SQLServerCentral / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Look Beyond the First Result / Latest Posts

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

ACinKC — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:30:43 GMT

Boy, some of you are wishin' and hopin' that all the bad in the world will go away just because you think it should be so. The purpose of a business is NOT to hire people, provide a product or service, and be philanthropic. The purpose of a business is to make money. Period. Companies who don't keep that in mind aren't companies for very long. If those other, secondary, aspects are met, then all the better.Also, the Orbitz customers weren't charged more simply because they used a particular OS. From the editorial: "Instead, if an OSX user was detected, the order of search results was changed to show more expensive options first." The customer most definitely had the opportunity to search and do their due diligence before selecting the option that worked best for them. It's called targeted marketing, and every grocery store in the world does it. There's a reason why the milk (which people rush in to buy a lot) is way in the back to force you past all the other things you think you don't need. There's a reason why children's cereal is always on the lower two shelves. There's a reason why all those gossip magazines are in the checkout aisles. There's a reason most of the cars on a dealer's lot are loaded to the gills with options.Marketers make assumptions about who is viewing their ads, displays and shelves all the time (performance tire ads on Speed Channel, safe-and-quiet tire ads on A&E) just to make you dig into that wallet on a regular basis. Orbitz isn't doing anything different. Should they be skewered for doing it? Only by people who didn't do their homework, and those should fall on deaf ears.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

John Hanrahan — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:32:31 GMT

[quote][b]TravisDBA (2/27/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]John Hanrahan (2/27/2013)[/b][hr]David,I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.John[/quote]Truthfulness and honesty has absolutely nothing to do with that. "No government ever [b]voluntarily[/b] reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Do you all know who said that?:-D[/quote]Some guy who was named Ronald as I recall. He was hollywood actor I think. And if people were truthful they'd just say: "This gov't agency is no longer needed" and we'd close it. ;-)

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Gary Varga — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:26:23 GMT

Sorry Miles. I was just being flippant.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Miles Neale — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:06:10 GMT

[quote][b]Gary Varga (2/27/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Miles Neale (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]jay-h (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...[/quote]But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible). It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.[/quote]<snip />Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous <snip />[/quote]Which statistic are you assuming is applicable here? ;-)[/quote]Gaz, The statement is in general. And in general, can we make a judgement about a person based on one fact. If they are using a Mac when the come to our site we do things differently. But consider that the user who came to our site may be a homeless person who has a one-time account at the local library that happens to use Mac's, yet because they are using a Mac we try to present them with more elegant options. I am not saying that to do this is wrong or morally a challenge, only that making a decision based on one fact in evidence is not as reasonable as other alternatives. Another simple thought is that a criminal has to be at the place where the crime happened, and if a person was at the place at the time of the crime then they are guilty. That is making a decision or judgement based on a single fact. But if the true criminal was there along with seven witnesses, does that make them all eight guilty of the crime committed by one? Should we assume that they are all guilty? Or do we need more information to get to the point of knowing what went on. Orbitz is really doing this. They see one fact, and give the user the options for the next step. That next step may be predicated by the available information along with a number of other paths to alternative decisions.M.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

TravisDBA — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:44:49 GMT

[quote][b]John Hanrahan (2/27/2013)[/b][hr]David,I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.John[/quote]Truthfulness and honesty has absolutely nothing to do with that. "No government ever [b]voluntarily[/b] reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Do you all know who said that?:-D

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

John Hanrahan — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:09:36 GMT

David,I like your logic. Though I am pretty sure we did not make a profit on GM. AIG though we did well. All I can say is if people were honest and truthful the need for the size of gov't would go down.John

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

jay-h — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:50:12 GMT

"In relation to the editorial, the question is whether Orbitz has lost the trust of their potential consumers. Only time will tell. ""And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well. "Everybody seems to be viewing this as some sort of hard edged failure. If they misjudge the customer, then everything is wrong. Gee wiz, everyone knows that you can't fully predict what a customer wants from external clues. No surprise there. But they used this as a starting point. It affected what items were featured. That's all. This is hardly 'betrayal of trust', it's not fleecing the customer. It's not like there was no alterntative, if the customer wanted the lower priced deal, they could still get it, no problem. If they had quoted a higher price for the same accommodation, that would be betrayal, but from the article it does nto seem to be the case.[It's certainly not like auto dealers are known to do: try to get certain customers to pay a higher price for the same product through psychological manipulation.]It was simply a quick and dirty, and probably less than accurate, way of establishing a starting point for the presentation.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Gary Varga — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:32:27 GMT

