Smartest HP0-277 test preparation with our PDF | braindumps | ROMULUS

Have a look at complete Pass4sure HP0-277 questions and answers - practice questions - examcollection - and braindumps provided at website - braindumps - ROMULUS

Pass4sure HP0-277 dumps | HP0-277 existent questions |

HP0-277 OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

Study pilot Prepared by HP Dumps Experts HP0-277 Dumps and existent Questions

100% existent Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with towering Marks - Just Memorize the Answers

HP0-277 exam Dumps Source : OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

Test Code : HP0-277
Test denomination : OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration
Vendor denomination : HP
: 62 existent Questions

real Q & A of HP0-277 exam are top notch!
I was not prepared to understand the factors well. In any case due to my accomplice Questions & solutions who bailed me to depart this trepidation by becoming questions and answers to allude; I correctly endeavored 87 questions in 80 mins and handed it. in reality turned out to exist my existent partner. As and when the exam dates of HP0-277 were approaching closer, i used to exist attending to exist troubled and anxious. A brilliant deal liked

sense assured by means of getting ready HP0-277 dumps.
Learning for the HP0-277 exam has been a tough going. With so many confusing topics to cover, induced the self-confidence for passing the exam by taking me through core questions on the subject. It paid off as I could pass the exam with a top-notch pass percentage of 84%. A few of the questions came twisted, but the answers that matched from helped me track the birthright answers.

What is pass ratio of HP0-277 exam?
Passing the HP0-277 exam turned into quite hard for me until i was added with the query & solution through killexams. a number of the topics appeared very hard to me. tried plenty to study the books, however failed as time was quick. subsequently, the sell off helped me understand the topics and wrap up my instruction in 10 days time. unbelievable guide, killexams. My heartfelt artery to you.

Get those and chillout!
on every occasion I want to pass my certification test to hold my job, I immediately visit and are searching for the specifiedcertification test, buy and prepare the test. It genuinely is really worth admiring because of the fact, I always passthe check with accurate rankings.

want to-the-element facts present day HP0-277 subjects!
It is the location wherein I taken faith of and corrected everything my errors in HP0-277 subject matter. When I searched test dump for the exam, I determined the are the satisfactory one which is one among the reputed product. It allows to perform the exam better than some thing. I became tickled to locate that become fully informative material within the mastering. It is ever best helping material for the HP0-277 exam.

it's miles remarkable persuasion to memorize the ones HP0-277 present day dumps. questions and answers helped me to recognize what exactly is predicted within the exam HP0-277. I organized rightly inside 10 days of guidance and completed everything the questions of exam in 80 minutes. It contain the subjects similar to exam factor of view and makes you memorize everything of the subjects without vicissitude and appropriately. It additionally helped me to recognize the artery to manage the time to finish the exam before time. its milesexceptional technique.

these HP0-277 existent test questions works within the actual test.
i am aphorism from my Enjoy that in case you remedy the query papers one after the other then youll actually crack the exam. has very powerful test material. Such a completely useful and helpful internet site. thanks crew killexams.

amazed to survey HP0-277 dumps and occupy a recognize at manual!
It had been years and i used to exist caught at the identical designation, it turned into relish being glued to the chair with fevicol. To start with you suspect, clearly wait precise topics are available time. However then your persistence wears off and also you realizeyou gotta buy a stand in forward than its too late. Because my toil includes in posh managing a HP0-277 purchasers groundwork I decided to ace it and quit up the hes alert about everything about HP0-277 dude inside the workplace. Upon a palssteerage I tried your HP0-277 demo from, cherished and it and moved onto a buy. Your testengine is superb and in recent times your observe package has made me the ultra-modern HP0-277 manager.

You just need a weekend to prepare HP0-277 exam with these dumps.
Well, I did it and I can not believe it. I could never occupy passed the HP0-277 without your help. My score was so towering I was amazed at my performance. Its just because of you. Thank you very much!!!

it's miles proper source to find HP0-277 dumps paper.
Thanks to crew who presents very valuable exercise question bank with factors. I occupy cleared HP0-277 exam with seventy three.Five% score. Thank U very lots on your offerings. I occupy subcribed to numerous question banks of relish HP0-277. The question banks were very useful for me to clear those exams. Your mock test helped a lot in clearing my HP0-277 exam with 73.Five%. To the factor, unique and well explained answers. withhold up the top-notch work.

HP OpenVMS Version 7.x to

VMS utility, Inc. Launches novel version of OpenVMS working gadget international | existent Questions and Pass4sure dumps

BOLTON, Mass.--(company WIRE)--VMS application, Inc. (VSI) today announced the global availability of VSI OpenVMS edition eight.four-1H1 (Bolton unencumber) working materiel (OS) for HP Integrity servers in accordance with Intel® Itanium® 9500 sequence processor. The Bolton free up is the primary by artery of VSI under an settlement signed with HP in 2014. the novel OS is also suitable with HP Integrity servers running the Intel® Itanium® 9300 sequence processor. VSI intends to ultimately lengthen aid for HP Integrity servers in keeping with everything prior versions of the Intel® Itanium® platform. VSI also reconfirmed plans to present OpenVMS on x86-primarily based servers through 2018.

OpenVMS is the platform of selection for valued clientele in the mission essential market as a result of its unmatched security, stability, and legendary uptime efficiency.

A team of US-based OpenVMS builders, many harking again to the core DEC/Compaq/HP teams answerable for OpenVMS’ prior accolades for technical excellence, accomplished the evaluate and testing of the gadget. VSI’s novel release of OpenVMS obtained extreme marks when bailiwick demonstrated with the aid of shoppers in industries equivalent to defense, banking and economic services, manufacturing, global retail operations, and gaming.

“In lower than 12 months, they occupy not only assembled a robust team of OpenVMS developers and client assist personnel however they occupy also developed a roadmap with an aggressive schedule that comprises pilot for novel structures, facets and applied sciences,” pointed out Duane P. Harris, CEO of VMS application. “we are excited about their plans to continue improving this marquee operating system and meeting the needs of a loyal customer groundwork that has relied on OpenVMS to faithfully run their mission crucial functions over the remaining 30 years.”

The condense between VSI and HP makes it practicable for customers to proceed to buy OpenVMS licenses and assist through HP’s worldwide sales and advocate networks. customers even occupy the pliability of purchasing licenses and advocate without retard from VSI. In both case, consumers who presently dangle qualifying HP OpenVMS licenses should buy the Bolton unlock for a 50% trade-in prick price. VSI works in proximate collaboration with HP to ensure that purchasers of the novel VSI application receive the equal towering degree of assist that customers occupy expected from HP during the past, regardless of no matter if valued clientele purchase from HP or VSI.

Digital machine organization (DEC) launched the primary free up of OpenVMS in 1977, beneath the denomination “VMS.” The platform won legendary attraction for its catastrophe tolerance, as much as 100 percent uptime, low-budget of possession, and stellar safety. “The working device has a extremely loyal installed groundwork of shoppers [who] exhibit no signals of desirous to give it up,” suggested one consumer in an InformationWeek article.

Michael Lamont, Chief know-how Officer at fashion software in Framingham, MA, a premier organization of communications software solutions for mission-vital environments, stated that process’ valued clientele, including Big govt agencies, Fortune 500 agencies, and principal universities, want a very sturdy operating device, and that OpenVMS units the commonplace for reliability. “When it’s set to work, OpenVMS is the operating gadget of alternative.”

technique application turned into one of the crucial first companions VMS software Inc. covered in the beta test aspect of OpenVMS V8.four-1H1. “We desired to construct and totally verify their software on top-notch of it, and the procedure changed into as smooth as could be. They occupy been very pleasantly surprised,” he stated. “It took us about 45 minutes to improve a system from birth to conclude, with not a bit hiccups. We’re very enthusiastic that VSI has stepped forward to buy over the platform,” he persisted. “there is a renewed sense of enthusiasm for this exquisite operating device.”

“Mission Important consumers pan ever-expanding demands for security, steadiness and uptime efficiency for their crucial purposes,” spoke of Randy Meyer, vp and common manager, Mission vital solutions, HP Servers. “With the VSI OpenVMS Bolton liberate and its extended construction roadmap, clients can occupy much more flexibility to elect the OpenVMS platform it truly is correct for his or her company.”

About VMS application

VMS application, Inc. develops, sells and supports resourceful and superior releases of OpenVMS, probably the most at ease operating system on the earth. The business’s core motivation is to aid and permit customers to run their mission Important functions on the legendary uptime tiers OpenVMS is common for, at highest performance levels, today and into the long run. VMS software Inc. is headquartered in Bolton, MA. For extra advice, depart to

HP kills off OpenVMS | existent Questions and Pass4sure dumps

HP has announced the quit of aid for a number of flavours of OpenVMS.

OpenVMS everything started life in 1977 as VAX/VMS on DEC VAX minicomputers. Later it become ported to DEC's fleet Alpha RISC chips.  HP ported the utility to the Itanium, but the tech titan has decided it may well’t exist relocating the code to the latest era of IA64 chips. exist alert on the street is that HP is pulling the plug on future progress of that chip anyway.

HP has announced that service pilot for Alpha and Itanium OpenVMS pre-version eight.4 will quit in 2015 and assist for Alpha will are vital on to 2016 and Itanium OpenVMS v8.four until 2020. VAX-11/VMS changed into jovial common enterprise OS in the late Nineteen Seventies. VAX/VMS ran minicomputers from minuscule to mainframe-sized as well as personal workstations.

New ActiveBatch net Server version 5 Makes Batch Processing management more convenient by artery of information superhighway | existent Questions and Pass4sure dumps

New ActiveBatch web Server version 5 Makes Batch Processing management more straightforward by artery of web

new version supports latest ActiveBatch; features including competence to overview every day exercise, job instance heritage; access filters preserve consumer's expostulate information deepest

PARSIPPANY, NJ -- might also 30, 2006 -- advanced techniques ideas, Inc. (ASCI), a leading company of gadget software options that multiply home windows®, UNIX, Linux, and OpenVMS programs today announced the liberate of ActiveBatch® net Server version 5, the stronger information superhighway customer/server component to ASCI's frequent ActiveBatch job scheduling and management equipment.

ActiveBatch net Server version 5 offers entry to everything the essential accessories of the ActiveBatch role set by means of information superhighway Explorer, Netscape, or FireFox internet browsers, enabling administrators to maneuver their true-time batch processing necessities with brilliant ease and dependability.

