text:
Measuring Religion in Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel
Self-administered surveys indicate that Americans attend religious services less often than previously estimated
(Exkalibur via Getty Images)
How we did this
Over the past several years, Pew Research Center has changed the way it conducts surveys in the United States. The Center's polls were once conducted entirely using an interviewer-administered mode: Respondents were called by telephone and invited by a professional interviewer to participate in the poll. As response rates to telephone surveys continued to decline in recent years and the challenges (and costs) of telephone surveys grew, the Center gradually transitioned to surveys conducted using a self-administered mode, in which respondents participate in polls conducted online. Today, most of the Center's surveys are conducted online.
This shift has significant implications for interpreting the Center's long-term trend data on the country's religious characteristics. Can estimates from surveys done using the new methods be directly compared with estimates from previous surveys done using the older methods to understand whether and how the country's religious attributes have changed? Or are the new methods simply too different from the older methods to draw firm conclusions about how things have changed?
To help answer these questions, this report analyzes and compares data from three different sources: The aggregated set of all of the telephone surveys the Center conducted between January 2019 and July 2020; the annual profile survey (conducted Aug. 3 to 16, 2020) the Center administers to respondents in its American Trends Panel, an online survey panel recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses; and the 2020 National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS), conducted online and by mail June 1 to Aug. 11, 2020.
For additional details, see the methodology section of this report.
For most of its history, Pew Research Center has conducted its U.S. polling by telephone – nationally representative samples of respondents were contacted via random-digit dialing (RDD) and invited to participate in surveys conducted by live interviewers (that is, not by computer-generated recordings). Over time, however, declining response rates and rapidly rising costs have made it increasingly difficult to conduct surveys by telephone, with people more reluctant to answer phone calls from unknown numbers.1
In 2014, Pew Research Center established its American Trends Panel (ATP) to respond to these challenges. The ATP is a nationally representative group of more than 13,500 U.S. adults recruited by phone or mail who have agreed to participate in online surveys conducted approximately once or twice per month. Since the establishment of the ATP, the Center has gradually migrated away from telephone polling and toward online survey administration, and since early 2019, the Center has conducted most of its U.S. polling on the ATP.
This shift has major implications for the way the Center measures trends in American religion – including those from the Center's flagship Religious Landscape Studies, which were conducted by phone in 2007 and 2014. In recent years, figures from the ATP have not matched those from telephone surveys on some key measures – even when questions are asked exactly the same way. For example, when asking Americans about their religious affiliation, the ATP has found a higher share of people who do not identify with any religion. And the ATP has found a much lower share of people who say they regularly attend religious services than RDD surveys do.
In other words, the ATP consistently produces estimates that suggest the U.S. population is less religious, in a variety of ways, than RDD telephone surveys indicate. And the big differences between the Center's new ATP-based estimates and its older RDD-based estimates greatly complicate efforts to track change over time in the U.S. public's religious characteristics. So how might we understand and interpret these differences between the ATP and RDD surveys?
One possible cause of the differences is the mode in which a survey is administered: RDD surveys are conducted using an interviewer-administered mode, in which respondents answer questions posed by another person, while ATP surveys are conducted using a self-administered mode, in which respondents answer questions online. Survey respondents tend to indicate higher levels of religiosity when answering questions from a live interviewer than when filling out a survey by themselves (either on paper or online).2 This is because, when representing themselves to another person, some people may (consciously or subconsciously) project a more highly religious image of themselves than when they are filling out a survey alone and unobserved. This "mode effect" reflects, in part, that being religious has long been considered a socially desirable attribute in America.3
The psychology behind these different answers is not simply a matter of being truthful versus lying. On some questions, there may be more than one truthful way to answer. Take religious affiliation, for instance. There are many different opinions about what makes someone Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. But no matter what anyone else thinks is correct, surveys typically rely on respondents' self-identification to measure religious identity. If the same person says she is Christian in one survey and unaffiliated in another, it is not necessarily the case that she was honest in one and dishonest in the other; she may have a tenuous link to Christianity, and in some contexts she calls herself a Christian while in other contexts she does not – without even thinking about it. The same is true when it comes to assessing the importance of religion in one's life, a standard question in many surveys about religious and spiritual matters. There are no objectively correct or incorrect answers – whether a respondent describes religion as "somewhat" or "not too" important to them, for instance, could depend on what happened that day or who is asking the question.
Religious service attendance is a bit different, since in theory, at least, there is a verifiably true answer to the question of how often a person goes to a house of worship. Still, when respondents in a telephone or face-to-face survey overstate how often they go to religious services, they may not be consciously telling a lie so much as projecting a self-image that is important to them. They may be saying, in effect, "I'm the kind of person who goes to church every week" rather than, "Without fail, I actually go to church every single week." When answering the same question online, without the subtle psychological impact of speaking to another person, respondents evidently give answers that are closer to their actual behavior.4
Another potential factor in the differences between the ATP and RDD surveys is the rate of response among key groups in the U.S. population. Compared with RDD surveys, some people may be less likely to participate in ATP surveys, especially the portion of the population that would prefer other options to doing a survey online. This is known as "differential nonresponse."
Today, all ATP surveys are conducted online. When respondents are recruited to join the ATP, they are asked whether they have access to the internet in their home. If they do not have internet access, Pew Research Center offers to provide it (including a tablet device and a subscription for internet service) so that they can participate in the ATP.
Despite these efforts to include households that would otherwise not use the internet, it is possible that people who are less comfortable participating in online surveys may decline to participate in the ATP at higher rates than people who are confident and comfortable using the internet for this purpose. Research shows that Americans who do not use the internet at all tend to be older than the general population, and older adults tend to be more religious, on average, than younger adults. And while people who do not use the internet at all constitute a small (and shrinking) share of the overall U.S. population, it may nevertheless be the case that the ATP misses people who go online sometimes for some purposes but who are unenthusiastic about doing so to participate in a survey. To the extent that it comes up short in representing the population of Americans who use the internet on a limited basis or not at all – or who would simply prefer other options (such as telephone or paper surveys) to participating in surveys online – the ATP may underestimate the country's religiosity.
The National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS)
In 2020, Pew Research Center conducted a National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS). The NPORS was designed in part to help explain the different estimates of religiosity produced by the ATP and RDD surveys, and to assess the degree to which mode effects and differential nonresponse might be factors. The NPORS was conducted among a representative group of U.S. adults recruited by drawing a national random sample of home addresses (known as address-based sampling, or ABS) and offering the ability to respond either online or via paper and pencil.5 This approach is the best available for representing all U.S. adults – including those who are comfortable participating online as well as those who are not. The NPORS achieved a 29% response rate, which is more than 20 percentage points higher than the Center's RDD polls or online panels like the ATP.
The NPORS survey included questions on a variety of topics, including internet usage patterns and political partisanship. It also featured several queries about religion that the Center has long asked in its RDD and ATP surveys, including questions about religious affiliation (such as Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheist and others), frequency of attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer, and the importance of religion in respondents' lives.
The results of the NPORS suggest that the ATP may have overstated the share of religious "nones" in the U.S. population, and that differential nonresponse may be primarily to blame. In other words, the ATP may underrepresent a portion of the population that would participate in surveys by paper and pencil (if given the option) but would be reluctant to be surveyed online, and which is presumably more highly religious than the rest of the U.S. public.
What is weighting?
Virtually all surveys must adjust their datasets to correct any imbalances between the survey sample and the population being surveyed. For example, highly educated people tend to be more likely than those with lower levels of education to participate in surveys. Thus, survey samples have to be adjusted, or "weighted," to ensure that educational attainment and other demographic attributes of the survey samples match the broader population's known characteristics.
The most prevalent method for weighting public opinion surveys involves choosing a set of variables where the population's characteristics are known, and then employing a statistical procedure that iteratively adjusts the weight for each respondent until the survey sample aligns with the known characteristics of the population. For example, a researcher might specify that the sample should be 48% men and 52% women, or that a sample should be 43% Protestant, 19% Catholic and 27% religiously unaffiliated. The process will adjust the weights so that the gender ratio for the weighted survey sample matches the known population characteristics. Next, the weights are adjusted so that the religious groups are in the correct proportion. If the adjustment for religion pushes the gender distribution out of alignment, then the weights are adjusted again so that men and women are represented in the desired proportion. The process is repeated until the weighted distribution of all of the weighting variables matches or comes close to matching their specified targets (results will not always be exact).
More details about weighting survey datasets are available here.
As a result, Pew Research Center has decided, for the foreseeable future, to adjust (or "weight") ATP samples to religious affiliation parameters derived from the NPORS. Once the ATP sample is weighted to religious affiliation targets derived from the NPORS, analysis shows that the ATP and RDD surveys produce very similar estimates of the share of U.S. adults who pray regularly, suggesting that future ATP estimates of prayer frequency can be compared with older RDD surveys to track change over time. After weighting, the ATP also produces estimates of the importance Americans attach to religion that are in the same ballpark as a recent RDD survey – though not as close as the measure of frequency of prayer.
The ATP is not the only national online survey platform to statistically adjust on religion. For example, the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, funded by the National Science Foundation, has also used religion measures in both its sample matching and weighting.
On the other hand, the NPORS finds very similar rates of religious attendance to the ATP, and both sources (the NPORS and the ATP) indicate that regular religious attendance is far less common than indicated by RDD surveys. This finding – an apparent mode effect – suggests that RDD surveys overestimate the share of U.S. adults who attend religious services in any given week due to what researchers call social desirability bias.
What is social desirability bias?
When respondents participate in a survey conducted by a live interviewer (either in person or on the telephone), they may (perhaps subconsciously) wish to present themselves in the best possible light on a range of topics. That is, as in any other social interaction, a respondent being interviewed for a survey may want the interviewer to think highly of them.This phenomenon is not limited to questions about religion. On a range of questions, respondents tend to overstate the degree to which they participate in certain kinds of socially desirable activities, such as how often they volunteer in their communities, the frequency with which they vote in elections, or the amount of attention they pay to news about current events.