[quote][b]marcia.j.wilson (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Miles Neale (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]jay-h (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible). It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.[/quote]And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well. M.[/quote]The opposite can also be true. I've had salesmen ignore me because they assumed they weren't going to make a sale at times when I was ready to spend money. My mom had a saleswoman explain to her that something was really expensive. My mom wasn't stupid. She knew the price of the item and what she could afford to spend. I've also had salesman lose a sale because they were so determined to sell me what would make the most commission when I was ready to buy something else. So, they ended up making no commission at all.[/quote]In the summer between school and college (in England so I was 16) I worked for an electrical retailer. I sold TVs, Hi-Fis, washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc. I worked with a full time career (at least at that point) sales team. I lived in a town with an extremely high proportion of retired people and given the time (1987) a lot of them were not technically competent which was more down to lack of experience with and lack of interest of technology in their lives than their potential to understand. Working what days I could get, which was 2-4 per week, I still outsold all my peer salespeople even when one started to put through half my stuff through the till as their boyfriend's sales. I am not bragging as it is just a simple and, importantly, salient fact proven by the sales sheets.The reason why I tell this story is to explain why I performed better. Instead of trying to fleece the elderly with expensive products with features that they didn't need I suggested that they bought quality items that suited their needs. This was often, but not always, mid-ranged items with a mid-ranged price tag. This meant less commission for me and a lower sales figure than was actually realisable. On that one sale. As I wrote it that way, I highlighted what you no doubt worked out anyway: that I did more sales by selling more items. How did I achieve this? Repeat sales. If someone was sold a washing machine they needed as opposed to the one they didn't it only makes sense for them to return to the same place when they needed a vacuum cleaner, for example. Why? Trust!!!This was emphasised not only by returning customers but by recommendations. I even caught a previous customer peeking through the window and pointing me out. Another sale ensued. I'm not even very good at sales.In relation to the editorial, the question is whether Orbitz has lost the trust of their potential consumers. Only time will tell.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Gary Varga — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:56:38 GMT

[quote][b]Miles Neale (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]jay-h (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...[/quote]But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible). It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.[/quote]<snip />Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous <snip />[/quote]Which statistic are you assuming is applicable here? ;-)

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

marcia.j.wilson — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:29:26 GMT

[quote][b]Miles Neale (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]jay-h (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]...But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible). It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.[/quote]And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well. M.[/quote]The opposite can also be true. I've had salesmen ignore me because they assumed they weren't going to make a sale at times when I was ready to spend money. My mom had a saleswoman explain to her that something was really expensive. My mom wasn't stupid. She knew the price of the item and what she could afford to spend. I've also had salesman lose a sale because they were so determined to sell me what would make the most commission when I was ready to buy something else. So, they ended up making no commission at all.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

DavidBrown-731687 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:48:31 GMT

I think a free air freshener hardly qualifies as a sterling example of corporate caring. I stand by my original statement. Corporations consider you as a source of revenue...nothing more.And as to the other opinions you stated, all I can say is that if corporate America acted responsibly, we wouldn't need the regulations we have. We can't trust them to police themselves.And I don't subscribe to your interpretation of recent history as a power grab for government. It looks as if some media outlet convinced you that the Feds were going to take over the auto industry and the banks. If that were true, why aren't they apologizing now that the Feds sold their GM stock at a profit and sold their AIG stock at a profit. They can't do it, because it refutes their false narrative that everything government does is bad, and corporate America can do no wrong.What a fiction THAT is...

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

venoym — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:42:52 GMT

[quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]I'm fully aware of the world I'm living in, thank you.What disgusts me is the way that corporate America gets away with this deception, and tries to thwart any attempt to bring ethical behavior into their business dealings. Marching under the banner of "Less regulation is good for America" they are trying to remove or restrict any oversight on their activities.If the financial crisis of the last four years hasn't taught us anything, it should have taught us that 'laissez-faire' is a recipe for disaster, that corporations will NOT self-regulate, and we cannot (and should not) trust them to act in our interest as consumers.Take this simple test. Try to think of the last time a corporation actually did something for you that didn't involve extracting more money from your wallet. OK, time's up! You couldn't think of anything, could you? More than likely, you could find plenty of examples of where they either upped your bill without giving you anything, or kept your bill the same and reduced your service. Either way, they lined their pockets at your expense.If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.[/quote]I'll take your challenge and respond with the Grocery Store (NOT a small town store, this is a regional/national chain). Yep, last night I mentioned to the guy at the check out that I thought we had forgotten a bag of groceries the previous week that included a simple plug-in air freshener, but I really wasn't sure. He gave me one for free.The Free Market is not what you've defined at all. The Free Market is simply that providers can bring goods or services to market for prices that [i]they[/i] decide to charge. The other side of the equation is that [i]you[/i] can either choose to buy or not buy based on the price and the perceived quality of said good or service. That's all the Free Market is.Take a short test yourself, when was the last time that something happened on Wall Street or to a store that the first response of people in government was NOT "We need more government!" (aka "We need more regulations!")... bingo, NEVER, it's not about fixing a problem, it's about adding more to government JUST to have an excuse to add more to government.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