"With IT administrators regularly on the go, having entry to job scheduling techniques by the exhaust of the information superhighway is a actual plus," mentioned Jim Manias, vice president of advertising and earnings at advanced techniques ideas, Inc. "ActiveBatch internet Server version 5 gives admins nearly the equal access to ActiveBatch they occupy fun with from their computer, together with the latest points present in ActiveBatch edition 5."

leading the record of novel capabilities in ActiveBatch internet Server edition 5 is a novel assistance filter that offers further safety when working with objects. The filter reveals most efficient the facts valuable to the client's specific expostulate checklist, and handiest enables that person to view or exchange these objects to which she or he has been given access. Unauthorized users can't survey any objects however their personal-a plus in involved multi-consumer environments.

ActiveBatch net Server for version 5 also monitors jobs and techniques with improved immediacy. an everyday endeavor View allows clients to evaluation job status, whereas other reports supply job specimen histories and different performance particulars. Managers can also exhaust the ActiveBatch internet customer to control everything on-going operational cases and even to initiate actions.

ActiveBatch internet Server edition 5, as with outdated types, offers complete operational control for developing, modifying, submitting, maintaining or deleting ActiveBatch objects. The platform, thoroughly included by artery of powerful user authentication including pilot for Kerberos on Microsoft windows 2003 systems, requires best a solitary installation for customer access, making it a short and legit enhancement for any ActiveBatch deployment.

ActiveBatch net Server version 5 is instantly accessible for current and novel ActiveBatch users. For more guidance together with pricing, contact an ActiveBatch revenue consultant or e mail

About advanced programs ideas, Inc.

superior programs ideas, Inc. presents many utility products and options for clients of Microsoft windows, UNIX, Linux, and HP OpenVMS systems. These items provide answers to application builders and system managers with enhanced system efficiency and utilization. For greater advice, survey the company’s website at or denomination (800) 229-2724.

Copyright ©2006 superior systems ideas, Inc. everything Rights Reserved. ActiveBatch is a registered trademark of superior programs ideas, Inc. other enterprise and/or product names are emblems and/or registered logos of their respective organisations.

While it is hard errand to pick solid certification questions/answers assets regarding review, reputation and validity since individuals accumulate sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. ensure to serve its customers best to its assets as for exam dumps update and validity. The greater piece of other's sham report objection customers forward to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams cheerfully and effortlessly. They never compact on their review, reputation and property because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer certainty is imperative to us. Extraordinarily they deal with review, reputation, sham report grievance, trust, validity, report and scam. On the off chance that you survey any inaccurate report posted by their rivals with the denomination killexams sham report grievance web, sham report, scam, protestation or something relish this, simply bethink there are constantly terrible individuals harming reputation of top-notch administrations because of their advantages. There are a remarkable many fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that is the best brain dumps site.

Back to Braindumps Menu

HP2-H11 questions and answers | 000-552 braindumps | 4A0-109 free pdf | 050-864 cheat sheets | NS0-910 questions answers | CoreSpringV3.2 brain dumps | OMG-OCUP-200 exam questions | 920-197 existent questions | 000-M90 free pdf | 156-215-75 examcollection | SC0-501 test questions | 190-846 study guide | 250-309 drill questions | 000-806 questions and answers | HP0-Y21 drill test | HP0-022 brain dumps | NCCT-TSC sample test | 9A0-045 braindumps | 310-610 test prep | 70-552-VB existent questions |

Get towering marks in HP0-277 exam with these dumps is a dependable and trustworthy stage who furnishes HP0-277 exam questions with 100% achievement guarantee. You occupy to drill questions for one day in any event to score well in the exam. Your existent voyage to achievement in HP0-277 exam, actually begins with exam drill questions that is the remarkable and checked wellspring of your focused on position.

Are you looking for HP HP0-277 Dumps containing actual exam Questions and Answers for the OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration test prep? is here to supply you one most updated and fine supply of HP0-277 Dumps this is often they occupy got compiled an information of HP0-277 Dumps questions from actual exam that enables you to dwelling along and pass HP0-277 exam on the first attempt. Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as underneath; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for everything tests on website PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders larger than $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders over $99 SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for everything Orders HP HP0-277 exam has given a brand novel direction to the IT business. It is currently needed to certify beAs the platform that ends up in a brighter future. however you wish to dwelling extreme exertion in HP OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration test, as a result of there's no elude out of reading. however occupy created your toil easier, currently your test preparation for HP0-277 OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration test is available with remarkable examcollection.. Click

On the off chance that you are looking for HP0-277 drill Test containing existent Test Questions, you are at amend put. occupy amassed database of inquiries from Actual Exams remembering the actual objective to empower you to scheme and pass your exam on the principle endeavor. everything readiness materials on the site are Up To Date and verified by their experts. give latest and updated Pass4sure drill Test with Actual Exam Questions and Answers for novel syllabus of HP HP0-277 Exam. drill their existent Questions and Answers to improve your insight and pass your exam with towering Marks. They ensure your accomplishment in the Test Center, covering each one of the subjects of exam and enhance your erudition of the HP0-277 exam. depart with no skepticism with their correct inquiries.

Our HP0-277 Exam PDF contains Complete Pool of Questions and Answers and Dumps verified and certified including references and clarifications (where material). Their target to assemble the Questions and Answers isn't just to pass the exam at first endeavor anyway Really improve Your erudition about the HP0-277 exam focuses.

HP0-277 exam Questions and Answers are Printable in towering property Study pilot that you can download in your Computer or some other contraption and start setting up your HP0-277 exam. Print Complete HP0-277 Study Guide, pass on with you when you are at Vacations or Traveling and Enjoy your Exam Prep. You can accumulate to updated HP0-277 Exam from your online record at whatever point. Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for everything exams on website
PROF17: 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17: 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL: 10% Special Discount Coupon for everything Orders

Download your OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration Study pilot speedily after acquiring and Start Preparing Your Exam Prep birthright Now!

HP0-277 Practice Test | HP0-277 examcollection | HP0-277 VCE | HP0-277 study guide | HP0-277 practice exam | HP0-277 cram

Killexams M8010-246 braindumps | Killexams 1T0-035 brain dumps | Killexams 3M0-331 exam prep | Killexams HPE6-A42 free pdf | Killexams ARDMS dumps questions | Killexams FCNSA cram | Killexams 700-070 questions answers | Killexams 300-206 test prep | Killexams E20-329 drill test | Killexams GE0-806 drill exam | Killexams HP2-Z25 brain dumps | Killexams 1Y0-402 free pdf | Killexams 000-819 existent questions | Killexams 1Z0-514 existent questions | Killexams BAGUILD-CBA-LVL1-100 exam prep | Killexams 000-M05 questions and answers | Killexams F50-522 study guide | Killexams P2050-028 test prep | Killexams 000-M07 dump | Killexams 301b braindumps | huge List of Exam Braindumps

View Complete list of Brain dumps

Killexams ST0-237 braindumps | Killexams AACN-CMC bootcamp | Killexams 250-406 existent questions | Killexams PW0-250 drill exam | Killexams 70-761 braindumps | Killexams 83-640 exam questions | Killexams HP5-K01D exam prep | Killexams 9A0-094 questions and answers | Killexams P2065-037 test prep | Killexams 771-101 drill questions | Killexams LOT-955 brain dumps | Killexams 000-184 dumps | Killexams 000-137 exam prep | Killexams HP2-Z31 questions and answers | Killexams 000-R03 cheat sheets | Killexams 000-443 pdf download | Killexams 000-M43 test prep | Killexams HP2-B119 free pdf download | Killexams E20-095 existent questions | Killexams 000-N38 examcollection |

OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

Pass 4 sure HP0-277 dumps | HP0-277 existent questions |

April 2018 Web Server Survey | existent questions and Pass4sure dumps

In the April 2018 survey they received responses from 1,783,239,123 sites across 214,513,048 unique domain names and 7,387,066 web-facing computers. This reflects a gain of 12.8 million sites and 53,500 computers, but a loss of 261,000 domains.

Microsoft dominated this month's hostname growth, with 25.1 million additional hostnames bringing its leading market partake up by 1.15 percentage points to 36.9%. Meanwhile, Apache lost 8.2 million sites and nginx lost 5.7 million.

Microsoft fared less well in most other metrics, however. Despite its large multiply in hostnames, Microsoft's domain matter fell by 1.4 million, and it also suffered a loss of 5,360 web-facing computers and 51,300 energetic sites. Nonetheless, its presence within the top million sites grew by 517 sites.

nginx may occupy lost 5.7 million hostnames, but it showed the strongest growth in some of the most Important metrics. This included a gain of 46,700 web-facing computers, 3.8 million domains, and an additional 4,280 sites in the top million. The noticeable uptick in nginx-powered domains this month has increased its market partake of domains by 1.81 percentage points to 22.5%, leaving it only 3.5 points behind Microsoft. nginx has demonstrated fairly consistent domain growth since this metric was introduced in 2009, and if these trends continue, it could feasibly buy second dwelling from Microsoft within a year.

Apache suffered losses in every metric this month, including a loss of 3.0 million domains and 1.1 million energetic sites, along with 2,840 sites within the top million. Nonetheless, it maintains a cozy lead in every metric except hostnames, where its 25.6% market partake is 11.4 points behind Microsoft's.

Some of the highest-traffic sites using Apache today embrace intelligence website; financial sites relish and; the Steam online gaming store at and its community forum at; and sites used by ad networks, relish and

Apache Tomcat – the hidden backend

More than 450 million websites are currently using the Apache HTTP server, but this is not the only web server product offered by the Apache Software Foundation. The Apache Tomcat project provides an open source implementation of Java Servlet and JSP technologies, but its deployment is hard to quantify.

Tomcat is often used as a backend application server, with the Apache Tomcat Connectors project connecting it to other web-facing servers relish Apache and Microsoft IIS. In many of these cases, Tomcat cannot exist detected passively, although it may exist practicable to confirm its exhaust during a web application security test – for example, by tricking the application into returning a Java stack trace.

Tomcat also includes its own endemic HTTP connector that allows it to exist used as a standalone HTTP server, and these servers can exist passively identified from their "Apache Tomcat" server headers. However, this is not a commonly used configuration: Only 10,300 websites exhibited the Apache Tomcat server header this month, and only 35 of these sites were ranked within the top million.

Several different versions of Apache Tomcat are available, depending which version of Java needs to exist supported. Surprisingly, most Tomcat servers that are exposed directly to the internet are running Apache Tomcat 4.1.x, which has not been supported for several years. Actively maintained versions embrace 9.x, 8.5.x, 8.0.x and 7.x, although advocate for 8.0.x will quit on 30 June 2018. The most recent versions of Apache Tomcat are 8.5.30 and 9.0.7, which were both released on 7 April.