Similarly, respondents may downplay the frequency with which they engage in socially undesirable behaviors (such as using drugs or drinking alcohol) or the degree to which they hold socially undesirable opinions (such as racist or sexist attitudes). When this happens, it introduces social desirability bias – systematic overestimates of socially desirable characteristics and underestimates of socially undesirable traits – into survey results.
This comes as no surprise: Researchers have long known that surveys in which live interviewers ask respondents questions about their frequency of attendance at religious services produce overestimates of the share of U.S. adults who attend services in any given week. This is partly because while questions about religious attendance ostensibly ask about a behavior, some respondents may interpret them as questions about identity. Respondents who do not actually go to religious services every week may nevertheless think of themselves as regular worship attenders, and so describe themselves in the context of a survey interview as weekly religious attenders.6
While this means results from the newer self-administered surveys should not be directly compared with those from RDD phone surveys, there is good reason to think that by reducing social desirability bias, self-administered measurement of religious attendance (like in the NPORS and the ATP) produces more candid and accurate answers than interviewer-administered surveys.
The remainder of this report compares recent RDD surveys with the NPORS and ATP surveys (both before and after the ATP samples are weighted to NPORS targets) in more detail. It concludes with a discussion of what these findings mean for understanding trends in American religion and monitoring those trends in the future.
Measuring religious affiliation
Random digit-dial telephone surveys show that religious "nones" (people who describe themselves, religiously, as atheist, agnostic, or simply "nothing in particular") have been growing as a share of the U.S. adult population and Christians have been declining for quite some time. In the Center's most current RDD polling, 63% of U.S. adults identify as Christians (including 43% who are Protestant, 19% who are Catholic, and 2% who are Mormon), and 28% are "nones" (including 4% who describe themselves as atheists, 5% who are agnostics, and 18% who are "nothing in particular"). By way of comparison, in the Center's polling from roughly a decade ago, in 2009, 77% of U.S. adults described themselves as Christians (14 percentage points higher than today), and 17% described themselves as religious "nones" (11 points lower than today).
The 2020 NPORS paints a portrait of the country's religious composition that is very similar to the findings of the Center's recent RDD surveys. In the NPORS, 64% of respondents self-identify as Christian, and 28% are religious "nones." This suggests that in the future, studies like the NPORS (that is, surveys that use address-based sampling and offer both online and offline response options) can be validly compared with older RDD surveys to track change over time in the country's religious composition.
By comparison with both recent RDD surveys and the NPORS, the ATP finds a modestly but significantly higher percentage of respondents who identify as religious "nones" and fewer Christians. In the 2020 ATP profile survey (the latest in a series of surveys conducted annually in which all current, active ATP members are asked to provide updated information about a variety of personal characteristics, including their religious identities and behaviors), 60% of respondents described themselves as Christians (3 points lower than in recent RDD surveys and 4 points lower than in the NPORS), and 32% described themselves as religious "nones" (4 points higher than in recent RDD surveys and the NPORS).
The differences in the religious composition of ATP and NPORS respondents suggests that the higher share of religious "nones" in the ATP is a function not of mode effects (since both surveys are self-administered), but rather of insufficient representation of people who would prefer not to participate in online surveys in the ATP as compared with the NPORS. As a result, Pew Research Center has decided to weight the ATP sample to religious affiliation targets derived from the NPORS for the foreseeable future. That is, in addition to the standard weighting controls for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education and more, ATP samples will be weighted so as to ensure that they match the NPORS-derived religious composition of U.S. adults on each of four major categories: Protestant, Catholic, religiously unaffiliated (or religious "nones"), and other.7 When this additional weighting is done, the religious affiliations of ATP respondents look very much like those in the NPORS (by definition) and also very much like those in recent RDD surveys.
Measuring religious attendance
Just as affiliating with a religion has grown less common in recent years, so too has attending religious services, according to RDD surveys. In the Center's most recent RDD surveys, 55% of U.S. adults say they attend religious services a few times a year or less, up from 47% who said this a decade ago.
But the NPORS finds even lower rates of worship attendance than RDD polls do. Only a third of NPORS respondents (33%) report attending religious services at least once a month, compared with 43% in RDD surveys. And the NPORS respondents are much more likely to report rarely or never attending; 66% of NPORS respondents report attending a few times a year or less, vs. 55% in RDD surveys.
Furthermore, the ATP estimates of rates of religious attendance look almost identical to the NPORS estimates (both before and after adjusting the ATP sample to NPORS-based targets for religious affiliation). The fact that the estimates from these two self-administered surveys are similar to each other – and both much different from the estimates based on the interviewer-administered RDD surveys – points to social desirability bias in the RDD surveys as the reason for inflated estimates of self-reported religious attendance in telephone polls.
The NPORS was conducted during the midst of a global pandemic when many religious congregations were holding limited in-person services or closed altogether. Thus, it is worth considering whether fewer people reported regular attendance because of the circumstances of the pandemic. However, the ATP finds very little difference in self-reported patterns of religious attendance between a major survey conducted in summer 2019 (before the pandemic), when 31% reported attending monthly or more and 69% reported attending yearly or less, and a major survey conducted in summer 2020 (during the pandemic), when 32% reported attending monthly or more and two-thirds reported attending yearly or less.
This suggests that, at least for the time being, respondents are reacting to the question about religious attendance – "Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services?" – by describing their general attendance patterns in more typical times, and not necessarily by indicating whether they've been attending in-person religious services during the pandemic. As a result, it appears safe to compare results from the 2020 NPORS with pre-pandemic ATP data.
Measuring how often people pray and their assessments of religion's importance
Random-digit dial phone surveys and the NPORS produce similar estimates of the share of Americans who say they pray daily; 49% of respondents in a 2019 RDD survey report that they pray at least once a day, as do 48% of participants in the NPORS. After adjusting to NPORS-based targets for religious affiliation, the ATP produces estimates of prayer frequency that are only slightly lower than both sources, with 45% of ATP respondents saying they pray daily.
RDD polls and the NPORS also produce similar estimates of the share of Americans who say religion is "very important" in their lives (48% in a March 2019 RDD survey, 45% in the NPORS). On this measure, the ATP produces a somewhat lower estimate of the share of U.S. adults who consider religion very important (41%), even after weighting to NPORS-based religious affiliation targets. Still, the differences between the ATP and NPORS-based estimates are relatively modest. And all three sources find that nearly two-thirds or more of U.S. adults say religion is at least "somewhat" important in their lives.
In the future, Pew Research Center is likely to continue to conduct more self-administered surveys (especially using the ATP and also via periodic NPORS-style studies) and fewer RDD telephone polls. This poses complications for continuing RDD-based trends, including those produced by the Center's flagship Religious Landscape Studies conducted in 2007 and 2014. Those studies have shown that the country has been growing less religious over time, continuing trends first observed in the General Social Survey (GSS) as long ago as the early 1990s.8 These major developments in American religion include the decline of the Christian share of the population, the growth of religious "nones," and a downturn in self-reported rates of religious attendance.
But the new data suggests that future surveys conducted using address-based sampling methods and a mail push-to-web design with a mail/paper option (like the NPORS) are valid tools for continuing RDD-based efforts from previous years to monitor trends and ongoing changes in the country's religious composition. Additionally, the data shows that once it is anchored to benchmarks like those produced by the NPORS, the ATP produces estimates of the country's religious composition that are very similar to those produced using RDD techniques.
Similarly, self-administered surveys that ask respondents how often they pray produce similar estimates to RDD surveys and can be interpreted as a continuation of RDD-based trends. The situation is a bit less clear with respect to the importance respondents attach to religion in their lives, and future self-administered surveys that show lower estimates of religion's importance may need to be interpreted cautiously, because they could reflect mode effects rather than real change over time. That said, big reductions in the share of Americans who say religion is very important to them in the future can probably be interpreted as indicators of continuing declines in the country's religiosity, and the reversal of any such trends can confidently be interpreted as a slowing or reversal of secularizing trends.
Estimates of the frequency with which Americans attend religious services derived from self-administered surveys are clearly not comparable with those produced by phone surveys. Even after adjusting the religious composition of the ATP sample to parameters derived from the NPORS, the ATP produces far lower estimates of the share of regular religious attenders than RDD surveys. This means future surveys conducted using self-administered modes cannot be compared with past surveys conducted over the phone to assess change over time in the share of Americans who regularly attend religious services. But there is reason to believe these new NPORS- and ATP-based estimates of religious attendance may more accurately reflect Americans' behavior, and they will serve as important baselines for monitoring trends on this important topic using these methods in the years ahead.
For details on trends in response rates to RDD surveys, see "Response rates in telephone surveys have resumed their decline." ↩
See, for example, Presser, Stanley, and Linda Stinson. 1998. "Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance." American Sociological Review. ↩
See, for example, Edgell, Penny, Douglas Hartmann, Evan Stewart and Joseph Gerteis. 2016. "Atheists and Other Cultural Outsiders: Moral Boundaries and the Non-Religious in the United States." Social Forces. Also see Schwadel, Philip, and Christopher R. H. Garneau. 2014. "An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Political Tolerance in the United States." Sociological Quarterly. It is also worth noting that we cannot assume that this type of social desirability bias will remain static. As the country grows less religious, more people may feel that it is socially acceptable to say they are not religious. In some areas of the country and some age and educational cohorts, being nonreligious may even be the socially desirable response, and religious respondents may feel hesitant to identify as such. This dynamic concept is ripe for future study. ↩
See, for example, Brenner, Phillip. 2011. "Exceptional Behavior or Exceptional Identity? Overreporting of Church Attendance in the U.S." Public Opinion Quarterly. ↩
Households were sampled from among the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) Delivery Sequence File. The USPS Delivery Sequence File has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, though some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range. ↩
See, for example, Hadaway, C. Kirk, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves. 1998. "Overreporting Church Attendance in America: Evidence that Demands the Same Verdict." American Sociological Review. Also see Brenner, Phillip. 2011. "Exceptional Behavior or Exceptional Identity? Overreporting of Church Attendance in the U.S." ↩
For more details on how weighting is done, see the text box above. When data is weighted to known parameters for religious identity (or any other demographic target), the resulting weighted dataset will come close to the known parameters but may not be an exact match in every respect. When the ATP sample is weighted to NPORS-based targets for religious affiliation, for example, the share of Protestants in the ATP is 42%, very similar, but not identical, to the 41% Protestant in the NPORS. ↩
See, for example, Chaves, Mark. 2013. "American Religion: Contemporary Trends." Also see Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. 2014. "Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012." Sociological Science. Also see Hout, Michael, and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. "Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations." American Sociological Review. Also see Voas, David, and Mark Chaves. 2016. "Is the United States a Counterexample to the Secularization Thesis?" American Journal of Sociology. ↩
Next: Acknowledgments Next Page → ← Prev Page
NPOR Survey Methodology
UncategorizedApr 12, 2016
Religion in Everyday Life
American Trends Panel Data
American Trends Panel


