graphical summary information is that use the word replace i mean i thought there's a something that says and here it's like get a user experience and compared to conventional search results when you use the digital previews sure but that also suggests that you're not completely wholesale discarding that disregarding or teaching a way musing current teaching go away conclusion so two answers to that first of all around substantial evidence reviewing the board has already made a particular finding in the pew case that was the finding of the district court that was upheld by this court on you won't even find the words unreliable that's authority argument that's the conclusion that my friend has drawn from the reference and whether or not that could support a finding have had the board  fine case from this court like x so make very clear that the fact that a weasel person might have a right to different conclusions is not enough for substantial evidence review now judge morse comments to my friend with regard to the language of cr banke search result has to do with a restaurant in california well here's why that here's why that's a beneficial edition and fix it doesn't teach away from that if you know for example that you're looking for information about the left back in paris then he won't bother macit over the first three entries because they deal with the restaurant of california is on the other hand you are looking pretty for mention about a restaurant california then you will mouse over there and if you didn't have that associated text then your internet experience would be all the poorer for it and that's exactly the opposite of what fences teaches which is making the internet experience richer faster much faster out that there was there was a question mark sorry  to passage offensive describing the problem itself namely the known search engines return results in the form of a list of hyperlinks with a cursory if not corrected initial tech presentation of those web pages so the board recognizes google recognized that