Other novel releases

The mainline offshoot of nginx has seen three novel releases since terminal month's survey. nginx 1.13.10 was released on 20 March 2018, and added a few novel features including the ngx_http_grpc_module module, which allows requests to exist passed to a gRPC server. nginx 1.13.11 was subsequently released on 3 April, followed by nginx 1.13.12 on 10 April. These releases embrace a few bug fixes and an improved proxy protocol feature.

nginx also announced the release of njs 0.2.0 on 3 April. njs implements a subset of the JavaScript language, allowing location and variable handlers to exist used in nginx's ngx_http_js_module and ngx_stream_js_module modules.

OpenLiteSpeed 1.4.31 (stable) and 1.5.0 RC3 were released on 11 April 2018. This open source server cannot exist distinguished from the commercially available LiteSpeed Web Server, as both products exhaust the same "LiteSpeed" server header. More than 12.5 million sites exhibit this header, across 13,600 web-facing computers.

Tengine 1.4.2

Nearly 28 million websites are using Taobao's nginx-based Tengine web server, but 74% are noiseless running a version that was released several years ago, despite later releases including not just novel features, but also security fixes. The most extensive user of Tengine 1.4.2 – which was released in November 2012 – is the Chinese cloud computing infrastructure service provider Aiyun Network.

Uptake of novel Tengine releases is generally leisurely across the internet. The latest version, Tengine 2.2.2, was released on 26 January 2018, but only 262 sites are currently using it. Most of these sites are hosted by Internet Vision in Lithuania, while handfuls of other early adopters are hosted on low-cost cloud hosting platforms provided by Aliyun, DigitalOcean and Linode.

The poor uptake of newer releases could exist partly caused by their want of visibility on the Tengine website at The latest version that can exist downloaded from the intelligence section on the homepage is the 2.2.0 progress version that was released in December 2016, followed by the 2.1.2 stable version from December 2015. Download links for the much-newer 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 releases can only exist establish on a separate download page.

cloudflare-nginx noiseless lingers

Cloudflare's migration to its novel cloudflare server header is not yet over, with more than 10,000 websites noiseless using the former cloudflare-nginx header. These account for less than 0.07% of everything Cloudflare sites in the survey, so the migration is very proximate to completion.

Cloudflare recently increased the size of its European network to 41 cities, expanding its global network to 151 cities across 74 countries. Its highest data centre is 2.6 km above sea level in the city of Bogotá, Columbia.

Developer March 2018 Percent April 2018 Percent Change Microsoft 633,719,941 35.80% 658,800,756 36.94% 1.15 Apache 464,340,535 26.23% 456,169,336 25.58% -0.65 nginx 409,124,174 23.11% 403,381,961 22.62% -0.49 Google 21,802,670 1.23% 22,460,562 1.26% 0.03 Developer March 2018 Percent April 2018 Percent Change Apache 76,398,184 43.03% 75,298,051 42.41% -0.62 nginx 37,321,104 21.02% 37,478,429 21.11% 0.09 Google 13,684,777 7.71% 14,159,867 7.97% 0.27 Microsoft 11,986,413 6.75% 11,935,138 6.72% -0.03

For more information survey energetic Sites

Developer March 2018 Percent April 2018 Percent Change Apache 366,272 36.63% 363,431 36.34% -0.28 nginx 237,588 23.76% 241,869 24.19% 0.43 Microsoft 93,016 9.30% 93,533 9.35% 0.05 LiteSpeed 14,465 1.45% 14,676 1.47% 0.02 Developer March 2018 Percent April 2018 Percent Change Apache 3,018,056 41.15% 3,018,020 40.86% -0.30 nginx 1,798,113 24.52% 1,844,837 24.97% 0.46 Microsoft 1,536,371 20.95% 1,531,014 20.73% -0.22 Developer March 2018 Percent April 2018 Percent Change Apache 80,745,341 37.60% 77,731,493 36.24% -1.36 Microsoft 57,136,501 26.60% 55,746,915 25.99% -0.62 nginx 44,450,473 20.70% 48,269,102 22.50% 1.81 Google 1,878,467 0.87% 1,901,783 0.89% 0.01

Citrix Receiver for Mac and OS X Yosemite | existent questions and Pass4sure dumps

Now that OS X Yosemite has been released to the wild, you may notice the Citrix Receiver has issues after adding a novel account and/or launching apps from the client interface.  In this blog post I am going to depart over the issue and fix for the issue.

You will receive the following error when authenticating after setting a novel account in the Citrix Receiver or launching the application from the client interface.

The issue happens with Citrix Receiver for Mac version 11.8.2 after upgrading to OS X Yosemite.  Applications will launch fine from the Citrix Receiver for Web.  The issue appears to exist an authentication issue.

To learn more and to read the entire article at its source, gladden mention to the following page, Citrix Receiver for Mac and OS X Yosemite- Jarian Gibson 

Tweet supervene @dabcc supervene @douglasabrown

Google Search property Rater Guidelines Updated: beneficial Purpose, Creator Reputation & More | existent questions and Pass4sure dumps

It has been a year since they terminal saw Google’s Search property Rater Guidelines updated, but they released a brand novel version over the weekend.  Here is what has changed, with commentary about why it is Important for site owners and tips they can buy away from it to incorporate into their own sites.

Once again, Google’s property raters cannot impact your site directly in how it ranks in the search results.  But Google does exhaust these ratings to ensure the best search results are being delivered with the highest property sites ranking best.

The first changes are evident within the table of contents.  The section on “Website Reputation” has been renamed “Reputation of the Website or Creator of the Main Content.”  The subsection has been changed from merely “Reputation Research” to “Research on the Reputation of the Website or Creator of the Main Content.”

The Low property section has been expanded, as was the Lowest property section, with additional subsections added,  including reputation of the creator of the content.

One of the Big changes is that not only are raters looking at the reputation of just the website, raters are tasked with investigating the reputation  of the content creator – such as the author of the article or landing page being rated.  This will allot a greater accent on sites needing to occupy author information and author bios on their articles, especially for those sites that Do not exhaust bylines on their content when it isn’t clear on the site itself who authors the articles.

Google has also added the concept of “beneficial purpose” to the property Rater Guidelines, where raters are not just asked to rate the property of the content, but also respect whether the page has a beneficial purpose or exhaust to being on the site.  What would a visitor to the site gain?

There is also a novel accent on titles again, specifically targeting clickbait titles where the title is sensationalized tabloid style, yet fails to deliver up to the expectations when someone clicks through.

Lastly, a pretty significant change to the coverage of Your Money, Your Life sites.

There were also novel grammatical errors corrected, which I won’t note as they Do not change the context of what each section or sentence says.  They also changed usage from “vendor” to “employer/company.”

Remember, property raters cannot impact your site directly.  So you don’t occupy to worry that a competitor is a rater and will rate your site lowest.  Google uses the raters to evaluate algos instead.  They will shove out an algo test and exhaust raters to evaluate how well – or not – their search results are performing based on the property of sites that are ranking higher in the search results.

Now, let’s dive in with everything the changes, or head to the bottom for my final thoughts on these changes.

Purpose of a Webpage Beneficial Purpose

The original comments about “beneficial purpose” were added under some commentary for examples in the previous version of the property rater guidelines.  But Google has expanded on this to embrace it in their “Purpose of a Webpage” section, as well as to add it throughout the guidelines when referring to towering property pages and websites as well as low property ones.

Most pages are created to exist helpful for users, thus having a beneficial purpose.

Google previously listed the main purposes of a page, with examples such as “to partake information about a topic” and “to entertain.”  This list was preceded with a heading “Common helpful page purposes embrace (but are not limited to):”  Now, it has been changed to “Common helpful or beneficial page purposes embrace (but are not limited to):”

They examine raters to respect what the beneficial purpose of a page is throughout the guidelines, and if there is no beneficial purpose, that the page should receive a lowest rating.  It also uses this for raters to respect whether non-traditional pages occupy any beneficial value too.

They appear to exhaust the term often with the term “helpful”, leading to that property raters shouldn’t just respect if the page could exist helpful to someone, but if it is a beneficial page to occupy on a site or in the search results.

Purpose of Video Pages

For some intuition in the many examples, Google has decided to change the purpose of a page for a few of the examples.  And the change is kindhearted of curious, and if it means Google is changing how they view the focus of a video landing page, or if SEOs shouldn’t read too much into the change.

Formerly, it listed the purpose of a video page as “To allow users to watch a video.”  But now, Google has changed it – in everything examples – to “To partake a cute video of a cat.”

Why?  Is Google considering the evolving value of a video landing page that it is pivoting slightly from merely watching a video to also sharing a video?

From a user perspective, most people depart to a video landing page to watch a video.  But perhaps from a site owner perspective, many are not wanting just the watch, but also optimizing to those shares as well.

From the specimen they show, you can definitely narrate that the site is angling for shares, in the artery the page is presented.

However, they later also mention to a video page that the purpose is to partake a video, but it is a YouTube page that isn’t as “in your face” about the sharing.

Purpose of Blog Post Pages

Similarly, they changed the purpose of blog post pages to “to partake music used on a TV show” as the purpose of a page from “the purpose is to display a blog post.”  Again, this could just exist to match the specimen to exist more specific.


Google has removed one of the examples from this page, the specimen relating to Christopher Columbus.  They kept the second specimen but reformatted it into a paragraph instead of in the table.

Your Money Your Life Safety

Google has once again updated what they respect to exist Your Money, Your Life pages with this latest update.  And safety is the novel addition to the list.


Some types of pages could potentially impact the future happiness, health, or financial stability of users. They muster such pages “Your Money or Your Life” pages, or YMYL.

Now (emphasis mine):

Some types of pages could potentially impact the future happiness, health, financial stability, or safety of users. They call such pages “Your Money or Your Life” pages, or YMYL.

Google doesn’t depart specifically into what the addition of safety means, but their guidelines occupy had examples of things that could exist included in this.

Reputation Research on the Creator of Main Content

First, Google has changed the section merely called “Reputation Research” to “Research on the Reputation of the Website or Creator of the Main Content.”

Google is placing a brand novel accent on the creator or author of the main content of the page, whereas before the accent was entirely on the website reputation.  So what could this exist targeting?  I suspect they want property raters to not simply respect the site in question that an article is establish on, but the author as well.  There are well known authors published on lesser known sites and vice versa.