This entry was posted in News, Podcasts and tagged Tim Knoll Space Brothers Podcast by Effraim. Bookmark the permalink.
Well deserved /earned for this dude ! Tim has really taken bmx to a whole of level with his signature blend of flatland , gymnastics , street riding , and an imagination for some of the most insane , technical , burly , original stunts EVER done in bmx , as a WHOLE . Cant wait to hear whats on his mind ! This guy IS freestyle at its most intense , purest and down right raddest . His edits will still be respected / relevant , and admired years from now . Just like Akihiko Takahashi put HIS stamp of signature riding in flatland…………Tim has done the same with not another rider in sight dabbling in HIS art work …..if ya catch my drift .


City police investigated a stabbing early Sunday after the wounded victim showed up at the hospital around 1:20 a.m.
Police say a 43-year-old man was stabbed on Grove Street prior to visiting the hospital.
Details were not released about where on his body he was stabbed. His condition also was not released.
Police say they collected evidence from the crime scene and the investigation continues.


text:
Video IndyCar IMSA schedule MotoGP Supercross Newsletters PointsBet Peacock
MOTOR SPORTS TALK | NBC SPORTSMST Subscribe:
Drs. Trammell, Olvey discuss Power diagnosis, concussion protocol
By DizbizroundupMar 16, 2016, 3:34 PM EDT
Photo: Tony DiZinno
It's not very often you get two of the smartest doctoral minds on one conference call, but that was the case today with Dr. Terry Trammell, IndyCar Safety consultant, and Dr. Stephen Olvey, retired former director of the Neurocritical Care Unit at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, both on a call along with Will Power and Penske Racing president Tim Cindric.
Power was cleared to drive earlier Wednesday after he did not actually have a concussion, as he was initially diagnosed. Comments from both Trammell and Olvey – which are full of lucidity and insight – are below:
Q: Dr. Trammell, can you briefly talk us through the weekend in St. Petersburg and specifically how Will's inner ear infection could have led to the concussion-like symptoms and failing the test at St. Pete?
Dr. Terry Trammell: Okay. He had, as you know, an impact with a turn on the wall on the driver's right. It compressed the right side of the car pretty low, but at relatively low G's for that style of racing.
We were in the — the chassis was in the 50 G range. I think his maximum right-sided G's were 56.9. That's on the chassis. His ear accelerometer data, without going through all the numbers, the average result was 30 G's, which is low and below our threshold that I'll talk to you about in a minute. He was being evaluated at the scene of the crash by the IndyCar medical team with Dr. Billows present, had no symptoms at that point of any kind, and was released from the scene.
Later that evening, he began to develop some neck soreness and stiffness, and Will, correct me if I'm getting this wrong, because I was doing this by remote control, and it wasn't until later that he developed the symptoms of nausea, headache and dizziness.
Now, what happens next is — the presumption when a driver has had an impact is that anything that's wrong with him was a result of that impact. And the next step is to go to one of the sports concussion surveys, or what's called a concussion assessment tool or clinical evaluation tool of which there are several. And we use one called the SCAT test, which is sports concussion assessment test, or sometimes called a sideline concussion assessment test. That test is based on the premise that the cause of your symptoms is a concussion. It therefore quantitates the symptoms and gives a probability that you've had a concussion based on the numerical score for the symptoms.
If you have some abnormality to start with, what we would called compounding factors or compounding variables, those are not taken into account. The effect that they have is not taken into account by the test. It simply assumes that all of your symptoms are from a concussion.
Well, if you have an inner ear infection with fluid in the inner ear like Will did, that by itself can cause you to have a sense of balance disturbance, vertigo, can cause you then to be nauseated. It can produce a headache. Anybody that's had a sinus or inner ear infection knows this, and if you have a headache and you're nauseated, you don't concentrate very well. Add to that fact that as the day, Saturday, went on, Will, if I'm correct, your neck stiffness and soreness seemed to get — at least respond badly to loads under braking, and that causes increasing muscle tension, which also causes a headache.
So now you have a driver that's nauseated, has a balance disturbance, vertigo, headache, can't concentrate very well, and you have him take the SCAT test, which he'll now fail. It's part of our concussion protocol to say that if you fail a concussion assessment test, whatever kind we're using — and SCAT is the one we're using now — that you have to be evaluated by a more definitive diagnostic test such as the impact test before you can return to competition. We take the possibility of concussion very seriously and want to err on the side of caution rather than the other way around.
The other side of this is we depend and are increasingly dependent on our actual accelerometer data, both ear and chassis, and we found that they relate very well one to the other and help us determine the forces involved and the probability that those forces can cause injury.
We've researched it, actually Dr. Olvey researched it for us, and found that our threshold for concussion is somewhere greater than 50 G's resultant, and probably closer to 80 G's or above for a concussion, and has a HIC value that approaches 1,000. HIC is called head injury criteria. Will's head injury criteria was 44. So he didn't have — nothing correlated very well. His crash was not sufficient to really cause a concussion under most circumstances, and he had a mix of symptoms for a variety of reasons.
So that's how he could have a positive SCAT test and trigger the concussion evaluation that he subsequently had.
Q: Dr. Olvey, in addition to your experience as a neurosurgeon and teaching neurosurgery and neurology at the University of Miami School of Medicine, you're also recognized as one of the leading medical professionals in motorsports. Can you give us an overview of the testing that Will underwent this week and how you and the other doctors ultimately came to the final conclusion?
Dr. Stephen Olvey: Sure, first I'm not a neurosurgeon. I'm a neurocritical care physician, but no neurosurgery. Terry explained the preliminary information really well. Concussion without loss of consciousness or amnesia can often be very difficult to diagnose. And the reason is, as Terry explained, the patient can be symptomatic, the kind of symptoms you'd have with a concussion, but there are several other things that can cause those same kind of symptoms.
But you have to err on being conservative, and Will was sent to our Concussion Center at UM, and we've had a lot of experience with high-end athletes as well as some motorsports. Felipe Massa was there and Dario Franchitti, of course. And we have a whole battery of tests that can be done. In fact, it's quite extensive, involves three different departments, the Department of Neurology, Radiology, and Ear, Nose and Throat, and it was quite a feat because this was — we did this on a Monday, and of course all the clinics are booked and the CAT scanner is booked. So it was a busy day at the University, but we were able to get all of this done over about an eight-hour period.
So we looked at every conceivable area of detecting concussion and occult concussion. And Terry mentioned the impact test, we did that first. What was really important was that his impact test on Monday was actually a bit better than his baseline test that he had back in January of 2015.
Following that, we looked at balance and coordination, which is all a part of your vestibular function, which can be affected by concussion, and then in the course of the day, we had him undergo a sophisticated type of MRI. It's not just a routine MRI, it's called diffusion tensor MRI, and I won't go into all the physics of that. I don't even understand it. But it delineates areas of the brain that are white matter areas that are affected with concussion and with, actually, repeated concussions, and also other white matter diseases like multiple sclerosis and so on.
But the long and short of it is that we were unable to detect any evidence for acute concussion, and in fact, his DTI was perfectly normal, indicating that there was no residual effects from any past concussions that showed up on that.
We did, however — we were aware of his ear infection, which had been adequately treated and was much improved, but we also found that he had pretty marked cervical muscle tension, which again Terry referred to, but this can cause pretty debilitating type of headache. It's usually bi-frontal, goes down the back of your neck, and you get into a vicious cycle with this unless you break it. So he is on some medication to relax the muscles of his neck and to get the cycle broken so that when he steps back into the car — I think he's scheduled to do a test next Tuesday — if he steps back into the car the whole thing may repeat itself as far as his neck muscle spasm goes.
So we'd like him to sit out this week, but it's related to the cervical muscle tension problem, not a concussion, and be able to go back in the car on Tuesday and should have no further problem.
Q. Dr. Olvey, Brad Keselowski tweeted while this was all going on that it's not IndyCar or NASCAR's fault that doctors don't understand concussions and/or can't agree on them to diagnose. I'm curious, is that statement accurate, and do you know how much question or how much — I guess how much difference is there with doctors as far as whether a driver is able to drive or not?
Dr. Olvey: That's really a very good question. The problem — as you all know, 12, 15 years ago, we used to say if a driver had a particularly bad crash and maybe he was unconscious for a minute or two and then felt fine or it was getting better, we'd say, oh, good, he just had a concussion. Well, as you all know now, we understand the concussion is very serious. Too many concussions can be really bad, and too many too soon can lead to CTE and all of that stuff that everyone has read about in papers.
The problem is the medical profession has lagged behind this. I went to a neurology conference two years ago, and there were a couple of neurologists that were rather well-known who were kind of scoffing at the idea of chronic traumatic encephalopathy and having too many concussions.
The situation is still present where a lot of — especially at lower levels, lower than IndyCar, NASCAR, Formula 1 and all, where you have, maybe, physicians at the racetrack, but they're not really tuned in on diagnosing the concussion. There's still people that think you have to be knocked out. There's still people that think you had to have hit your head. None of that's true. You can have a very significant concussion and not hit your head at all.
So until more physicians are tuned into that — and imagine what it's like in Pee Wee football leagues and things like that where you may have no physician there at all or no medical person at all — and the coach says, oh, you know, you're all right, kid, you're awake, you're talking, and put them back in the game, and they get into trouble.