TravisDBA — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:51:06 GMT

[quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.[/quote]I hear ya David. However, I tend to choose my fights carefully. I don't choose fights I know I have no chance of winning or at least breaking even at. That's just good common sense IMHO. Our current economic system is corrupt from the inside out and if Washington can't (or won't) change it then what do you think you chances are? For all we know our leaders are probably in on it anyway and taking kick backs from it. David, please remember this bottom line in life: "Most of the mess that is called history comes about because kings and presidents cannot be satisfied with a nice chicken and a good loaf of bread.” When morality comes up against greed, greed tends to usually win out. Just the way it is my friend. :-D

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Miles Neale — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:46:57 GMT

[quote][b]jay-h (2/26/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...[/quote]But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible). It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.[/quote]And by doing as you suggest there is a certain risk. Making the assumption that a person will buy higher priced or "nicer" things based on one item such as the suit they wear is silly. Also based on the type of browser, type of machine, or time of day a person comes to the site is not really the brightest light on the block as well. Statistics tell us that making a conclusion on one assumed fact is dangerous and has a very high probability of failure. This is why corporate america is trying to gather as much information about you as possible. They are mining everything they can get their bots and spiders on. They want to develop a statistical trend to bend the probabilities in their favor. Thus they collect everything, analyze it all, and then make a "best guess" estimate as to what to show you and how to present it. This is based on the idea that you will continue to make similar decisions based on the decisions of the past. And if the statistical base is broad enough then the assumptions have a much higher probability of success. Is it moral and legal? Yes it is. If you are a business why would you want to waste time and monies showing customers as the first options, things they have never shown an interest in buying. And as a customer you want to get to what you want as quickly as possible and not have some one trying to sell you something you do not want or need. Lastly, the willingness to pay a higher price for quality and cost of an item may not be related to the type of machine at all. Consider the Apple owner who lost their job 16 months back and is still looking or has had to compromise on a much lower paying job. To assume that they would be willing to pay for the higher priced item in this case would be incorrect. They might want to but they cannot do it. To have the things they would like to have and can no longer afford put in their face each time they come to a site might be quite depressing, and in fact depress your sales.M.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

jay-h — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:22:53 GMT

[quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. ...[/quote]But that is NOT the situation here. NO ONE was charged more for the same service, they were offered (firstly) more expensive services. A very different situation. This, by the way, is quite different from BMW's habit of charging ridiculous prices for service (and locking down the cars so that independent service is not always possible). It's more akin to your walking into a store in a quality suit, the salesman will probbably offer the higher quality goods first.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

John Hanrahan — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:14:56 GMT

I say that honest is the only requirement. If they say they'll charge Mac customers more I'm fine with that, just be honest. If I am buying mortgage backed securities be honest with the quality. Just be honest. As for Orbitz you could still get the lower priced hotels you just had to select the sort or move to the next page.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

DavidBrown-731687 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:52:01 GMT

I'm fully aware of the world I'm living in, thank you.What disgusts me is the way that corporate America gets away with this deception, and tries to thwart any attempt to bring ethical behavior into their business dealings. Marching under the banner of "Less regulation is good for America" they are trying to remove or restrict any oversight on their activities.If the financial crisis of the last four years hasn't taught us anything, it should have taught us that 'laissez-faire' is a recipe for disaster, that corporations will NOT self-regulate, and we cannot (and should not) trust them to act in our interest as consumers.Take this simple test. Try to think of the last time a corporation actually did something for you that didn't involve extracting more money from your wallet. OK, time's up! You couldn't think of anything, could you? More than likely, you could find plenty of examples of where they either upped your bill without giving you anything, or kept your bill the same and reduced your service. Either way, they lined their pockets at your expense.If you say, "Well that's just the way things are," then they have won. I'm not ready to give up that fight quite yet. And neither should you.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Gary Varga — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:17:19 GMT

Sales have been targeted for a LONG time. Door to door salesmen (and women) didn't pick streets at random. You don't think that when you walk into a car showroom that the sales person hasn't evaluated you already (maybe not accurately at all but it focusses their opening gambit for certain).Let us not be naive here. People don't like it but they are living in an economy based on it even if only in part.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

TravisDBA — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:17:00 GMT

[quote][b]DavidBrown-731687 (2/26/2013)[/b][hr]You can claim that consumers themselves are to blame for being fooled, but if we are honest, we have to admit that consumers are not always told the truth, or are not always given all the information they need to make an informed decision.[/quote]Hmmmmm, consumers not being told the the truth, wow! what a novel idea. With all due respect to you sir, what planet have you been living on lately? This whole marketplace is based on deception, you just have to deal with it. We live in a world of the haves and the have nots.:-D