It could also exist considering intelligence persuasion articles, where a well known intelligence site publishes an OpEd pice by someone whose reputation might not exist as remarkable as the site publishing it.  Some sites relish to court controversy for page views, and doing it with someone with a poor reputation who will ignite a firestorm can toil well.   But should that particular piece of content stand on the merits of the site solitary when the author is questionable?

And sometimes a site has plenty of content but nothing in the artery of a content creator, such as a name, gregarious media link or bio.  Before, raters were judging on the reputation of the site alone, but now with the creator’s reputation up for analysis, many sites will fail on that score.

How to Search for Reputation Information

Google has added “You may need to identify the creator of the content, if it is different from that of the overall website.”

They occupy also added a novel suggestion for finding reputation information content creators:

For content creators, try searching for their denomination or alias.

They occupy also added that you should recognize for reputation information not written by the individual creator, just as you would for a website or business.  Then they added:

For content creators, recognize for biographical data and other sources that are not written by the individual.

They also insinuate looking for the Wikipedia page for the content creators.

What to Do When You Find No Reputation Information

Google added (added text in italics):

You should anticipate to find reputation information for large businesses and websites of large organizations, as well as well-known content creators.

Page property Rating Overall Page property Rating

Google has completely rewritten and expanded this section from the very brief version it has had before.

Old version:

The overall Page property rating scale offers five rating options: Lowest , Low , Medium , High, and Highest .

New version:

At a towering level, here are the steps of Page property rating:

1. Understand the actual purpose of the page. Websites or pages without any beneficial purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to assist users, or pages that potentially spread hate, antecedent harm, or misinform or delude users, should receive the Lowest rating. No further  assessment is necessary.2. Otherwise, the PQ rating is based on how well the page achieves its purpose using the criteria outlined in the following sections on Lowest , Low , Medium , High, and Highest property pages.

Again, Google is putting the focus on the beneficial purpose of the page.

Page property Rating: Most Important Factors

Google’s change to this section is to yet again allot the focus on the purpose of the page as well as on the reputation of the creator of the content.

Here are the changes, with the changes in italics to this section:

Here are the most Important factors to respect when selecting an overall Page property rating:

● The Purpose of the Page● Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an Important property characteristic. exhaust your research on the additional factors below to inform your rating.● Main Content property and Amount: The rating should exist based on the landing page of the job URL.● Website Information/information about who is answerable for the MC: Find information about the website as well as the creator of the MC.●Website Reputation/reputation about who is answerable for the MC: Links to assist with reputation research will exist provided.

Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness (E-A-T)

There are some significant changes to this.  First, the instances where Google referred to “high quality” has now been changed to “high EAT”.  Google is clearly wanting raters to recognize beyond simple property and respect other aspects that contribute to the value of that content as well.

Google has added this novel part:

Remember that the first step of PQ rating is to understand the actual purpose of the page. Websites or pages without some sort of beneficial purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to assist users, or pages that potentially spread hate, antecedent harm, or misinform or delude users, should receive the Lowest rating.

For everything other pages that occupy a beneficial purpose, the amount of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-A-T) is very important. gladden consider:

● The expertise of the creator of the MC.● The authoritativeness of the creator of the MC, the MC itself, and the website.● The trustworthiness of the creator of the MC, the MC itself, and the website.

Later in the section, they win some changes specific to the content creators in several key areas, including medical, news, science and financial sites.

Here are those changes, with the changes in italics:

● towering E-A-T medical counsel should exist written or produced by people or organizations with confiscate medical expertise or accreditation. towering E-A-T medical counsel or information should exist written or produced in a professional style and should exist edited, reviewed, and updated on a regular basis.● towering E-A-T intelligence articles should exist produced with journalistic professionalism—they should contain factually accurate content presented in a artery that helps users achieve a better understanding of events. towering E-A-T intelligence sources typically occupy published established editorial policies and robust review processes ( specimen 1 , specimen 2 ).● towering E-A-T information pages on scientific topics should exist produced by people or organizations with confiscate scientific expertise and portray well-established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists.● towering E-A-T financial advice, legal advice, tax advice, etc., should forward from trustworthy sources and exist maintained and updated regularly.● towering E-A-T counsel pages on topics such as home remodeling (which can cost thousands of dollars and impact your vital situation) or counsel on  parenting issues (which can impact the future happiness of a family) should also come from “expert” or experienced sources that users can trust.● towering E-A-T pages on hobbies, such as photography or learning to play a guitar, also require expertise.

Again, Google is putting a lot of stress on the content creators as well, emphasized for YMYL sites.

They are now holding intelligence sites to an even higher standard, likely in response to the changes Google made terminal year in response to the fake intelligence sites.  Before, Google was not asking raters to gauge the journalistic standards of intelligence sites, because that is one district that differs between many websites but also can exist used to determine the credibility of site’s intelligence content.  And again, this is in addition to keeping the creator’s reputation in intelligence when rating content.

Google gives two examples of the types of editorial policies they want to survey on towering property intelligence sites.  First, the BBC (partial screenshot).

And the second example, USA Today (partial screenshot).

Google has also gone further with both medical and scientific content, wanting medical content to exist written by someone with the actual medical expertise and science content to also exist produced by those with pertinent expertise.  So Google is clearly looking at these areas as well to exist impacted with future algorithms as these sites are held to a higher standard.

High property Pages Characteristics of towering property Pages

Google has also expanded this section.  Here they accumulate the first reference to the novel title changes as well as more on the beneficial purpose of a page.  Changes/additions are in italics.

High property pages exist for almost any beneficial purpose, from giving information to making people laugh to expressing oneself artistically to purchasing products or services online.

What makes a towering property page? A towering property page should occupy a beneficial purpose and achieve that purpose well.  In addition, towering property pages occupy the following characteristics:

● towering level of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● A satisfying amount of towering property MC, including a descriptive or helpful title.● Satisfying website information and/or information about who is answerable for the website. If the page is primarilyfor shopping or includes financial transactions, then it should occupy satisfying customer service information.● Positive website reputation for a website that is answerable for the MC on the page. Positive reputation of thecreator of the MC, if different from that of the website.

Highest property Pages Highest property Pages

Again, beneficial purpose is added as a requirement for a highest property page.

They occupy also added the “and quantity if MC” as a marker for a distinction between towering and highest quality.  This does raise a question about whether everything content length is really considered equal in the eyes of Google.  Both Gary Illyes and John Mueller occupy stated you don’t need to write an essay for a piece of content that doesn’t need it, and to write as much as you need to in order to retort the question the title presents.  But here, quantity of the main content is something rates should specifically recognize for when deciding if a page is highest property or only towering quality.

And they survey yet another reference to the need of having a “very positive reputation of the creator of the main content, if different from that of the website.”

But they occupy removed references to this on pages for stores or other financial transactions.

Here is the former version:

Highest pages are very satisfying pages that achieve their purpose very well. The distinction between towering and Highest is based on the property of MC as well as the level of EAT and reputation of the website.

What makes a page Highest quality? A Highest property page may occupy the following characteristics:

● Very towering level of Expertise, highly Authoritative, and highly Trustworthy for the purpose of the page (EAT), including the EATof the publisher and/or individual author for intelligence articles and information pages on YMYL topics.● A satisfying amount of towering property MC.● Highly satisfying website information and/or information about who is answerable for the website or for stores and pages involving financial transactions, highly satisfying customer service reputation is very important.● Very positive website reputation for a website that is answerable for the MC on the page.

And the updated version:

Highest property pages are created to serve a beneficial purpose and achieve their purpose very well. The distinction between towering and Highest is based on the property and quantity of MC, as well as the level of reputation and E-A-T.

What makes a page Highest quality? In addition to the attributes of a towering property page, a Highest property page must occupy at least one of the following characteristics:

● Very towering level of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● A very satisfying amount of towering or highest property MC.● Very positive website reputation for a website that is answerable for the MC on the page. Very positive reputation of the creator of the MC, if different from that of the website.

So the removal of the stores and financial transactions change seems to exist due to the more generic variation of that added to the guidelines.

Very Positive Reputation

They now want raters to Do “extensive” reputation research when giving Highest ratings.

Examples of Highest property Pages

Google has added a novel example, it surprisingly, it is of a Twitter page.  SO this is proof that Google does respect Twitter pages to exist highest property in some cases.

Low property Pages

This entire section on low property pages got updated.  Some was removed as it was replaced with something more concise, while other areas were expanded, particularly around reputation and beneficial content.

Low property Pages

The first paragraph has been updated completely.

This was removed:

Low property pages are unsatisfying or lacking in some component that prevents them from achieving their purpose well. These pages want expertise or are not very trustworthy/authoritative for the purpose of the page.

And it was changed to this:

Low property pages may occupy been intended to serve a beneficial purpose. However, Low property pages Do not achieve their purpose well because they are lacking in an Important dimension, such as having an unsatisfying amount of MC, or because the creator of the MC lacks expertise for the purpose of the page.

Here is the reference to beneficial purpose once again.  But this time it also concedes that sometimes these pages were intended to serve a beneficial purpose but something on the page – or missing from it – means it is noiseless low quality.

Google has removed the possibility that some pages that meet their “low property pages” criteria might not exist considered low.  Now, raters must always rate a page as Low – or Lowest – if any one or more applies.

Here is what the section used to be:

If a page has one of the following characteristics, the Low rating is usually appropriate:

● The author of the page or website does not occupy enough expertise for the topic of the page and/or the website is not trustworthy or authoritative for the topic. In other words, the page/website is lacking EAT.● The property of the MC is low.● There is an unsatisfying amount of MC for the purpose of the page.● MC is present, but difficult to exhaust due to distracting/disruptive/misleading Ads, other content/features, etc.● There is an unsatisfying amount of website information for the purpose of the website (no top-notch intuition for anonymity).● The website has a negative reputation.

And here is the novel revised version:

If a page has one or more of the following characteristics, the Low rating applies:● An inadequate level of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● The property of the MC is low.● There is an unsatisfying amount of MC for the purpose of the page.● The title of the MC is exaggerated or shocking.● The Ads or SC distracts from the MC.● There is an unsatisfying amount of website information or information about the creator of the MC for the purpose of the page (no top-notch intuition for anonymity).● A mildly negative reputation for a website or creator of the MC, based on extensive reputation research. If a page has multiple Low property attributes, a rating lower than Low may exist appropriate.

Note that it no longer includes the reference that anonymity for some content might exist appropriate.

Lacking Expertise, Authoritativeness, or Trustworthiness (E-A-T)

This section has been completely rewritten, and was formerly section 6.5.