We're trying to spread the word to different organizations in motorsports as well as to sports medicine, and the American College of Sports Medicine has a task force on this. We've got special education in south Florida with all the high schools and grade schools, and it's recognizing concussion. It has to be a conscious thing and a conscious awareness around team members. I mean, even in motorsports. If a crew member or the car owner or the chief principal thinks the driver is not acting quite right after an incident or is just a little bit strange, as Terry said, you need to err on the side of being conservative, and they need to be brought in and given an exam. And if it leads to what happened with Will, even though the symptoms were due to something other than a concussion, you still have to go through that process because concussion is very serious.
Dr. Trammell: Let me interject something briefly here if I may. Your comment about the variance in physician behavior, part of that, if not all of it, is addressed by using the standardized instruments like the SCAT test, because that doesn't have much room for the bias of an individual examiner. And that's been the drift, to try and get doctors to buy into these various sideline tests or acute concussion inventories that you can do on the spot. And that is, first of all, something that we've mandated with IndyCar, and since we have the same physicians available at the racetrack all the time, they're able to do that consistently and do away with any personal bias that might come into it if you're just doing a, well, you look okay, kind of exam.
Q. Dr. Trammell, when you say that you need to err on the side of caution or being conservative, how much of that is for the driver's own benefit, and how much is a driver who you believe may have had a concussion considered a safety risk to other drivers?
Dr. Trammell: Well, first and foremost, it's for the driver's own benefit so that he doesn't end up with a chronic condition or a worsened injury, having a second concussion before the first one is resolved. And then, of course, when you're in the middle of 22-plus other drivers, you certainly don't want to not be performing at your peak where you endanger all of them.
Our goal is to protect all of our drivers, both from themselves and others.
Q. For either Dr. Trammell or Dr. Olvey and considering both of your experience, is it harder to diagnose concussions now compared to say maybe the late 1990s, early 2000s when there were always a lot of — head protection and the like wasn't the same? And how much more important is it to diagnose concussions now given how things have evolved the last few years?
Dr. Olvey: It's actually harder now than it used to be, but it's harder because what we thought was concussion — now we know that you can have a significant concussion without, as I said before, loss of consciousness or suffering amnesia, and you don't have to be hit in your head. The findings of concussion can be quite subtle. And the scary thing is sometimes they don't turn up for 24 to 48 hours following the concussion. So it's becoming more difficult because you have to be more aware of that, and there has to be more education of those who are responsible for determining whether a participant has had a concussion or not.
It's actually become a little more difficult, but we didn't know what we were doing in previous years when we thought it was easy to diagnose a concussion. Now it's become kind of a — it's a pretty big deal. There is a lot of education that goes into understanding when a concussion may have occurred.
Dr. Trammell: Part of my job is to follow up with any driver that's been in a crash 24 to 48 hours after that for the purposes of seeing if they've had delayed onset of symptoms, particularly if it happened on a Saturday or a Sunday, and they take off immediately after the race on Sunday and would not normally be seen for two weeks until they show up at the next track. So part of my reason for being is to follow up with each one of these guys for any injury that they might have had.
Q. For the doctors, did this episode reveal any need for changes or adjustments to the at-track medical evaluation program, or were there so many extenuating circumstances, it's tough to get a gauge on what might need to be adjusted, if anything?
Dr. Olvey: I think they did a terrific job, really, because as I stated, there's really subtle findings now with concussion, and the symptomatology is one of them. He had an accident and he had symptoms. Even though the accident was relatively minor, the symptoms were there. We did a recognized test that is commonly used to detect a concussion, and it was positive because of the symptoms that he was having, and so they sent him to have a definitive evaluation. Erring on the side of being cautious, if you miss it and all kinds of catastrophic things can occur from it, then you'd really feel bad.
IndyCar has a terrific protocol in place for uncovering these occult kinds of concussions, and every once in a while there's going to be false positive tests, and they need to be worked out and resolved as has been done here.
So I think the system worked quite well, actually.
Q. If I understand it correctly, drivers don't have to go to the Med Center if it's not a crash on an oval. Would that help at all? Would that alleviate any sort of mystery or provide more information that could help everything?
Dr. Trammell: We have discussed that briefly about when to make a driver come into the Med Center on a road course or street course. And as our knowledge of how to use our data increases in a driver that says he has no symptoms, we probably — suppose Will had been 50 G's in his ears, we would have probably had him come back Friday end of day and gone over him again.
The other potential option would be to have them all come in, but his symptoms would not have been present in that first 15 minutes or so that we make people stay at the center at an oval.
The other thing we could have done and have done in the past is to administer the impact test when they fail the sideline concussion test, or the sports concussion test. And that really wouldn't have helped because he would have still had all the same symptoms even if he passed the impact test.
So then the question is, okay, he hasn't had a concussion, but he still doesn't perform well enough that he should be in a race car. So all you say is you can't get in a race car because your symptoms are bad enough to prevent it, but we're not sure what's causing that.
So I don't know that we would have done anything any different than what happened.
Q. Dr. Trammell, it seems like about four or five decades ago, injuries and fatalities in motorsports were far more common. What do you consider the most significant safety advance, say in the last decade or so, that have helped prevent these injuries?
Dr. Trammell: Well, the big things — first of all, there's no single entity. It's been an evolution of safety over the last 20 years or more. You know, the combination of the better chassis, better driver fit into the chassis, the design of the seat becoming the back half of the restraint system, so to speak, the improved quality of the helmets, and their resistance to impact.
In the IndyCars we have a very sophisticated head surround that is reactive to the loads that are applied to it so that it's protective both at very low G's and very high G's, and probably the head surround in the IndyCars is one of the most advanced features to protect against head injury because it, by itself, absorbs head impact into the head surround very well, and better now than it did even two years ago because of the evolution of what we've built into it.
IndyCar carries out an ongoing R&D program, testing and evaluation, and that's where this head surround has come from, and it's still an evolution. We're planning some additional changes to it to make it even more protective.
So that whole system complex of what goes on inside the chassis, inside the tub around the driver, we package them much better now than we did — certainly much better now than 20 years ago, and really better than we did 10 years ago. So that's what I think is the most advanced feature of the car is the ability to contain the driver and to control his movements and dissipate the energy that those movements generate.
Q. I've been fortunate to interview a lot of sports figures, NFL players, and motorsports drivers at the top, and I've noticed that there's a certain level of intelligence. It just seems like it takes a fast brain to make fast decisions when you're dealing with speed. Am I the only one just thinking that, or is it something that almost comes with the territory?
Dr. Trammell: My hair is turning gray and falling out a whole lot faster than it did when you just took a five-pound mallet to everything to fix it. Yeah, they're certainly brighter, more inquisitive. They find out a lot of information on their own that you have to help them sort out. The whole job has gotten more difficult. It's not so black and white anymore.
Follow @TonyDiZinno
IndyCar Preseason, Day 1: Simon Pagenaud on why he likes teasing Josef Newgarden
By Nate RyanFeb 1, 2023, 6:00 AM EST
Joe Skibinski/Penske Entertainment
PALM SPRINGS, Calif. — A roundup of nuggets from the opening day of preseason IndyCar Content Days for media that lead into two days of preseason testing Thursday and Friday at The Thermal Club, starting with a playful "feud" between former teammates Josef Newgarden and Simon Pagenaud:
After making a point to needle Newgarden during the Rolex 24 at Daytona (when he was warned for being deemed to have caused a spin by the car driven by Newgarden and Scott McLaughlin), Pagenaud laughed about why he likes poking at his ex-teammate at Team Penske.
"I just love to press the button with Josef," Pagenaud said. "I just love it. I'm being very open about it. I think he knows it, too. It's funny to see him unsettled a little bit. I like when he gets aggressive. I don't know why. It's funny."
They scrapped a few times as Penske teammates. Pagenaud notably was hot after a 2017 incident at Gateway during Newgarden's first season with the team, but he later backtracked and blamed it on his French blood.
Pagenaud says all is good between now – though he also admits with a devilish grin that he's taking advantage of the freedom from leaving Penske last year.
"Absolutely, yeah. I couldn't do that before," he said with a laugh about teasing Newgarden. "I would get in trouble.
"Yeah, I can be myself. I can say what I want to say. Nobody is upset about it. I love Josef. Don't get me wrong. I love the guy.
"Do I love the driver? Not always, but I enjoy pressing the button with him because he seems like such a confident person. Yeah, I like to just go press it a little bit."
When he was informed of the sardonic comments (Pagenaud asked reporters to make sure they relayed that he enjoyed passing Newgarden in the race) after his first stint at Daytona last weekend, Newgarden took a shot back.
"He doesn't get many opportunities these days, so I'm sure he enjoyed that," Newgarden said. "Take them when you can get them. There's so much happening I don't even remember half the stuff that happened when I was out there. Hey, he's a big note-keeper, that guy."
Pagenaud, who is winless since 2020, conceded that point Tuesday at IndyCar's media session.
"I will do better this year," he said. "But I got to build my team up, put myself in that situation. We were not there yet. I hope we can be there this year.
"But certainly not being teammates, you race differently. Now, the driver that he is, I have a huge amount of respect for him. He's tremendous. I mean, he's one of the best at what he does. So beating him is even a better reward. But I like my résumé better than his."
For the record, Newgarden has one more IndyCar championship than Pagenaud but is empty in the Indy 500 win column compared to the 2019 winner at the Brickyard.
During his Rolex 24 availability, Pagenaud also took playful aim at the "Bus Bros," the branded social and digital content that Newgarden and teammate and buddy Scott McLaughlin have been producing for nearly a year.