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

DavidBrown-731687 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:08:10 GMT

I know the world expects me to pay more, just because I can afford it. I don't buy from those leeches for the same reason I don't buy a Lamborghini to drive to the grocery store. It is an over-priced vanity product with no more additional value for my needs than buying a Chevy Malibu.What's really under attack here is the whole philosophy of the so-called "free market." We were all told that free markets allow consumers to buy goods at the lowest price because of competition. But that whole system is completely overwhelmed by Madison Avenue, which has honed the fine art of hyperbole and deception to the point where consumers can be made to believe they MUST have the latest fad, even to the point of neglecting important purchases of basic needs, like food, clothing and shelter. You can claim that consumers themselves are to blame for being fooled, but if we are honest, we have to admit that consumers are not always told the truth, or are not always given all the information they need to make an informed decision.When Orbitz sorts the travel search results for Apple users to place the higher-priced options first, and doesn't display a big red flashing message saying, "We know you have more money, so we're hoping you'll choose these expensive travel plans without question," they are being deceptive and certainly NOT forthcoming about how they have manipulated the search results for their own corporate gain. They made the decision that their corporate profit was more important than helping me save money. I have no respect for their tactics or their motives.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

TravisDBA — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:43:55 GMT

You might resent it, but the fact is most affluent people are viewed by everyone else as having deeper pockets. So, they tend to be a target for stuff like this. If people know you are affluent and you tip like everyone else does at most restaurants just watch the looks you will get. People expect it because they know you can afford it. If people know you are affluent and you don't give handsomely to a charity that is seeking your donation just watch the looks you will get from them. If people know you are affluent and you only put $10 in the offering plate on Sunday just see how welcome you are there from then on. Look at all the people who will come out of the woodwork hitting you up for money if you ever hit the lottery? Show up to work every day driving a shiny brand new Corvette and see how people's perception of you will suddenly change. It's not really fair I know to be viewed by everyone as a bank roll, but then again, who in world ever told you the world was fair? :-D

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

EdVassie — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:33:33 GMT

[quote]Consumers view ads as a distraction or obstruction which prevents or delays their enjoyment of content. Any other interpretation is just wishful thinking.[/quote]Totally agree!!

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

DavidBrown-731687 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:05:03 GMT

I resent the notion that, just because I may be more affluent than another person, I should be expected to pay more for everything I buy. I purchased a BMW a few years ago, but sold it when it became obvious that every time I took it in for service the charge was higher than I paid for comparable service on other cars I've owned. And when I had to have repairs performed, I was looking at a mid 4-figure repair bill.Like any sensible consumer, I want to get a product or service of acceptable value at an acceptable price. I DON'T expect to be fleeced by merchants who tell me they are doing me a favor by pushing higher priced (but not necessarily better) options, in the hope that I'll fatten their bottom line.This is self-serving greed, nothing less. That Orbitz has discovered Apple customers can be manipulated to buy higher-priced options is bad enough. That they are unapologetic is worse still.And please...Stop with all this "consumers want targeted ads" baloney. Consumers view ads as a distraction or obstruction which prevents or delays their enjoyment of content. Any other interpretation is just wishful thinking. I will avail myself of every possible technology to avoid ads.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

G Bryant McClellan — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:42:18 GMT

Was it then impossible for the OSx user to resort the content and find a better price? If so I would agree about the questionable ethics. On the other hand, if the user simply accepts what is displayed without doing further research they are just as culpable...if, indeed, there is any culpability to be assigned.Many years ago I learned that just because you see SALE in huge letters in a store window (an early physical corollary to a web page :-)) it does NOT mean that the prices you will find are lower. In fact it was proven that the impression of a SALE would bring in customer more than willing to pay more because they forgot the basic rule of commerce: caveat emptor.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

EdVassie — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:32:19 GMT

I think targeted advertising is OK providing that the end user is made explicitly aware of what the targeting preferences are.Taking the Orbitz example, it could be argued that targeting one section of the user base with items at a different price level to another section of the user base in a covert manner is potentially illegal under unfair contract terms legislation. The same could be argued if the targeting was done under generic site T&Cs. However, if the end user could see on their screen what targeting was available and being used, and had the choice of turning it off or on, then the targeting becomes obvious and fair.

RE: Look Beyond the First Result

Gary Varga — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:52:51 GMT

Surely this is an example of the natural progression of BI usage, is it not? Businesses tend to be interested in trends as they are looking at catering for what they percieve as the majority. That was all that they were doing. Having not seen how it was delivered, it is possible - and likely - that they did not make it clear what the criteria they offered as a default was thereby allowing Mac users, in this case, to say "Actually, I want to target a different criteria for my room".

Look Beyond the First Result

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:41:30 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Look Beyond the First Result[/B]