Some topics exact expertise for the content to exist considered trustworthy. YMYL topics such as medical advice, legal advice, financial advice, etc. should forward from authoritative sources in those fields, must exist factually accurate, and must portray scientific/medical consensus within those fields where such consensus exists. Even everyday topics, such as recipes and house cleaning, should forward from those with experience and everyday expertise in order for the page to exist trustworthy.

You should respect who is answerable for the content of the website or content of the page you are evaluating. Does the person or organization occupy enough expertise for the topic? If expertise, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness is lacking, use the Low rating.


Low property pages often want an confiscate level of E-A-T for the purpose of the page. Here are some examples:

● The creator of the MC does not occupy adequate expertise in the topic of the MC, e.g. a tax shape instruction video made by someone with no clear expertise in tax preparation.● The website is not an authoritative source for the topic of the page, e.g. tax information on a cooking website.● The MC is not trustworthy, e.g. a shopping checkout page that has an insecure connection.

It also made some slight changes to the user generated content section of this, and now specifically includes references to gregarious networking pages, video sharing sites, and wiki-type sites.

Old version:

User-generated websites span the Page property rating spectrum. Note that in some cases, contributors elect their own topics with no oversight and may occupy very poor writing skills or no expertise in the topic of the page. Contributors may exist paid per article or word, and may even exist eligible for bonuses based on the traffic to their pages. Depending on the topic, pages on these websites may not exist trustworthy.

New version:

Note: Websites with user-generated content span the Page property rating spectrum. gladden pay heedful attention to websites that allow users to publish content with minuscule oversight, such as gregarious networking pages, video sharing websites, volunteer-created encyclopedias, article sharing websites, forums, etc. Depending on the topic, pages on these websites may want E-A-T.

The user generated content section is noteworthy, because they aren’t automatically discounting user generated content as low or lowest, but rather as something that warrants further investigation before rating it.  There are plenty of examples of towering property user generated content, but it seems the majority is definitely lacking in property and EAT.

It has also changed the notation at the quit from “Important : Lacking confiscate consume is enough intuition to give a page a Low property rating.” to “Important : The Low rating should exist used if the page lacks confiscate E-A-T for its purpose.”  So Google has a novel distinction on consume for the purpose of the specific page.

Low property Main Content

This section has been significantly reduced, although some of it was incorporated into novel individual sections Google has added to the guidelines, so just because it is renowned as removed here, doesn’t exist of value it was removed entirely.  But they also accumulate their novel guidance on the clickbait style titles vs actual content that Google now wants raters to muster Low.

They entirely removed this piece which was an specimen used to illustrate types of low property content, as well as the differentiation between professional websites and those from hobbyists:

One of the most Important criteria in PQ rating is the property of the MC, which is determined by how much time, effort,expertise, and talent/skill occupy gone into the creation of the page, and also informs the EAT of the page.

Consider this example: Most students occupy to write papers for towering school or college. Many students buy shortcuts tosave time and exertion by doing one or more of the following:

● Buying papers online or getting someone else to write for them.● Including inaccurate information, such as making things up, stretching the truth, or creating a inaccurate sense of doubt about well-established facts.● Writing quickly with no drafts or editing.● Failing to cite sources, or making up sources where not a bit exist.● Filling the report with large pictures or other distracting content.● Copying the entire report from an encyclopedia, or paraphrasing content by changing words or sentence structure here and there.● Using commonly known facts, for example, “Argentina is a country. People live there. Argentina has borders.”● Using a lot of words to communicate only basic ideas or facts, for example, “Pandas consume bamboo. Pandas consume a lot of bamboo. Bamboo is the best food for a Panda bear.”

Unfortunately, the content of some webpages is similarly created. They will respect content to exist Low property if it is created without adequate time, effort, expertise, or talent/skill. Inaccurate or deceptive information presented as fact is also a intuition for Low or even Lowest property ratings. Pages with low property MC Do not achieve their purpose well.

Keep in intelligence that they occupy very different standards for pages on large, professionally-produced trade websites than we occupy for minuscule amateur, hobbyist, or personal websites. The property of MC they anticipate for a large online store is very different than what they might anticipate for a minuscule local trade website.

All PQ rating should exist done in the context of the purpose of the page and the nature of website.

Important : Low property MC is a enough intuition to give a page a Low property rating.

The very much abbreviated version of this section has specifics to clickbait:

The property of the MC is an Important consideration for PQ rating. They will respect content to exist Low property if it is created without adequate time, effort, expertise, or talent/skill. Pages with low property MC Do not achieve their purpose well.

In addition, gladden examine the title on the page. The title of the page should recount the content.

Exaggerated or shocking titles can entice users to click on pages in search results. If pages Do not live up to the exaggerated or shocking title or images, the experience leaves users sentiment surprised and confused. Here is an example of a page with an exaggerated and shocking title: “Is the World about to End? arcane Sightings of 25ft Sea Serpents Prompt Panic!” as the title for an article about the unidentified remains of one minuscule lifeless fish on a beach. Pages with exaggerated or shocking titles that Do not recount the MC well should exist rated Low.

Important : The Low rating should exist used if the page has Low property MC.

Google initially added references to clickbait and property terminal year in an update to the guidelines, but this one goes into more specifics with an example.  But it is unclear if site owners only need to worry about this extreme clickbait, or if “milder” versions of clickbait could exist rated Low as well.

The specimen seems based off this Daily Mail article Google has as a later specimen in the guidelines.

Unsatisfying Amount of Main Content

Here there is a minuscule change, but it does win a rater alert that there is a disagreement between the amount of content for the purpose of the page.

Old version:

Important : An unsatisfying amount of MC is a enough intuition to give a page a Low property rating.

New version:

Important : The Low rating should exist used if the page has an unsatisfying amount of MC for the purpose of the page.

Distracting Ads/SC

This is a combination of multiple removed sections (6.3. 6.3.1, 6.3.2) in a novel solitary section.

Of note is that previously, Google wanted raters to respect “highly distracting”, while now it is simply “distracting” that will accumulate a Low rating.

It also specifically calls out suggestive and grostesque images, common to some of the Outbrain and Taboola style of ad units on many websites.

This is the specimen Google uses to demonstrate distracting ads and SC, which also has a inaccurate clickbait title.

Here is the complete novel section:

We anticipate Ads and SC to exist visible. However, some Ads, SC, or interstitial pages (i.e., pages displayed before or after the content you are expecting) win it difficult to exhaust the MC. Pages with Ads, SC, or other features that distract from or interrupt the exhaust of the MC should exist given a Low rating.

A solitary pop-over Ad with a clear and easy-to-use proximate button is not terribly distracting, though may not exist a remarkable user experience. However, difficult-to-close Ads that supervene page scrolls can exist truly distracting and win the MC difficult to use.

The content of the Ads, SC, or other features may exist distracting as well: sexually suggestive images such as here, grotesque images such as here , and porn Ads on non-porn pages should exist considered very distracting.

Finally, Ads and SC can exist distracting if the titles or images of the Ads or SC are shocking or disturbing. Here is an specimen of a page with shocking and exaggerated titles, images, and text in the Ads and SC.

Important : The Low rating should exist used if the page has Ads, SC, or other features that interrupt or distract from using the MC.

Mixed or Mildly Negative Reputation of the Website or Creator of the Main Content

This is another section substantially changed, the previous section was simply titled “Negative Reputation”.  Google is highlighting that “extensive” reputation research is required now.

For restaurant sites concerned about how some negative reviews are reflected through the property raters, Google is now stating that it is typical for trade to occupy a few negative reviews.

Here is the novel version with changes in italics.

Extensive reputation research is required for everything PQ rating tasks unless you occupy previously researched the reputation of the website. Many websites occupy minuscule reputation information, unfortunately. Of the websites with reputation information, most websites occupy a top-notch reputation. gladden exercise faith when researching the reputation of businesses. Try to find as many reviews and ratings as possible, and read the details of negative reviews and low ratings before inferring that the trade overall has a negative reputation. A few negative customer service reviews are typical for businesses such as restaurants.

Google has now added that non-journalist writers can occupy reputation as well, including YouTubers, bloggers, vloggers and professionals.  So raters are now expected to Do reputation research on any content creator, regardless of whether they appear to exist well known enough or not.

Here is what was added:

If the MC was not created by the website, research the reputation of the creator of the MC. While many ordinary people do not occupy reputation information available on the Internet, you can find reputation information on well-known YouTubers, journalists, authors, bloggers and vloggers, professionals such as lawyers and doctors, etc.

Pay attention when there is evidence of mixed or mildly negative—though not malicious or financially fraudulent—reputation. The Low rating should exist used if the website or the creator of the MC has a mildly negative reputation.

Important : For a YMYL website, a mixed reputation is antecedent for a Low rating.

Unsatisfying Amount of Information About the Website or Creator of the Main Content

Here again they survey addition of the “Creator of the Main Content” added to the title, with Google yet again focusing on the content creator and the practicable want of information or reputation of the creator.

Google is also noting that a gregarious media link solitary can satisfy the reputation requirement for personal or non-YMYL content.

Google is also acknowledging that there could exist a “good reason” for anonymity used by some webpages or some sites.

Changes are in italics:

We anticipate some shape of website information for many or most websites. They anticipate clear information about who (e.g., what individual, company, business, foundation, etc.) created the MC, unless there is top-notch intuition for anonymity. A long-standing Internet alias or username can also serve the same role as identifying the MC creator. However, the amount of information needed about the website or creator of the MC depends on the purpose of the page. For personal websites or non-YMYL forum discussions, an email address or gregarious media link solitary may exist sufficient.

They also added that the want of information about the person who created the content as being a intuition for a Low rating on YMYL content.  Additions in italics:

Important : For YMYL pages and other pages that require a towering level of user trust, an unsatisfying amount of any of thefollowing is a intuition to give a page a Low property rating: customer service information, contact information, informationabout who is answerable for the website or information about who created the content. For other types of websites, useyour judgment.

Lowest property Pages

Much of this section was changed, rewritten and reorganized too.

Lowest property Pages

One remarkable piece of this section that SEOs and site owners will want to buy note of is the fact Google summarizes the page property points made throughout the page property sections and allot them into 3 concise steps.  Here they are:

As a reminder, here are the steps for doing PQ rating.