"Apparently they hang out together all the time," Pagenaud cracked. "They're 'Bus Bros.' Do you guys know what this is, the 'Bus Bros' thing? Have you watched it? I should start watching it."
Newgarden and McLaughlin are scheduled to appear together on the second day of the preseason media event at the Palm Springs Convention Center, so stay tuned for the next round of snark.
Pagenaud is among many drivers enthused to get acclimated to The Thermal Club, which is a $275 million motorsports country club of sorts.
But for the Frenchman, Thermal represents more than just a chance to tune up for the 2023 season. Pagenaud, who made his first visit to the desert track three years ago after winning the Indy 500, is thinking about his long-term future.
"It's actually something I'm really interested in for my future but in another life," he said. "I love the concept. Actually before my IndyCar career, I was on a project like that myself in France. I was going to build something similar. I had the backing, I had everything going on, but my career took off. I had to give up on the project.
Now a two-time @Rolex24Hours winner and the 2019 Indy 500 winner, @simonpagenaud is psyched for the @IndyCar test @ThermalClub (which he loves as a concept for his post-driving future). It's critical to improve his tire wear (a weakness last year). pic.twitter.com/DExaZLeBEb
— Nate Ryan (@nateryan) January 31, 2023
"But it is something I've always been interested in. My dad used to run my home racetrack. I had access to it, so I could see how that was going.
"I always had a passion for it because it's a way to allow the fans to get closer to the car, allow the sport to be more known to the general public. There's so many things that you can do with a racetrack, not only for races, but so many people that can come to bicycle races, you can have runners do a marathon. It doesn't have to be just racing. It can be events. I'm into that. I've always been. Certainly when it's time to stop driving, it will be something that I'm interested in, yes. That's maybe 20 years from now."
Felix Rosenqvist returns for his third consecutive season at McLaren, the longest stint with one team for the Swede since 2014 in F3.
But he finds himself somewhat in a similar position to last season when his return was uncertain for months during the Alex Palou-Chip Ganassi Racing saga. Palou is back with Ganassi but still expected to join the team in 2024, and with Rossi and O'Ward on long-term deals, Rosenqvist would be unable to stay unless the team added a fourth car.
He is taking it all in stride with the same grace in which he managed last season's uncertainty.
"I think I handled it probably as good as I could," Rosenqvist said of last year. "That's probably a reason why I'm here this year. I think it's a massive opportunity for me to be back for a third year. I feel like I have all the tools I need to perform, feeling very good with everyone at the car. As I said, there's so many things happening last year on and off the track. I think as a team, we just really learned a lot from that that we can bring into this season.
"I think we'll be tough this year. We have a lot of things in the bag to try early this season. A couple of things here at Thermal we want to try. Going into the season, we have pinpointed some areas where we feel we were lacking a little bit, like the short ovals, for example. I feel like we've done the best we can to attack all those areas and bring the best possible package we can."
Rosenqvist is winless since his breakthrough victory over O'Ward at Road America in 2020. Ending that skid certainly would improve his prospects, but he isn't worried.
"I don't know what's going to happen in the future," he said. "That's a long time until next year. I think it's a great opportunity for me. I'm in a good spot. I'm in a well-performing team. I feel well with everyone around me. I feel like I have a good support from the team. I don't really think too much about that stuff. I just try to do what I can do, which is go fast forward and try to win races."
After being frozen out of remote access to team data last year, Palou said his working relationship at Ganassi is "back to 100% like it was before from both sides." The 2021 series champion said he had full privileges restored after he closed the season by winning the finale at Laguna Seca Raceway and then settled on staying with Ganassi a day later.
He is allowed to continue his F1 testing with McLaren, too, though IndyCar will be the priority in-season.
"It was a tough year," said Palou, whose contract dispute lasted for two months. "Could have been a lot worse, for sure, than what we had but also could have been a little bit better if we didn't have anything around in our minds. It's a part of racing.
A driver new to @CGRTeams and a driver likely in his last year there.@IndyCar rookie @MarcusArmstrng excited after @scottdixon9 was a boyhood idol.
After an awkward 2022, it's back to normal for @AlexPalou at Ganassi with full team data access. pic.twitter.com/RvwScwCzCD
"I'm just happy that now we know that even with things in our minds, we were able to be successful. Hopefully, we can be back to 2021 things during this season. Yeah, obviously there's always some moments (in 2022) where you're like, 'Oh, no, my God, this is not going the direction I wanted.' But there was things that were out of my control, obviously. Some things that I could control, as well. But at the end of the day I had all the information from my side, from other sides. I knew that everything could be settled, and it did."
Pato O'Ward unplugged from the racing world for six weeks during the offseason, ensuring he was fully recharged when the new year arrived.
"I haven't had the opportunity to do it in the past few years," said O'Ward, who tested an F1 car in 2021 and then went right into preparing and racing (then winning) the 2022 Rolex 24 at Daytona. "I said, 'I want at least six weeks. Don't talk to me, don't text me, I don't want to hear anything.' It's healing. It's very healing.
After a very restful offseason in which he disconnected from racing for six weeks before the new year, @PatricioOWard says he is recharged for the 2023 @IndyCar season and anxious and excited to get in the @ArrowMcLaren Chevy later this week. pic.twitter.com/neAu7DARrB
"As much as you love what you do, you need to find a balance of just doing something else. I always tell people, there's a huge difference between relaxing and recharging. How I recharge is doing things I don't normally do during the year. Just being at the beach to me is my favorite thing to do after driving race cars. I made sure that I had that kind of time to just enjoy my loved ones. After I was finished with that, I was like, 'OK, race cars now.' "
Marcus Ericsson is planning on a long future with Chip Ganassi Racing, and the 2022 Indy 500 winner seems well-positioned to become the team's anchor driver if he can maintain last season's consistency.
Jimmie Johnson has been replaced by the Marcus Armstrong-Takuma Sato combination, and Alex Palou is leaving after this year.
Six-time IndyCar champion Scott Dixon, 42, is Ganassi's unquestioned dean until his retirement, but Ericsson clearly is interested in the mantle after that.
Your reigning Indy 500 winner @Ericsson_Marcus, who plans to be driving @CGRTeams for a long time.
(But maybe not as the team leader yet because @scottdixon9 "keeps getting better" into his 40s. "Maybe he'll drive another 10 years," Marcus smiles.) pic.twitter.com/kfmL549kza
"I'm feeling very much at home in the team," said Ericsson, the Formula One who is entering his fourth season with CGR. "I'm super happy about that. I wish to stay for a very long time, as well. There is some uncertainty with other places maybe in the future, but Dixon seems to be just getting better and better. He might be here for another 10 years or so, who knows.
"But that's great. Me and Scott, we work really well together. I can still learn a lot from him. I want to be here for a long time and win races and championships together."
The Swede had a droll response when asked if no longer being the only Marcus will get confusing in Ganassi debriefs. "Yeah, it is; I'm angry," Ericsson deadpanned. "I think we're OK. He seems like a good kid. He has a good name."
Following in the footsteps of Callum Ilott and Christian Lundgaard from F2 to IndyCar, Armstrong is OK with deferring his F1 dreams to run road and street courses as a rookie in 2023. The New Zealander grew up as an IndyCar fan rooting for Dixon, his boyhood idol and fellow countryman.
"I've been watching him on TV since I was a kid," Armstrong, 22, said. "It's cool because IndyCar is massive where I'm from because of him. I've always been so attracted to this championship. Of course, I spent my entire life chasing F1. You can never say 'never.' If I'm honest with you, I'm happy where I am now. It's a dream come true."
Armstrong hopes to move to full time in 2024 and believes being aligned with a powerhouse such as Ganassi will give him an opportunity to post strong results immediately (just as Ilott and Lundgaard had flashes as rookies last year).
"I've been genuinely impressed by the organization, just the strategic point of view that Chip Ganassi Racing has, it's really quite remarkable," he said. "I can understand why they've had so much success. I think fundamentally I need to get on it straightaway. I have all the information in the world, really. I just need to hit the ground running, do well immediately."
In among the wildest stories of the offseason, rookie Sting Ray Robb revealed he landed his ride at Dale Coyne Racing because he ran into Indy Lights champion Linus Lundqvist at PitFit Training, a physical fitness and performance center used by many drivers in Indianapolis.
Lundqvist was the presumptive favorite for the DCR No. 51 Dallara-Honda, which was the last open seat heading into the 2022 season. Because of his Indy Lights title (since rebranded as "IndyNXT") with HMD Motorsports, Lundqvist had a six-figure sponsorship to bring to an IndyCar team, and DCR is partnered with HMD.
"There was a few teams that we were talking to, and Dale's team was not the one that was at the top of the list because we thought they already had a driver," Robb said. "Obviously with Linus winning the championship, we assumed with the HMD association there that there would be a straight shoe-in for him.
"But I actually was at PitFit Training one day with Linus and discovered that was not the case. That created an opportunity for us that allowed me to call up my manager, Pieter Rossi, and get him on the phone, and he immediately called Dale and said, 'Hey, we're available.' I think there was a mutual understanding of what availability was for either one of us. That's when conversations began. Then we had a really good test in 2023 right at the beginning of January, and I think that was kind of the one that set the tone that allowed me to get in the seat.
"I think there's been some opportunities that were miraculously created that we couldn't have done on our own."
Robb, who finished second in last year's Indy Lights standings, hasn't talked to Lundqvist since their PitFit meeting.
"Linus does deserve a seat" in IndyCar, Robb said. "His on-track performance was incredible. But it takes more than just a driver to get into IndyCar. You've got to have a village around you that supports you, and so I think that that is where my group made a difference. It wasn't just in my performance, but it was the people around me.
"I feel bad for Linus because as a driver I can feel that way towards him because I could be in that seat if I didn't have those same people around me. So there you go."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