1. Understand the actual purpose of the page. Websites and pages should exist created for users in order to serve a beneficial purpose, in other words, they should exist to assist users.2. Websites or pages without a beneficial purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to assist users, or pages that potentially spread hate, antecedent harm, or misinform or delude users, should receive the Lowest rating. E-A-T and other page property characteristics Do not play a role for these pages. For example, any page attempting to scam users should receive the Lowest rating, whether the scam is created by an expert or not.3. Otherwise, the PQ rating is based on how well the page achieves its purpose using the criteria outlined in these guidelines. Pages that fail to achieve their purpose should receive the Lowest rating.

They also added a novel summary, but note  that these are simply drilled down points that were previously in 7.x sections in the terminal property Rater Guidelines.

Lack of Purpose Pages

Google added “Some pages fail to achieve their purpose so profoundly that the purpose of the page cannot exist determined. Such pages serve no existent purpose for users.”

Pages that Fail to Achieve Their Purpose

This is another section that was reorganized and rewritten.  Here is the updated version:

Lowest E-A-T

One of the most Important criteria of PQ rating is E-A-T. Expertise of the creator of the MC, and authoritativeness or trustworthiness of the page or website, is extremely Important for a page to achieve its purpose well.

If the E-A-T of a page is low enough, users cannot or should not exhaust the MC of the page. This is especially actual of YMYL topics. If the page is highly inexpert, unauthoritative or untrustworthy, it fails to achieve its purpose.

Important : The Lowest rating should exist used if the page is highly inexpert, unauthoritative, or untrustworthy.

No/Little Main Content

Pages exist to partake their MC with users. The following pages should exist rated Lowest because they fail to achieve their purpose:● Pages with no MC.● Pages with a bare minimum of MC that is unhelpful for the purpose of the page.

Lowest property Main Content

The Lowest rating applies to any page with Lowest property MC. Lowest property MC is content created with such insufficient time, effort, expertise, talent, and/or skill that it fails to achieve its purpose. The Lowest rating should also apply to pages where users cannot benefit from the MC, for example:

● Informational pages with demonstrably inaccurate MC.● The MC is so difficult to read, watch, or use, that it takes remarkable exertion to understand and exhaust the page.● Broken functionality of the page due to want of skill in construction, poor design, or want of maintenance.

Have towering standards and cogitate about how typical users in your locale would experience the MC on the page. A page mayhave value to the creator or participants in the discussion, but few to no common users who view it would benefit from theMC.

Copied Main Content

Interesting piece they removed from the dawn of this section is the remark that “Every page needs MC.”

They also combined the two sections “Copied Main Content” and “More About Copied Content”, although it is nearly identical.

They did remove the following:

If everything or most of the MC on the page is copied, cogitate about the purpose of the page. Why does the page exist? What value does the page occupy for users? Why should users recognize at the page with copied content instead of the original source?

That is a snoopy piece to remove, since it is a valid artery to determine if there is any artery the content has value despite being copied or syndicated.

Auto-Generated Main Content

This section was renamed from “Automatically-Generated Main Content”, perhaps to change it to match industry lingo.

This section is primarily the same, but added “Another artery to create MC with minuscule to no time, effort, or expertise is to create pages (or even entire websites)” to the first paragraph.

Obstructed or Inaccessible Main Content.

This is a reworked version of the previous “Deceptive Page Design” section.

Here is the novel section:

MC cannot exist used if it is obstructed or inaccessible due to Ads, SC, or interstitial pages . If you are not able to access the MC, gladden exhaust the Lowest rating.

Here are some examples of pages with obstructed MC that should exist rated Lowest :

● Ads that continue to cover the MC as you scroll down the page, that are virtually impossible to proximate without clicking on the Ad.● An interstitial page that redirects the user away from the MC without offering any path back to the MC.

This very likely includes fake intersitial pages on mobile, where you quit up on a page that seems to imply that the site is only available in an app, with a download link.  But if you scroll (and scroll and scroll) the content is sometimes displayed, although often in an abbreviated form, again to drive app installs.

Inadequate Information about the Website or Creator of the Main Content

Another revised section from 7.5, formerly called “No Website Information” again dealing with the reputation of not only the website itself but also of the content creator.  Google is seriously stressing the content creator aspect throughout the guidelines, and this stresses that if there is no information about the creator, the website should exist rated Lowest.

Italicized parts occupy been added to this section:

As discussed in Section 2.5.3 , they anticipate most websites to occupy some information about who (e.g., what individual, company, business, foundation, etc.) is answerable for the website and who created the MC, as well as some contact information, unless there is a top-notch intuition for anonymity. For websites with YMYL pages, such as online banks, they anticipate to find a lot of information about the site, including extensive customer service information.

Think about the purpose of the website and the nature of website information users would anticipate or demand.

YMYL pages with absolutely no information about the website or creator of the MC, or other pages where the available information is completely inadequate for the purpose of the website (e.g., an online bank with only an email address), should exist rated Lowest .

Again, Google does declar there are reasons why some site may occupy anonymous contributors or authors, provided there is “a top-notch intuition for anonymity.”  I Do phenomenon how well this is applied in drill by the raters though.  There is a Big disagreement between anonymity for something relish a political source, versus anonymity for atrocious stories not bring attributed to anyone so the site owner doesn’t occupy to win a fake persona.

Unmaintained Websites, and Hacked, Defaced, or Spammed Pages

This section sees “Unmaintained websites” added to the title.  They Do focus a lot on not just the accustomed hacked or spammed pages, but unmaintained website, where the content or information is so former it is now obsolete and there is no one currently maintaining it.

Google added:

These “abandoned” websites will fail to achieve their purpose over time, as content becomes stale or website functionality ceases to toil on novel browser versions.

Unmaintained websites should exist rated Lowest if they fail to achieve their purpose due to the want of maintenance.

Unmaintained websites may also become hacked, defaced, or spammed with a large amount of distracting and unhelpfulcontent. These pages should also exist rated Lowest because they fail to accomplish their original purpose.

Google has also removed the following specific to spammed comments:

Spammed comments are smooth to recognize and may embrace Ads, download, or other links. Webmasters should find and remove this content because it is a despicable user experience.

I am not sure why they removed this specifically, but it could exist slightly redundant or simply common sense.

Pages That Spread Hate

This section has been expanded from the previous version, and it now also includes additional specific groups that are targeted by Hate groups.  The additional groups now embrace socio-economic status, political beliefs, and victims of atrocities.

Even more significantly is the fact that Google is also looking not just at typical Hate content, but also Hate content that is “expressed in civil or even academic-sounding language.  This could definitely exist targeting the nature of Hate content that attempts to pass itself off as legitimate through the exhaust of language, which would also embrace intelligence sites that are spreading Hate in a intelligence article fashion.

They did remove another reference for the intuition behind the creation of the pages.  They no longer embrace that they are “pages created with the sole purpose of promoting Hate or violence” where they are specifically removing the created part.  This could exist to remove ambiguity over whether a page is or isn’t created for the purpose of promoting Hate and/or violence, because some could wrangle they weren’t created for that purpose.  A fine line, but the only intuition I could survey for them removing it.

They occupy removed three sources of information they previously recommended to raters to assist identify sites that promote Hate and violence.  It isn’t clear why they removed this without offering an alternative.  Here is the removed part:

The Pew Research center , the Anti-Defamation League , and the Southern Poverty Law center are some reputable sources that can exist used for reputation research.

The majority of this section is new, as Google has greatly expanded on this.  Here is the novel version, with italics for the parts that were changed.

Use the Lowest rating for pages that promote Hate or violence against a group of people based on criteria including—but not limited  to—race or ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality or citizenship, disability, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, political beliefs, veteran status, victims of atrocities, etc. Websites advocating Hate or violence can  antecedent existent world harm.

Hate may exist expressed in inflammatory, emotional, or hateful-sounding language, but may also exist expressed in civil or even academic-sounding language.

Extensive reputation research is Important for identifying websites that promote Hate or violence. gladden identify reputable and well-established organizations that provide information about Hate groups in your locale when researching reputation. Some websites may not occupy reputation information available. In this case, gladden exhaust your judgment based on the MC of the page and erudition of your locale.

Potentially Harmful Pages

This is another novel section, aimed specifically at the types of pages that promote harm.  It covers harm to self and others, and covers mental, physical and emotional harm.  They also embrace numerous examples of the types of sites they want to survey rank Low or Lowest.

It also covers death threats, which is an lively inclusion since there are issues birthright now where death threats are not being removed from gregarious media platforms.  So this could cover not just these types of threats on websites, but to assist obviate these from being ranked from gregarious media sites as well.

It also covers ‘”how to” nature articles that could exist used to commit terrorism or violent extremism.  Google has been criticized in the past for ranking pages that assist people learn to win bombs so it isn’t surprising to see  this addition.

Google has long added suicide prevention featured snippets in the search results for those doing suicide related searches.  But this also shows Google is trying to survey those types of results rank lower.

Here is the complete section:

Use the Lowest rating for pages that animate or foment harm. Harm includes mental, physical, or emotional harm to self or others. For example:

● User discussions that attempt to warrant sexual misuse of children.● How-to or step-by-step information on how to commit acts of terrorism or violent extremism.● Depictions of extreme gore or violence, without a beneficial purpose.● Suicide promotion or pro-anorexia webpages that animate users to engage in behavior that can result in hospitalization or death.● Pages with scary death threats or other realistic-sounding threatening language.

Malicious Pages

This is a rework of two previous sections.  That said, not much was changed.  They added that pages with suspicious links, “including malware download links or other types of links that are detrimental to users” should exist rated lowest.

“Other types of links” could exist open to interpretation.  Does that exist of value links to low property sites?  Or only malicious links that lead to malware?

They also define malicious sites as “Malicious pages are created with harmful intent or created to benefit the website or other organization at the cost of the user.”

Negative or Malicious Reputation

Google has now added that if the content creator has a negative or malicious reputation, not just the website itself, that the rating should exist Lowest.

Pages that Potentially Misinform Users

This is a brand novel section, although it is by far taken from section 7.6 “Highly Untrustworthy, unreliable, Inaccurate, or Misleading.”

This covers everything kindhearted of information sites that spread collusion theories and “demonstrably inaccurate content.”  Google has received negative publicity over the fact some collusion theory sites rank well for queries that are not specific to the collusion theory.  For example, search queries for the Holocaust had returned results including a site that was promoting the fact the Holocaust was a hoax.

Google adjusted the property rater guidelines terminal year to specifically test novel search algos that would result in these types of sites ranking lower in the search results, or ranking only for the specific collusion theory pages when the searcher is clearly searching for information about that collusion theory.   So this goes into a bit more details on the types of sites that should exist rated Lowest.

They also specifically talk about collusion theories that may appear amusing to some people – such as their specimen that the US government is controlled by lizard people  – but that this nature of content can occupy long reaching impact because there are some people who Do believe these collusion theories, even the seemingly outlandish ones.

They also want raters to check accuracy for YMYL topics when the rater isn’t sure if something is correct or what the consensus amongst experts is for the content in question.

They also mention fact checking sites, but note that fact checking sites cannot withhold up with the sheer number of collusion theories being published.

Here if the complete novel section:

The purpose of an informational page is to communicate accurate information. Assume an informational purpose for pages that recognize as though they are informational or pages that many users depart to for information, even if it is not an official intelligence source or an official encyclopedia article. This includes pages that emerge to exist news, gregarious profile pages spreading intelligence or information, forum discussions about informational topics such as current events, videos which cover intelligence topics, etc.

The Lowest rating must exist used for any of the following types of content on pages that could emerge to exist informational:

● Demonstrably inaccurate content.● YMYL content that contradicts well-established expert consensus.● Debunked or unsubstantiated collusion theories.

Lowest should also exist used under these circumstances:● The content creator may believe that the collusion theory or demonstrably inaccurate content is correct, or it is unclear whether they do.● The content creators may exist deliberately attempting to misinform users.● The content creators describe, repeat or spread collusion theories or demonstrably inaccurate content without a clear exertion to debunk or correct it, regardless of whether the creators believe it to exist true. For example, content creators may produce this content in order to win money or gain attention.

Some examples of information that would exist establish on Lowest property pages include: the moon landings were faked, carrots remedy cancer, and the U.S. government is controlled by lizard people. While some of these topics may appear funny, there occupy been existent world consequences from people believing these kinds of internet collusion theories and misinformation.

Find towering quality, trustworthy sources to check accuracy and the consensus of experts if you are unsure about a topic. exist especially heedful with YMYL topics such as medical, scientific, financial, historical, or current events that are necessary for maintaining an informed citizenry.

Please research collusion theories. Fact-checking websites cannot withhold up with the volume of collusion theories produced by the Internet. Some collusion theories are impossible to debunk because they pretension everything debunking information is inaccurate. If a pretension or collusion theory seems wildly improbable and cannot exist verified by independent trustworthy sources, respect it unsubstantiated.

Pages that Potentially delude Users

This is taken from the former 7.3 section.  As a lead in to the next section, Google added “The following sections recount characteristics of deceptive pages. However, no list of deceptive characteristics will be complete—deceptive websites continue to evolve as users and search engines figure out how they are being tricked.”

Deceptive Page Purpose

There are some changes here. One notable addition is the inclusion of non-satirical gregarious media profiles to what should exist rated lowest.

Here they also survey that clickbait is now considered deceptive, when the title doesn’t deliver what the actual content was about.

The added section about deceptiev website information is likely targeting sites that are impersonating local intelligence sites, something that was an issue during the US election cycle with seemingly legitimate looking websites were spreading fake intelligence under the guise that they were a legitimate intelligence organization.

The novel changes are in italics.

Some pages are deliberately created to delude users, for example:● A webpage or website that impersonates a different site (e.g., copied logo or branding of an unaffiliated site, URL that mimics another site’s name, etc.).● A non-satirical gregarious network profile made by an impersonator.● A webpage or website that looks relish a intelligence source or information page, but in fact has articles to maneuver users in order to benefit a person, business, government, or other organization politically, monetarily, or otherwise.● A webpage claims to proffer an independent review or partake other information about a product, but is in fact created to win money for the owner of the website without attempting to assist users. For example, the MC may contain intentionally deceptive or inaccurate information created with the sole purpose of getting users to click on monetized links or buy the product.● A website claims to exist the personal website of a celebrity, but the website is actually created to win money for the owner of the website without the authorization of the celebrity. For example, the page may occupy inaccurate testimonials for a product and is created for the sole purpose of getting users to click on monetized links or buy the product.● A webpage with a deceptive title or a title that has nothing to Do with the content on the page. Users who come to the page expecting content related to the title will feel tricked or deceived.● A webpage or website with deceptive website information. For example, the website may misrepresent who owns the site, what the website purpose really is, how the content was created, how to contact the site, etc.

Any page or website that may delude or trick users should exist rated Lowest , regardless of intent. exhaust the Lowest rating even if you cannot survey a intuition for the deception or even if you cogitate most users wouldn’t “fall” for the trick.

You should also exhaust the Lowest rating if you suspect a page is deceptive, even if you’re not able to completely confirm it. gladden exercise caution and drill top-notch Internet safety skills since deceptive pages may exist malicious.

Deceptive Page Design

Google has added a novel intuition to rate a site Lowest due to deceptive page design.  They occupy added:

Any page designed to trick users into clicking on links , which may exist Ads or other links intended to serve the needs of the website rather than to the benefit of the user.

While mostly they survey this utilized to mask affiliate or other paid links, Google already calls those out specifically as “pages that mask ads as main content” and “pages that mask ads as website navigation links.”

What I suspect this is targeting is a design on mobile that more and more sites are doing where they demonstrate very minuscule of the main content on the page with a “Read more” button that is placed deceptively on top of an ad unit, in hopes that someone trying to click to read the complete article accidentally clicks the ad too while doing so.

Examples of Lowest property Pages

While most of the examples are the same, they occupy added this one to Do with collusion theories.

And for the curious, here is the video specimen from it:

There is a novel specimen targeting sites promoting Hate or violence.

And one more specimen showing a fake gregarious media profile page:

Medium property Pages Medium property Pages

Google has revamped what qualifies as a medium property page.

They removed this:

In this section, they will recount pages that should accumulate the Medium property rating. Medium pages achieve their purpose and occupy neither towering nor low expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. However, Medium pages want the characteristics that would advocate a higher property rating. Occasionally, you will find a page with a fuse of towering and low property characteristics. In those cases, the best page property rating may exist Medium .

It now reads:

In this section, they will recount pages that should accumulate the Medium property rating. Medium pages occupy a beneficial purpose and achieve their purpose.

There are two types of Medium property pages:

It is unclear why they reduced the description here.

They also slightly changed the criteria for a page that his mixed property but with towering property characteristics.


The page or website has some characteristics of both towering and Low property pages, but the low quality characteristics are mild enough that the convincing towering property aspects win it difficult to rate the page Low.

Now it has been changed to:

The page or website has strong towering property rating characteristics, but also has mild Low property characteristics. The strong towering property aspects win it difficult to rate the page Low.

Page property Rating Tasks Reputation and EAT: Website or the Creators of Main Content

Once again they survey Google bringing reference specifically to the creators of the main content.   This section was previously titled “EAT: Page or Website?”

This was removed:

The property of the MC is evaluated by looking at the landing page of the link in the PQ rating task. The reputation of the website is based on the website that the landing page belongs to. Depending on the page, consume may exist based on the page alone, may exist based on the website, or may exist based on both the page and website.

Landing page consume is Important when a website has different authors on different pages. This is the case for article websites or websites relish YouTube, which occupy usergenerated content. EAT for pages on these websites may differ drastically based on the EATof the creator of the content on the page.

Website consume is Important in the following situations:● everything content on the website is produced by the same person or organization. An specimen is a medical website that is produced by a reputable physician group.● The content of the website is produced by different authors or organizations, but the website has very active editorial standards. An specimen of this is a science journal with very towering standards for publication.● The website has an extremely positive reputation from experts in the topic of the website, i.e., the website is acknowledged to exist one of the most expert, authoritative, or trustworthy sources on the topic.

Now it reads:

You must respect the reputation and E-A-T of both the website and the creators of the MC in order to allot a PageQuality rating.

The reputation and E-A-T of the creators of the MC is extremely Important when a website has different authors or content creators on different pages. This is actual of forum and mp;A pages, intelligence websites, or websites that occupy user-generated content, such as YouTube, Twitter, etc. The reputation and E-A-T assessment for pages on these types of websites may differ drastically depending on what page you are evaluating. There are Highest property YouTube videos created by highly reputable and expert content creators, as well as Lowest property YouTube videos created with a risky want of E-A-T on YMYL topics.

Important: Research the reputation and E-A-T of both the website and the creators of the MC. If either are lacking forthe purpose of the page, the Low or Lowest rating is appropriate.

It is lively that they are talking specifically about videos and and YouTube creators.  This could exist in response to the fact much more video content has been appearing in the Google search results.  So they could exist asking their raters to evaluate these videos and video content much more than previously.

Page property Rating FAQs

This section has had some clarifications added to it.  Not everything questions and answers are included here, only the ones that changed.  The changed parts are in italics.

Third question:

Question: You talked about expertise when rating MC. Does expertise matter for everything topics? Aren’t there some topics for which there are no experts?

Answer:  Remember that they are not just talking about formal expertise. towering property pages involve time, effort, expertise, and  talent/skill. Sharing personal experience is a shape of everyday expertise.

Pretty much any topic has some shape of expert, but E-A-T is especially Important for YMYL pages.

For most page purposes and topics, you can find experts even when the bailiwick itself is niche or non-mainstream. For example, there  are expert alternative medicine websites with leading practitioners of acupuncture, herbal therapies, etc. There are also pages about alternative medicine written by people with no expertise or experience. E-A-T should distinguish between these two scenarios.

One final note: if the purpose of the page is harmful, then expertise doesn’t matter. It should exist rated Lowest !

Fourth question:

Question: Aren’t there some types of pages or topics, such as luminary gossip, that always occupy Low property content?

Answer: For almost any nature of page or informational topic, there is a sweep of content quality.  bethink that towering property content is defined as content that takes time, effort, expertise, and talent/skill. Pages that occupy a harmful purpose should exist rated Lowest quality, regardless of their topic.

For example, there are both towering and Low property luminary blab pages. Often, the purpose of these pages is to partake scandalous, but potentially actual personal information about celebrities. They can respect the MC of a blab page to exist towering property if it is accurate and lively information from a trustworthy source. On the other hand, demonstrably inaccurate information and unsubstantiated collusion theories, etc., should exist rated Lowest .

Again they are stressing reliability in the source that is publishing the information.

Understanding Mobile User Needs Locale and User Location

This change is more for reference to the raters.  They added:

Note: Examples in the following sections will embrace a User Location in the shape of a city and state. Note that in the actual rating tasks, you will need to infer the User Location based on the map that is provided, as discussed in Section 28 .

Needs Met Rating Guideline Rating Result Blocks: shroud Content and Landing Pages

They removed one of their examples from this section, a featured snippet specimen that doesn’t match the user intent for the query.  Perhaps Google is seeing fewer of these featured snippet examples and hence it was removed.

Highly Meets Examples of Highly Meets (HM Results) Blocks

Google has added a novel visual specimen where the user intent is likely to exist what something looks like, even though it might not exist explicitly states as such in the search query.  Here is the example:

Moderately Meets (MM) Examples of Moderately Meets (MM) Results Blocks

Google has added another specimen here for an app install experience in the search results.

Fails to Meet (FailsM) Examples of Fails to Meet (FailsM) Result Blocks

Another specimen of an app install result, this time one that fails to meet the intent.

Needs Met Rating for Porn Results Needs Met Rating for clear Non-Porn Intent Queries

Google has added novel examples to their list of non-porn intent queries.  Additions are in italics.

The following queries should exist considered non-porn intent queries: [girls], [wives], [mature women], [gay people], [peoplekissing], [boy speedos], [moms and sons], [pictures of girls], [pictures of women], [mothers and daughters], [cheerleaders],etc.

Upsetting-Offensive Flag Upsetting-Offensive Flag

Google has a brand novel flag for their property raters, called the “Not-for-Everybody” flag which is used to flag content that could exist upsetting or uncomfortable to some people.  It sounds as though they might occupy specific tasks which are testing algos specifically on how well (or not) repellent or upsetting content is ranking in the search results.

Here is the addition:

In addition, some rating tasks may examine you to identify Not-for-Everyone results in order to flag content that you feel maybe uncomfortable for some users.

Using the Upsetting-Offensive Flag

Google has made an addition that upsetting-offensive flags can exist used both on landing pages they are evaluating as well as the search results themselves.

They occupy also made additions to what nature of content is typically considered to exist upsetting-offensive to flag.  And yes, they survey more of their novel favorite property rater buzzword, beneficial.  Additions in italics:

Upsetting-Offensive content typically includes the following:

● Content that promotes Hate or violence against a group of people based on criteria including (but not limited to) race or ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality or citizenship, disability, age, sexual orientation, or veteran status.● Content with racial slurs or extremely repellent terminology without context or beneficial purpose.● Depiction of lifelike violence without context or beneficial purpose.● lifelike violence, including animal cruelty or child abuse.● definite how-to information about harmful activities (e.g., how-tos on human trafficking or violent

However, they changed “For example, a result with content that encourages or graphically depicts child misuse should exist flagged asUpsetting-Offensive” to “For example, a result with content that encourages child misuse should exist flagged as Upsetting-Offensive.”  Perhaps they felt some results were not being flagged because they didn’t graphically depict child abuse, but depicted it in another way.

Also added to examples is that upsetting-offensive flag can exist used by raters for pages in the search results, regardless of what the query was.

Needs Met Rating for Upsetting-Offensive Tolerant Queries

They changed from:

When the user’s query seems to either examine for or tolerate potentially upsetting, offensive, or sensitive content, they will call the query a “Upsetting-Offensive tolerant query.


When the user’s query seems to either examine for or tolerate potentially upsetting or repellent content, they will muster the query a “Upsetting-Offensive tolerant query”.

It is not entirely clear why they wanted to remove sensitive content, unless people were taking that too far into their personal beliefs, such as a vegetarian flagging a steak recipe site as sensitive or someone with a gluten allergy flagging a bakery.  I cannot survey any other intuition for its removal.

Under the specific examples, they made a change that no longer calls the specimen “possibly” Upsetting-Offensive.

Under the Holocaust example, they added the following Important notation:

Though there are some upsetting/offensive results on the topic of this query, the query [holocaust history] should not exist considered an Upsetting-Offensive tolerant query.

Product Queries: moment of Browsing and Researching Product Queries: moment of Browsing and Researching

This section also got a slight revamp.  They changed the section title from “Product Queries: Action (Do) vs. Information (Know) Intent.”

The novel parts are in italics:

Keep in intelligence that many users Enjoy browsing and visually exploring products online, similar to window shopping in reallife. Give towering Needs Met ratings to results that allow users to research, browse, and settle what to purchase.

Users may not always scheme to buy products online that they are browsing and researching, for example, cars or majorappliances. Even though the ultimate goal may exist to purchase a product, many other activities may buy dwelling first:researching the product (reviews, technical specifications), understanding the options that are available (brands, models,pricing), viewing and considering various options (browsing), etc.

Important : E-A-T ratings for product results need extra faith and attention.

Often, the results for product queries are YMYL pages. Users need towering property information from authoritative sourceswhen researching products, especially when products are expensive or portray a major investment/important life event(e.g., cars, washing machines, computers, wedding gifts, baby products, hurricane shutters, large fitness equipment).When buying products, users need websites they can trust: top-notch reputation, extensive customer service support, etc.Results for product queries may exist Important for both your money and your life (YMYL)!

They  occupy also added a novel product example:

Appendix: Using the Evaluation Platform Releasing Tasks

Something rater specific, they are asking raters to “Please leave a remark explaining the release when it makes sense to provide additional information, for example, when you are releasing for a “technical problem.””

Understanding the User Location on the job Page

They occupy added that the location can exist missing altogether from test queries.

Final Thoughts

This obviously was another huge rewrite, something they occupy seen a few times in the past in the property rater guidelines.

One of the Big takeways is the novel concept they mention to as “beneficial purpose.”  Again and again they stress that raters should exist able to find the beneficial purpose of a website to rank it high, and likewise, exhaust the want of beneficial purpose to rank a website lower.

So what does this exist of value for site owners and SEOs?  The primary one is to now recognize at each webpage and respect “What is the beneficial purpose of this page?”  And “What is the beneficial purpose of this site?”  Sometimes the retort is obvious, especially with higher property sites and pages.  But for a site that already had negative factors against it in this guidelines, such as low property content or distracting secondary content or ads, the want of a beneficial purpose could exist its undoing – at least as far as the raters are concerned.

But again, bethink that Google is using these ratings to test algorithms, and clearly something they are either testing, or scheme to test in the future, is related to beneficial purpose.  So yet another thing for site owners to respect when optimizing a website.  And having an easily identifiable beneficial purpose should assist that site rank for those queries, and just as importantly, exist remarkable for users.

And just to repeat, here is what Google is looking for to determine the property rating of a site, which now includes the purpose of the page.

  • The Purpose of the Page

  • Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an Important property characteristic. exhaust your research on the additional factors below to inform your rating.

  • Main Content property and Amount: The rating should exist based on the landing page of the job URL.

  • Website Information/information about who is answerable for the MC: Find information about the website as well as the creator of the MC.

  • Website Reputation/reputation about who is answerable for the MC: Links to assist with reputation research will exist provided.

  • The novel YMYL change means that more sites that may not occupy fallen under the umbrella of YMYL previously, might now exist considered a YMYL site.  With the addition of “safety”, this could easily encompass a huge sweep of novel content areas.

    There is another strong accent on content creators in these updated guidelines, particularly around the reputation of the author or creator of the content, especially if it is someone not associated with the site normally.  They embrace additional information requiring raters to search for the background and reputation of these creators.

    This will allot a greater accent on those who noiseless publish articles from contributors to Do their own research into those authors, even if they don’t give a link to those authors, or only link to their gregarious media instead. The onus is on the site owners to ensure everything their contributors Do occupy a top-notch reputation.

    For intelligence sites, Google is wanting to survey intelligence sites with journalistic professional standards with clear publishing and editorial policies published for visitors to see.

    Clickbait is once again being targeted as low quality, which isn’t a surprise.  But they could survey Google’s algos attempt to shove back on this even more in the search results.

    Fake intelligence and collusion theories are noiseless exist targeted by Google as being lower property and their guidelines occupy become even more robust since they were first added terminal year.

    Pages that spread Hate are also being targeted as low quality, and the novel expansion of groups that can exist discriminated against clearly shows Google is looking to expand the areas where Google hopes to survey these types of results ranking lower.  Most notably is the addition of political beliefs as a target for Hate pages, but socio-economic status and victims of atrocities were also specifically added.

    You can find a copy of the latest guidelines here.  Update July 27, 2018:  Google has removed the property rater guidelines from their site.  Update 2: They are back, and today’s version and the one released over the weekend are identical.

    The following two tabs change content below.

    Jennifer Slegg is a longtime speaker and expert in search engine marketing, working in the industry for almost 20 years. When she isn't sitting at her desk writing and working, she can exist establish grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, situation of Search, Brighton SEO and more, and has been presenting at conferences for over a decade.

    Latest posts by Jennifer Slegg (see all)

    Direct Download of over 5500 Certification Exams

    3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
    College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
    FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Fortinet [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HP [750 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IBM [1532 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Juniper [64 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Microsoft [374 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
    OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Oracle [279 Certification Exam(s) ]
    P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]

    References :

    Dropmark :
    Wordpress :
    Issu :
    Dropmark-Text :
    Blogspot :
    RSS Feed : : : :

    Back to Main Page

    Killexams HP0-277 exams | Killexams HP0-277 cert | Pass4Sure HP0-277 questions | Pass4sure HP0-277 | pass-guaratee HP0-277 | best HP0-277 test preparation | best HP0-277 training guides | HP0-277 examcollection | killexams | killexams HP0-277 review | killexams HP0-277 legit | kill HP0-277 example | kill HP0-277 example journalism | kill exams HP0-277 reviews | kill exam ripoff report | review HP0-277 | review HP0-277 quizlet | review HP0-277 login | review HP0-277 archives | review HP0-277 sheet | legitimate HP0-277 | legit HP0-277 | legitimacy HP0-277 | legitimation HP0-277 | legit HP0-277 check | legitimate HP0-277 program | legitimize HP0-277 | legitimate HP0-277 business | legitimate HP0-277 definition | legit HP0-277 site | legit online banking | legit HP0-277 website | legitimacy HP0-277 definition | >pass 4 sure | pass for sure | p4s | pass4sure certification | pass4sure exam | IT certification | IT Exam | HP0-277 material provider | pass4sure login | pass4sure HP0-277 exams | pass4sure HP0-277 reviews | pass4sure aws | pass4sure HP0-277 security | pass4sure coupon | pass4sure HP0-277 dumps | pass4sure cissp | pass4sure HP0-277 braindumps | pass4sure HP0-277 test | pass4sure HP0-277 torrent | pass4sure HP0-277 download | pass4surekey | pass4sure cap | pass4sure free | examsoft | examsoft login | exams | exams free | examsolutions | exams4pilots | examsoft download | exams questions | examslocal | exams practice | | | |