These fabulous Chanel sunglasses feature a wayfarer style frame with small CC logos on both arms. The frames are a lovely dark blue and the arms are covered in navy blue tweed. Look mysteriously high profile with these fashionable frames.
The frame is clean with no visible wear. The lenses are clean but show no visible surface scratches. Overall they are clean and in great condition.


The information provided herein was prepared for information purposes only by BNP Paribas (together with its affiliates, hereinafter "BNP Paribas"). The Content is indicative and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation of offers to buy or sell any financial instrument. The Content is not intended to predict actual results, which may differ substantially from those reflected.
The Index herein has been developed by BNP Paribas (the "Sponsor") and will be calculated and rebalanced by BNP Paribas Arbitrage SNC (the "Calculation Agent"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, conflicts of interest may exist where: (i) the Sponsor acts in multiple capacities with respect to the BNP Paribas Index, including but not limited to functioning as index sponsor, licensing agent, and/or publisher; (ii) the Sponsor uses price contributions from BNP Paribas trading desks as a primary pricing source for the BNP Paribas Index; and (iii) BNP Paribas's Sales, Trading or Structuring desks launch tradable products linked to the performance of the BNP Paribas Index. BNP Paribas has in place policies, information barriers and governance procedures that are designed to avoid or otherwise appropriately manage such conflicts of interest and ensure the independence and integrity of its indices.
The BNP Paribas Index discussed within is the property of BNP Paribas and is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws. The non-exclusive right to use this Index as underlying for any products is granted only upon completion of a license agreement with BNP Paribas. The Sponsor and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for any unauthorized use of the BNP Paribas Index Information by any third party.
Any product that is linked to the performance of the BNP Paribas Index herein is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by BNP Paribas or any of its affiliates (collectively, " BNP Paribas "). Neither BNP Paribas nor any other party (including without limitation any calculation agents or data providers) makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the advisability of purchasing any products linked to the BNP Paribas Index discussed within.
The BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Index (the "BNPP Index") is the exclusive property of BNP Paribas ("BNPP") and is determined, composed and calculated by BNPP or its affiliates. BNP, BNPP, BNP Paribas and The BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Index (collectively, the "BNPP Marks") are trademarks or service marks of BNPP. S&P® and S&P 500® are trademarks of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and have been licensed for use by BNPP.
NONE OF BNPP, S&P OR ANY THIRD PARTY LICENSOR GUARANTEES THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS OR AVAILABILITY OF THE BNPP INDEX OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF OR DATA INCLUDED THEREIN, OR THAT NO ERROR, OMISSION, DELAY OR INTERRUPTION WILL EXIST THEREIN. NONE OF BNPP, S&P OR ANY THIRD PARTY LICENSOR MAKES ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, AND EACH OF BNPP, S&P AND THE THIRD PARTY LICENSORS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE BNPP INDEX, ANY BNPP MARK, AN S&P INDEX, TRADEMARK (INCLUDING S&P 500®) OR SERVICE MARK OF S&P (COLLECTIVELY, THE "S&P MARKS") INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE REGARDING MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE.
The BNPP Index is the BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Index, an index developed by BNP Paribas which aims to track the excess returns of a portfolio of stocks and options over a hypothetical cash position accruing daily at 3-Month USD LIBOR. In calculating the performance of the BNPP Index, BNPP deducts on a daily basis a servicing cost of 1% per annum. In addition, the BNPP Index methodology embeds certain costs in the strategy which cover amongst other things, transaction, replication, trading friction and funding costs in running the BNPP Index. The levels of such costs (if any) may vary over time in accordance with market conditions as determined by BNPP acting in a commercially reasonable manner. These costs reduce the potential positive change in the BNPP Index.
BNPP reserves the right to amend or adjust the BNPP Index methodology from time to time and accepts no liability for any such amendment or adjustment. BNPP is not under any obligation to continue the calculation, publication or dissemination of the BNPP Index and accepts no liability for any suspension or interruption in the calculation thereof. Neither BNPP nor any BNPP Index investment advisor accepts any liability in connection with the publication or use of the level of the BNPP Index at any given time.
BNPP may enter into derivative transactions or issue financial instruments (together, the "BNPP Index Products") linked to the BNPP Index. The BNPP Index Products are not in any way sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by the sponsor of any index component (or part thereof) which may comprise the BNPP Index (each a "Reference Index") that is not affiliated with BNPP (each such sponsor, a "Reference Index Sponsor"). The Reference Index Sponsors make no representation whatsoever, whether express or implied, either as to the results to be obtained from the use of the relevant Reference Index and/or the levels at which the relevant Reference Index stands at any particular time on any particular date or otherwise. No Reference Index Sponsor shall be liable (whether in negligence or otherwise) to any person for any error in the relevant Reference Index and the relevant Reference Index Sponsor is under no obligation to advise any person of any error therein. None of the Reference Index Sponsors makes any representation whatsoever, whether express or implied, as to the advisability of purchasing or investing in, or assuming any risk in connection with, the BNPP Index Products. BNPP shall have no liability to any party for any act or failure to act by any Reference Index Sponsor in connection with the calculation, adjustment or maintenance of the relevant Reference Index and have no affiliation with or control over any Reference Index or the relevant Reference Index Sponsor or the computation, composition or dissemination of any Reference Index. Although BNPP will obtain information concerning each Reference Index from publicly available sources that it believes reliable, it will not independently verify this information. Accordingly, no representation, warranty or undertaking (express or implied) is made and no responsibility is accepted by BNPP as to the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information concerning any Reference Index.
BNPP may act in a number of different capacities in relation to the BNPP Index and/or products linked to the BNPP Index, which may include, but not be limited to, acting as hedging counterparty, index sponsor and/or index calculation agent.
Unauthorized use of BNP Paribas's web site and systems, including, but not limited to, unauthorized entry into BNP Paribas's systems, misuse of passwords or misuse of any other information, is strictly prohibited. You may not use this web site in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair any BNP Paribas site or service or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of any BNP Paribas site or service. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to any BNP Paribas site or service, computer systems or networks connected to any BNP Paribas site or service, through hacking, password mining or any other means. You agree that you will not engage in any activities related to this web site that are contrary to applicable laws or regulations.
BNP Paribas reserves the right, in its sole discretion, without any obligation and without any notice requirement, to change, improve or correct the information, materials and descriptions on this web site and to suspend and/or deny access to this web site for scheduled or unscheduled maintenance, upgrades, improvements or corrections. The information and materials on this web site may contain typographical errors or inaccuracies. Any dated information is published as of its date only, and BNP Paribas does not undertake any obligation or responsibility to update or amend any such information. BNP Paribas may discontinue or change any product or service described in or offered on this web site at any time.
The information, products and services on this web site are provided on an "AS IS," "WHERE IS" and "WHERE AVAILABLE" basis. BNP Paribas does not warrant the information or services provided herein or your use of this web site generally, either expressly or impliedly, for any particular purpose and expressly disclaims any implied warranties, including but not limited to, warranties of title, non-infringement, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. BNP Paribas will not be responsible for any loss or damage that could result from interception by third parties of any information or services made available to you via this web site. Although the information provided to you on this web site is obtained or compiled from sources we believe to be reliable, BNP Paribas cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy, validity, timeliness or completeness of any information or data made available to you for any particular purpose. Neither BNP Paribas, nor any of its affiliates, directors, officers or employees, nor any third party vendor, will be liable or have any responsibility of any kind for any loss or damage that you incur in the event of any failure or interruption of this web site, or resulting from the act or omission of any other party involved in making this web site, the data contained herein or the products or services offered on this web site available to you, or from any other cause relating to your access to, inability to access, or use of the web site or these materials, whether or not the circumstances giving rise to such cause may have been within the control of BNP Paribas or of any vendor providing software or services. In no event will BNP Paribas or any such parties be liable to you, whether in contract or tort, for any direct, special, indirect, consequential or incidental damages or any other damages of any kind even if BNP Paribas or any other such party has been advised of the possibility thereof. This limitation on liability includes, but is not limited to, the transmission of any viruses which may infect a user's equipment, failure of mechanical or electronic equipment or communication lines, telephone or other interconnect problems (e.g., you cannot access your internet service provider), unauthorized access, theft, operator errors, strikes or other labor problems or any force majeure. BNP Paribas cannot and does not guarantee continuous, uninterrupted or secure access to the web site.
All right, title and interest in this web site and any content contained herein is the exclusive property of BNP Paribas, except as otherwise stated. Unless otherwise specified, this web site is for your personal and non-commercial use only and you may print, copy and download any information or portion of this web site for your personal use only. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, frame, create derivative works from, transfer, or otherwise use in any other way for commercial or public purposes in whole or in part any information, software, products or services obtained from this web site, except for the purposes expressly provided herein, without BNP Paribas's prior written approval. If you copy or download any information or software from this web site, you agree that you will not remove or obscure any copyright or other notices or legends contained in any such information.
BNP Paribas, the BNP Paribas logo and other BNP Paribas trademarks and service marks referenced herein are trademarks and service marks of BNP Paribas. The names of other companies and third-party products or services mentioned herein may be the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners. You are prohibited from using any marks for any purpose including, but not limited to use as metatags on other pages or sites on the World Wide Web without the written permission of BNP Paribas or such third party, which may own the marks.
None of the information contained in this web site constitutes a recommendation, solicitation or offer by BNP Paribas or its affiliates to buy or sell any securities, futures, options or other financial instruments or provide any investment advice or service. The information contained in this web site has been prepared without reference to any particular user's investment requirements or financial situation. Certain transactions give rise to substantial risk and are not suitable for all investors. Prior to the execution of any transaction by you involving information you received from this web site, you should consult your business advisor, attorney and tax and accounting advisors with respect to the price, suitability, value, risk or other aspects of any stock, mutual fund, security or other investment. Pricing and other information generated through the use of data or services made available herein may not reflect actual prices or values that would be available in the market at the time provided or at the time that the user may want to purchase or sell a particular security or other instrument. The information and services provided on this web site are not provided to and may not be used by any person or entity in any jurisdiction where the provision or use thereof would be contrary to applicable laws, rules or regulations of any governmental authority or regulatory or self-regulatory organization or clearing organization or where BNP Paribas is not authorized to provide such information or services. Some products and services described in this web site may not be available in all jurisdictions or to all clients.
BNP Paribas may process personal data as part of and/or in connection with your access and/or use of this web site. This includes using cookies and similar technology to collect information about your use of our web site and your preferences.
By accessing or using this web site you consent to BNP Paribas processing personal data and using cookies as further detailed in Our Privacy & Cookies Policy. You acknowledge and agree that if you choose to reject our cookies, some or all parts of the web site may not function properly or may not be accessible.
The strategy underlying the Index may not be successful. There is a risk that the rules-based methodology of the BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Index ("the Index") or the BNP Paribas High Dividend Yield US Equity Long TR USD Index (the underlying "Dividend Index" upon which the Index is based) does not prove to be efficient or meet their stated objectives, resulting in a underperformance compared to any of the benchmark indices.
The BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Index Has Limited Historical Information. The BNP Paribas High Dividend Plus Index is a new index, launched on July 28, 2014. The performance shown before that date is hypothetical past performance, based on hypothetical back-tested information. This website also contains certain performance data based on back-testing, i.e., calculations of the hypothetical performance of the Index as if it had actually existed during a defined period of time, and may in certain circumstances contain simulated performance information where the index or asset described has recently been established or issued. Further, you must note that such analysis is based on a number of working assumptions that may not be capable of duplication in actual trading terms. Unlike actual performance records, hypothetical or simulated performances, returns or scenarios may not necessarily reflect certain market factors such as liquidity constraints, fees and transaction costs. Actual historical or back-tested past performance does not constitute an indication of future results.
The synthetic call and put option strategies can reduce performance of the overall Index strategy. By writing synthetic call options in return for the receipt of premiums, the Index will give up the opportunity to benefit from potential increases in the value of the securities above the exercise prices of the written options. The premiums received from the options may not be sufficient to offset any losses sustained from the underlying stocks in the Dividend Index, and therefore the Index, over time.
The Index's volatility control mechanism may result in a lower Index Level and the actual volatility of the Index may not equal the target volatility. The Index's Risk Control Overlay allows the Index to dynamically adjust the exposure to the Base Index and cash component, depending on the volatility environment. However, the risk control overlay might limit overall performance of the Index in rising equity markets and may provide perfect limited protection in falling equity markets, particularly against sudden, large equity losses. No assurance can be given that the Index methodology will achieve its target volatility goals or that the Index will outperform any alternative investment.
The Closing Levels of the Index will include the deduction of a Servicing Cost. The closing level of the Index includes a deduction from the aggregate values of its constituents of a servicing cost equal to 1.00% per annum. As a result of this deduction, the value of the Index will trail the value of a hypothetical identical portfolio from which no such amount is deducted.
The Index is an excess return index. The index is calculated on an excess return basis over an equivalent cash investment, which means that the index level reflects the deduction of the 3-month USD Libor interest rate that would apply to such a cash investment.
The Closing Levels of the Indices is net of BNP Paribas' estimated funding, trading friction and other costs. The Closing Levels of the Indices are net of BNP Paribas' estimated funding, trading friction and other costs in replicating the Indices. As a result of these costs, the value of the Indices could trail the value of a hypothetical identical portfolio from which no such amount is deducted.
The staggered rebalancing schedule of the Dividend Index may result in lower performance of the Index than the performance experienced by other stock indices. The Dividend Index, which is a sub-index of the Index, is comprised of up to 480 stocks of U.S. companies. It is comprised of twelve sub-portfolios each containing 40 securities, equally weighted. Each sub-portfolio is reconstituted annually. Thus, one-twelfth of the total Dividend Index membership is reset each month. There is no assurance that this staggered rebalancing method will result in better performance than a quarterly or annually rebalancing method, which is used in other stock indices. As a result, the Indices may not perform as well as other stock indices with other rebalancing schedules. In addition, since one-twelfth of the constituents of the Dividend Index is subject to change monthly, the Dividend Index has a higher degree of constituent turnover than other indices that reconstitute annually or that have index constituent continuity as a goal in their reconstitution process. Because constituents may be added to or deleted from the Dividend Index regularly, the opportunity to participate in longer-term price appreciation of the constituent stocks may be less than in a more static index.
Changes in the values of the stocks in the Dividend Index may offset each other. The Dividend Index is linked to the performance of a basket of stocks of U.S. companies which collectively represent a range of sectors, price movements between these stocks may not correlate with each other. Performances of the Dividend Index stocks may become highly correlated from time to time, including, but not limited to, periods in which there is a substantial decline in a particular sector or asset type represented by the Dividend Index stocks. At a time when the value of a stock linked to a particular sector increases, the values of other stocks linked to other sectors may not increase as much or may decline. Therefore, in calculating the level of the Dividend Index, increases in the values of some of the stocks may be moderated, or more than offset, by lesser increases or declines in the levels of other stocks. High correlation during periods of negative returns among Dividend Index stocks could have an adverse effect on the levels of the Dividend Index, and therefore the Index.
Stock and option prices may change unpredictably, affecting the level of the Index in unforeseeable ways. Trading in the stocks and options that comprise the Index is speculative and can be extremely volatile. Market prices of components of the Dividend Index may fluctuate rapidly based on numerous factors, including: the supply and demand characteristics of the market, including the availability of alternate investment opportunities; changes in interest and yield rates in the market; and the dividend rate on the common stocks of the S&P 500® Index. These factors may affect the value of the Dividend Index, and different factors may cause the prices of the components of the Dividend Index, and the volatilities of their prices, to move in inconsistent directions at inconsistent rates.


text:
/**-5-10Copyright (c) 2011-2014 The ticoin developers
/**-5-10Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying
/**-5-10file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.

#include "transactiondesc.h"

#include "ticoinunits.h"
#include "guiutil.h"

#include "base58.h"
#include "db.h"
#include "main.h"
#include "paymentserver.h"
#include "transactionrecord.h"
#include "ui_interface.h"
#include "wallet.h"

#include <stdint.h>
#include <string>

QString TransactionDesc::FormatTxStatus(const CWalletTx& wtx)
{
    AssertLockHeld(cs_main);
    if (!IsFinalTx(wtx, chainActive.Height() + 1))
    {
        if (wtx.nLockTime < LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD)
            return tr("Open for %n more block(s)", "", wtx.nLockTime - chainActive.Height());
        else
            return tr("Open until %1").arg(GUIUtil::dateTimeStr(wtx.nLockTime));
    }
    else
    {
        int nDepth = wtx.GetDepthInMainChain();
        if (nDepth < 0)
            return tr("conflicted");
        else if (GetAdjustedTime() - wtx.nTimeReceived > 2 * 60 && wtx.GetRequestCount() == 0)
            return tr("%1/offline").arg(nDepth);
        else if (nDepth < 6)
            return tr("%1/unconfirmed").arg(nDepth);
        else
            return tr("%1 confirmations").arg(nDepth);
    }
}

QString TransactionDesc::toHTML(CWallet *wallet, CWalletTx &wtx, int vout, int unit)
{
    QString strHTML;

    LOCK2(cs_main, wallet->cs_wallet);
    strHTML.reserve(4000);
    strHTML += "";

    int64_t nTime = wtx.GetTxTime();
    int64_t nCredit = wtx.GetCredit();
    int64_t nDebit = wtx.GetDebit();
    int64_t nNet = nCredit - nDebit;

    strHTML += "" + tr("Status") + ": " + FormatTxStatus(wtx);
    int nRequests = wtx.GetRequestCount();
    if (nRequests != -1)
    {
        if (nRequests == 0)
            strHTML += tr(", has not been successfully broadcast yet");
        else if (nRequests > 0)
            strHTML += tr(", broadcast through %n node(s)", "", nRequests);
    }
    strHTML += "
";

    strHTML += "" + tr("Date") + ": " + (nTime ? GUIUtil::dateTimeStr(nTime) : "") + "
";

    //
    /**-5-10From
    //
    if (wtx.IsCoinBase())
    {
        strHTML += "" + tr("Source") + ": " + tr("Generated") + "
";
    }
    else if (wtx.mapValue.count("from") && !wtx.mapValue["from"].empty())
    {
        /**-5-10Online transaction
        strHTML += "" + tr("From") + ": " + GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wtx.mapValue["from"]) + "
";
    }
    else
    {
        /**-5-10Offline transaction
        if (nNet > 0)
        {
            /**-5-10Credit
            BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, wtx.vout)
            {
                if (wallet->IsMine(txout))
                {
                    CTxDestination address;
                    if (ExtractDestination(txout.scriptPubKey, address) && IsMine(*wallet, address))
                    {
                        if (wallet->mapAddressBook.count(address))
                        {
                            strHTML += "" + tr("From") + ": " + tr("unknown") + "
";
                            strHTML += "" + tr("To") + ": ";
                            strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(CticoinAddress(address).ToString());
                            if (!wallet->mapAddressBook[address].name.empty())
                                strHTML += " (" + tr("own address") + ", " + tr("label") + ": " + GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wallet->mapAddressBook[address].name) + ")";
                            else
                                strHTML += " (" + tr("own address") + ")";
                            strHTML += "
";
                        }
                    }
                    break;
                }
            }
        }
    }

    //
    /**-5-10To
    //
    if (wtx.mapValue.count("to") && !wtx.mapValue["to"].empty())
    {
        /**-5-10Online transaction
        std::string strAddress = wtx.mapValue["to"];
        strHTML += "" + tr("To") + ": ";
        CTxDestination dest = CticoinAddress(strAddress).Get();
        if (wallet->mapAddressBook.count(dest) && !wallet->mapAddressBook[dest].name.empty())
            strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wallet->mapAddressBook[dest].name) + " ";
        strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(strAddress) + "
";
    }

    //
    /**-5-10Amount
    //
    if (wtx.IsCoinBase() && nCredit == 0)
    {
        //
        /**-5-10Coinbase
        //
        int64_t nUnmatured = 0;
        BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, wtx.vout)
            nUnmatured += wallet->GetCredit(txout);
        strHTML += "" + tr("Credit") + ": ";
        if (wtx.IsInMainChain())
            strHTML += ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, nUnmatured)+ " (" + tr("matures in %n more block(s)", "", wtx.GetBlocksToMaturity()) + ")";
        else
            strHTML += "(" + tr("not accepted") + ")";
        strHTML += "
";
    }
    else if (nNet > 0)
    {
        //
        /**-5-10Credit
        //
        strHTML += "" + tr("Credit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, nNet) + "
";
    }
    else
    {
        bool fAllFromMe = true;
        BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxIn& txin, wtx.vin)
            fAllFromMe = fAllFromMe && wallet->IsMine(txin);

        bool fAllToMe = true;
        BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, wtx.vout)
            fAllToMe = fAllToMe && wallet->IsMine(txout);

        if (fAllFromMe)
        {
            //
            /**-5-10Debit
            //
            BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, wtx.vout)
            {
                if (wallet->IsMine(txout))
                    continue;

                if (!wtx.mapValue.count("to") || wtx.mapValue["to"].empty())
                {
                    /**-5-10Offline transaction
                    CTxDestination address;
                    if (ExtractDestination(txout.scriptPubKey, address))
                    {
                        strHTML += "" + tr("To") + ": ";
                        if (wallet->mapAddressBook.count(address) && !wallet->mapAddressBook[address].name.empty())
                            strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wallet->mapAddressBook[address].name) + " ";
                        strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(CticoinAddress(address).ToString());
                        strHTML += "
";
                    }
                }

                strHTML += "" + tr("Debit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, -txout.nValue) + "
";
            }

            if (fAllToMe)
            {
                /**-5-10Payment to self
                int64_t nChange = wtx.GetChange();
                int64_t nValue = nCredit - nChange;
                strHTML += "" + tr("Debit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, -nValue) + "
";
                strHTML += "" + tr("Credit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, nValue) + "
";
            }

            int64_t nTxFee = nDebit - wtx.GetValueOut();
            if (nTxFee > 0)
                strHTML += "" + tr("Transaction fee") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, -nTxFee) + "
";
        }
        else
        {
            //
            /**-5-10Mixed debit transaction
            //
            BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxIn& txin, wtx.vin)
                if (wallet->IsMine(txin))
                    strHTML += "" + tr("Debit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, -wallet->GetDebit(txin)) + "
";
            BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, wtx.vout)
                if (wallet->IsMine(txout))
                    strHTML += "" + tr("Credit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, wallet->GetCredit(txout)) + "
";
        }
    }

    strHTML += "" + tr("Net amount") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, nNet, true) + "
";

    //
    /**-5-10Message
    //
    if (wtx.mapValue.count("message") && !wtx.mapValue["message"].empty())
        strHTML += "
" + tr("Message") + ":
" + GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wtx.mapValue["message"], true) + "
";
    if (wtx.mapValue.count("comment") && !wtx.mapValue["comment"].empty())
        strHTML += "
" + tr("Comment") + ":
" + GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wtx.mapValue["comment"], true) + "
";

    strHTML += "" + tr("Transaction ID") + ": " + TransactionRecord::formatSubTxId(wtx.GetHash(), vout) + "
";

    /**-5-10Message from normal ticoin:URI (ticoin:123...?message=example)
    foreach (const PAIRTYPE(string, string)& r, wtx.vOrderForm)
        if (r.first == "Message")
            strHTML += "
" + tr("Message") + ":
" + GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(r.second, true) + "
";

    //
    /**-5-10PaymentRequest info:
    //
    foreach (const PAIRTYPE(string, string)& r, wtx.vOrderForm)
    {
        if (r.first == "PaymentRequest")
        {
            PaymentRequestPlus req;
            req.parse(QByteArray::fromRawData(r.second.data(), r.second.size()));
            QString merchant;
            if (req.getMerchant(PaymentServer::getCertStore(), merchant))
                strHTML += "" + tr("Merchant") + ": " + GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(merchant) + "
";
        }
    }

    if (wtx.IsCoinBase())
    {
        quint32 numBlocksToMaturity = COINBASE_MATURITY +  1;
        strHTML += "
" + tr("Generated coins must mature %1 blocks before they can be spent. When you generated this block, it was broadcast to the network to be added to the block chain. If it fails to get into the chain, its state will change to \"not accepted\" and it won't be spendable. This may occasionally happen if another node generates a block within a few seconds of yours.").arg(QString::number(numBlocksToMaturity)) + "
";
    }

    //
    /**-5-10Debug view
    //
    if (fDebug)
    {
        strHTML += "

" + tr("Debug information") + "

";
        BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxIn& txin, wtx.vin)
            if(wallet->IsMine(txin))
                strHTML += "" + tr("Debit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, -wallet->GetDebit(txin)) + "
";
        BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, wtx.vout)
            if(wallet->IsMine(txout))
                strHTML += "" + tr("Credit") + ": " + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, wallet->GetCredit(txout)) + "
";

        strHTML += "
" + tr("Transaction") + ":
";
        strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wtx.ToString(), true);

        strHTML += "
" + tr("Inputs") + ":";
        strHTML += "
";

        BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxIn& txin, wtx.vin)
        {
            COutPoint prevout = txin.prevout;

            CCoins prev;
            if(pcoinsTip->GetCoins(prevout.hash, prev))
            {
                if (prevout.n < prev.vout.size())
                {
                    strHTML += "
";
                    const CTxOut &vout = prev.vout[prevout.n];
                    CTxDestination address;
                    if (ExtractDestination(vout.scriptPubKey, address))
                    {
                        if (wallet->mapAddressBook.count(address) && !wallet->mapAddressBook[address].name.empty())
                            strHTML += GUIUtil::HtmlEscape(wallet->mapAddressBook[address].name) + " ";
                        strHTML += QString::fromStdString(CticoinAddress(address).ToString());
                    }
                    strHTML = strHTML + " " + tr("Amount") + "=" + ticoinUnits::formatWithUnit(unit, vout.nValue);
                    strHTML = strHTML + " IsMine=" + (wallet->IsMine(vout) ? tr("true") : tr("false")) + "
";
                }
            }
        }

        strHTML += "
";
    }

    strHTML += "";
    return strHTML;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub