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

Killexam HP0-277 Exam Simulator is best exam prep tool we take updated Killexams.com Q & A - Killexams.com Brain Dumps - practice questions and exam tips - Tricks in the Exam Simulator - braindumps - ROMULUS

Pass4sure HP0-277 dumps | Killexams.com HP0-277 real questions | http://tractaricurteadearges.ro/

HP0-277 OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

Study guide Prepared by Killexams.com HP Dumps Experts


Killexams.com HP0-277 Dumps and real Questions

100% real Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with elevated Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



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

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

Is there HP0-277 exam modern sayllabus available?
I had taken the HP0-277 association from the killexams.Com as that changed into a weigh in stage for the readiness which had sooner or later given the attribute degree of the planning to urge the ninety two% ratings in the HP0-277 check exams. I truly extremely joyful in the system I were given troubles the matters emptied the titillating approach and thru the back of the equal; I had at lengthy remaining were given the factor out and about. It had made my arrangement a ton of less complicated and with the back of the killexams.Com I had been prepared to develop nicely in the life.


Do you want modern-day dumps modern-day HP0-277 examination to pass the exam?
Passed the HP0-277 examination the alternative day. I would possess by no means accomplished it without your examination prep substances. A few months ago I failed that exam the primary time I took it. Your questions are very much love real one. I handed the examination very without difficulty this time. Thank you very a lot on your assist.


Do not spill huge amount at HP0-277 guides, checkout these questions.
In the examination most of the questions possess been identical to killexams.Com material, which helped me to shop a variety of time and I become capable to complete the entire 75 questions. I additionally took the back of the reference book. The killexams.Com Questions for HP0-277 examination is continuously up to date to offer the most correct and up to date questions. This clearly made me feel assured in passing the HP0-277 exam.


actual HP0-277 examination inquiries to bypass examination at first try.
Analyzing for the HP0-277 examination has been a difficult going. With so many puzzling topics to cowl, killexams.Com prompted the self notion for passing the examination via taking me through center questions on the condition of affairs. It paid off as I should skip the exam with a outstanding bypass percent of 80 4%. A number of the questions came twisted, but the answers that matched from killexams.Com helped me outcome the proper solutions.


Get these s and travel to vacations to assign together.
I exceeded. Genuine, the examination become tough, so I simply got beyond it due to killexams.Com and Exam Simulator. I am upbeat to record that I surpassed the HP0-277 exam and feature as of past due acquired my assertion. The framework inquiries possess been the ingredient I turned into most stressed over, so I invested hours honing at the killexams.Com exam simulator. It beyond any doubt helped, as consolidated with different segments.


Got no problem! 3 days preparation of HP0-277 dumps is required.
Started making ready for the arduous HP0-277 exam the usage of the cumbersome and voluminous study books. But failed to crack the arduous topics and were given panicked. I became about to drop the examination while somebody cited me the unload via killexams. It became in reality light to examine and the verisimilitude that I should memorize everyone in a brief time, eliminated everyone my apprehensions. Could crack 67 questions in only 76 minutes and got a huge 85 marks. Felt indebted to killexams.Com for making my day.


No cheaper source of HP0-277 found yet.
The attribute guidance ive ever skilled. I took many HP0-277 certification checks, however HP0-277 became out to be the consummate one pass to killexams.Com. I possess currently determined this internet website and wish I knew approximately it a few years inside the past. May possess stored me some of sleepless nights and gray hair! The HP0-277 examination isnt always an smooth one, specificallyits current version. But the HP0-277 Q and A consists of the trendy questions, each day updates, and people are with out a doubtproper and legitimate questions. Im cheerful this is genuine purpose I got most of them everyone through my examination. I were given an powerful score and thank killexams.Com to making HP0-277 exam stress-free.


Great source of powerful real exam questions, accurate answers.
hey gentlemen I handed my HP0-277 examination using killexams.com brain unload commemorate guide in handiest 20 days of readiness. The dumps absolutely changed my lifestyles once I shelling out them. presently im worked in a first ratebusiness enterprise with a decent income. pass to killexams.com and the total group of the trutrainers. tough topics are efficiently secured by them. Likewise they provide excellent reference thats advantageous for the examine at purpose. I solved almost everyone questions in just 225 minutes.


simply attempted once and i'm satisfied.
I necessity to admit, deciding on killexams.com was the subsequent sane selection I took after choosing the HP0-277 exam. The patterns and questions are so nicely spread which permits person raise their bar by the time they gain the ultimate simulation examination. admire the efforts and honest thank you for supporting skip the examination. withhold up the best paintings. thank you killexams.


You just want a weekend for HP0-277 examination prep with the ones dumps.
I notably advocate this package deal to everyone people making plans to accumulate HP0-277 q and a. assessments for this certification are tough, and it takes a lot of paintings to skip them. killexams.com does most of it for you. HP0-277 examination I got from this website had maximum of the questions provided at some point of the exam. with out these dumps, I suppose i would fail, and that is why such a lot of people dont pass HP0-277 exam from the primary attempt.


HP HP OpenVMS Version 7.x

VMS utility, Inc. Launches modern version of OpenVMS working gadget worldwide | killexams.com real Questions and Pass4sure dumps

BOLTON, Mass.--(business WIRE)--VMS software, Inc. (VSI) these days announced the global availability of VSI OpenVMS edition eight.4-1H1 (Bolton unencumber) working system (OS) for HP Integrity servers in line with Intel® Itanium® 9500 chain processor. The Bolton liberate is the primary through VSI beneath an agreement signed with HP in 2014. the modern OS is additionally suitable with HP Integrity servers running the Intel® Itanium® 9300 sequence processor. VSI intends to at final extend advocate for HP Integrity servers in keeping with everyone prior versions of the Intel® Itanium® platform. VSI furthermore reconfirmed plans to offer OpenVMS on x86-based servers through 2018.

OpenVMS is the platform of option for clients in the mission faultfinding market as a result of its unmatched safety, stability, and legendary uptime efficiency.

A team of US-based OpenVMS developers, many harking returned to the core DEC/Compaq/HP teams answerable for OpenVMS’ prior accolades for technical excellence, achieved the assessment and trying out of the device. VSI’s modern unlock of OpenVMS received immoderate marks when container confirmed by using customers in industries reminiscent of protection, banking and economic features, manufacturing, worldwide retail operations, and gaming.

“In less than 365 days, they possess not simplest assembled a stalwart team of OpenVMS developers and consumer back personnel but we've furthermore developed a roadmap with an aggressive agenda that comprises aid for modern structures, features and technologies,” referred to Duane P. Harris, CEO of VMS software. “we are enthusiastic about their plans to proceed improving this marquee working device and assembly the wants of a loyal customer base that has relied on OpenVMS to faithfully dash their mission vital purposes over the closing 30 years.”

The settlement between VSI and HP enables valued clientele to proceed to purchase OpenVMS licenses and back through HP’s worldwide earnings and aid networks. consumers even possess the pliability of paying for licenses and assist directly from VSI. In either case, clients who currently cling qualifying HP OpenVMS licenses can purchase the Bolton free up for a 50% change-in discount. VSI works in shut collaboration with HP to design positive that customers of the brand modern VSI application acquire the same elevated degree of aid that purchasers possess anticipated from HP in the past, in spite of even if customers buy from HP or VSI.

Digital machine company (DEC) launched the primary liberate of OpenVMS in 1977, beneath the name “VMS.” The platform won legendary enchantment for its catastrophe tolerance, up to 100 percent uptime, low-priced of possession, and stellar protection. “The operating system has a extremely loyal installed base of consumers [who] exhibit no signals of desperate to provide it up,” reported one user in an InformationWeek article.

Michael Lamont, Chief expertise Officer at procedure utility in Framingham, MA, a premier company of communications utility options for mission-crucial environments, referred to that technique’ valued clientele, including huge govt agencies, Fortune 500 businesses, and vital universities, want a really dependable operating device, and that OpenVMS sets the medium for reliability. “When it’s got to work, OpenVMS is the operating materiel of alternative.”

system utility changed into probably the most first companions VMS application Inc. blanketed in the beta check allotment of OpenVMS V8.four-1H1. “We wanted to build and totally examine at various their utility on top of it, and the manner became as spotless as could be. They were very pleasantly surprised,” he said. “It took us about forty five minutes to upgrade a device from birth to conclude, with not a bit hiccups. We’re very enthusiastic that VSI has stepped ahead to hold over the platform,” he continued. “there is a renewed feel of enthusiasm for this first rate operating device.”

“Mission faultfinding purchasers pan ever-expanding calls for for safety, steadiness and uptime efficiency for their vital applications,” talked about Randy Meyer, vp and prevalent manager, Mission vital options, HP Servers. “With the VSI OpenVMS Bolton free up and its extended construction roadmap, clients may possess even more flexibility to choose the OpenVMS platform it is correct for their business.”

About VMS software

VMS utility, Inc. develops, sells and supports resourceful and advanced releases of OpenVMS, probably the most relaxed working gadget on this planet. The business’s core motivation is to back and permit purchasers to dash their mission crucial purposes on the legendary uptime stages OpenVMS is commonly used for, at highest performance stages, nowadays and into the longer term. VMS software Inc. is headquartered in Bolton, MA. For more tips, travel to http://www.vmssoftware.com.


HP kills off OpenVMS | killexams.com real Questions and Pass4sure dumps

HP has introduced the conclusion of back for numerous flavours of OpenVMS.

OpenVMS began lifestyles in 1977 as VAX/VMS on DEC VAX minicomputers. Later it was ported to DEC's speedy Alpha RISC chips.  HP ported the application to the Itanium, but the tech titan has determined it may well’t be afflicted lamentable the code to the latest era of IA64 chips. note on the street is that HP is pulling the plug on future construction of that chip anyway.

HP has introduced that service guide for Alpha and Itanium OpenVMS pre-edition eight.four will conclusion in 2015 and aid for Alpha will are vital on to 2016 and Itanium OpenVMS v8.4 unless 2020. VAX-11/VMS became merry everyday enterprise OS in the late Nineteen Seventies. VAX/VMS ran minicomputers from petite to mainframe-sized as well as own workstations.


HP says Itanium, HP-UX now not lifeless yet | killexams.com real Questions and Pass4sure dumps

reader feedback with 31 posters participating Share this story
  • Share on facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Reddit
  • eventually week's pink Hat summit in Boston, Hewlett-Packard vice chairman for trade-commonplace Servers and application Scott Farrand became caught with out PR minders by using ServerWatch's Sean Michael Kerner, and might possess slipped off message somewhat. In a video interview, Farrand suggested that HP was lamentable its approach for mission-vital programs far from the Itanium processor and the HP-UX operating materiel and toward x86-based servers and red Hat trade Linux (RHEL), via a chore to deliver business-crucial performance to the Linux working device known as chore Dragon Hawk, itself a subset of HP's undertaking Odyssey.

    mission Dragon Hawk is an application to deliver the excessive-availability elements of HP-UX, corresponding to ServiceGuard (which has already been ported to Linux) to RHEL and the Intel x86 platform with a blend of server firmware and utility. Dragon Hawk servers will dash RHEL 6 and supply the means to partition processors into as much as 32 isolated digital machines—a know-how pulled from HP-UX's procedure useful resource supervisor. Farrand pointed out that HP turned into positioning Dragon Hawk as its future mission-essential platform. "We actually guide (Itanium and HP-UX) and savor everyone that, but going ahead their fashion for mission-vital computing is lamentable to an x86 world," Farrand advised Kernel. "it be not by means of twist of lot that folks possess de-dedicated to Itanium, chiefly Oracle."

    HP vice chairman Scott Farrand, interviewed at red Hat summit by means of Sean Michael Kerner of ServerWatch

    due to the fact that HP continues to be looking ahead to judgement in its case against Oracle, that commentary may possess made a number of people in HP's trade essential systems unit choke on their morning coffee. And sources at HP enlighten that Farrand drifted slightly off-course in his comments. The business's genuine line on project Odyssey is that it is in parallel to and complementary to the enterprise's investments in Itanium and HP-UX. A source at HP referred to Farrand not eminent allotment of HP's project Odyssey briefing notes to that effect: "venture Odyssey comprises continued investment in their centered mission-critical portfolio of Integrity, NonStop, HP-UX, OpenVMS as well as their investments in constructing future mission-vital x86 platforms. offering Serviceguard for Linux/x86 is a step toward achieving that mission-essential x86 portfolio."

    mission Odyssey, however, is HP's lucid highway forward with valued clientele that possess not bought into HP-UX during the past. with out a back for Itanium past crimson Hat Enterprse Linux edition 5, and with RHEL being increasingly faultfinding to HP's fashion for cloud computing (and, pending litigation, advocate for Oracle on HP servers), in everyone probability Farrand became simply a bit bit ahead of the trade in his pronouncement.

    Tip of the hat to Ars reader Caveira for his tip on the ServerWatch story.

     

    HP0-277 OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

    Study guide Prepared by Killexams.com HP Dumps Experts


    Killexams.com HP0-277 Dumps and real Questions

    100% real Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with elevated Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



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

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

    Is there HP0-277 exam modern sayllabus available?
    I had taken the HP0-277 association from the killexams.Com as that changed into a weigh in stage for the readiness which had sooner or later given the attribute degree of the planning to urge the ninety two% ratings in the HP0-277 check exams. I truly extremely joyful in the system I were given troubles the matters emptied the titillating approach and thru the back of the equal; I had at lengthy remaining were given the factor out and about. It had made my arrangement a ton of less complicated and with the back of the killexams.Com I had been prepared to develop nicely in the life.


    Do you want modern-day dumps modern-day HP0-277 examination to pass the exam?
    Passed the HP0-277 examination the alternative day. I would possess by no means accomplished it without your examination prep substances. A few months ago I failed that exam the primary time I took it. Your questions are very much love real one. I handed the examination very without difficulty this time. Thank you very a lot on your assist.


    Do not spill huge amount at HP0-277 guides, checkout these questions.
    In the examination most of the questions possess been identical to killexams.Com material, which helped me to shop a variety of time and I become capable to complete the entire 75 questions. I additionally took the back of the reference book. The killexams.Com Questions for HP0-277 examination is continuously up to date to offer the most correct and up to date questions. This clearly made me feel assured in passing the HP0-277 exam.


    actual HP0-277 examination inquiries to bypass examination at first try.
    Analyzing for the HP0-277 examination has been a difficult going. With so many puzzling topics to cowl, killexams.Com prompted the self notion for passing the examination via taking me through center questions on the condition of affairs. It paid off as I should skip the exam with a outstanding bypass percent of 80 4%. A number of the questions came twisted, but the answers that matched from killexams.Com helped me outcome the proper solutions.


    Get these s and travel to vacations to assign together.
    I exceeded. Genuine, the examination become tough, so I simply got beyond it due to killexams.Com and Exam Simulator. I am upbeat to record that I surpassed the HP0-277 exam and feature as of past due acquired my assertion. The framework inquiries possess been the ingredient I turned into most stressed over, so I invested hours honing at the killexams.Com exam simulator. It beyond any doubt helped, as consolidated with different segments.


    Got no problem! 3 days preparation of HP0-277 dumps is required.
    Started making ready for the arduous HP0-277 exam the usage of the cumbersome and voluminous study books. But failed to crack the arduous topics and were given panicked. I became about to drop the examination while somebody cited me the unload via killexams. It became in reality light to examine and the verisimilitude that I should memorize everyone in a brief time, eliminated everyone my apprehensions. Could crack 67 questions in only 76 minutes and got a huge 85 marks. Felt indebted to killexams.Com for making my day.


    No cheaper source of HP0-277 found yet.
    The attribute guidance ive ever skilled. I took many HP0-277 certification checks, however HP0-277 became out to be the consummate one pass to killexams.Com. I possess currently determined this internet website and wish I knew approximately it a few years inside the past. May possess stored me some of sleepless nights and gray hair! The HP0-277 examination isnt always an smooth one, specificallyits current version. But the HP0-277 Q and A consists of the trendy questions, each day updates, and people are with out a doubtproper and legitimate questions. Im cheerful this is genuine purpose I got most of them everyone through my examination. I were given an powerful score and thank killexams.Com to making HP0-277 exam stress-free.


    Great source of powerful real exam questions, accurate answers.
    hey gentlemen I handed my HP0-277 examination using killexams.com brain unload commemorate guide in handiest 20 days of readiness. The dumps absolutely changed my lifestyles once I shelling out them. presently im worked in a first ratebusiness enterprise with a decent income. pass to killexams.com and the total group of the trutrainers. tough topics are efficiently secured by them. Likewise they provide excellent reference thats advantageous for the examine at purpose. I solved almost everyone questions in just 225 minutes.


    simply attempted once and i'm satisfied.
    I necessity to admit, deciding on killexams.com was the subsequent sane selection I took after choosing the HP0-277 exam. The patterns and questions are so nicely spread which permits person raise their bar by the time they gain the ultimate simulation examination. admire the efforts and honest thank you for supporting skip the examination. withhold up the best paintings. thank you killexams.


    You just want a weekend for HP0-277 examination prep with the ones dumps.
    I notably advocate this package deal to everyone people making plans to accumulate HP0-277 q and a. assessments for this certification are tough, and it takes a lot of paintings to skip them. killexams.com does most of it for you. HP0-277 examination I got from this website had maximum of the questions provided at some point of the exam. with out these dumps, I suppose i would fail, and that is why such a lot of people dont pass HP0-277 exam from the primary attempt.


    Whilst it is very arduous chore to choose dependable exam questions / answers resources regarding review, reputation and validity because people accumulate ripoff due to choosing incorrect service. Killexams. com design it unavoidable to provide its clients far better to their resources with respect to exam dumps update and validity. Most of other peoples ripoff report complaint clients arrive to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams enjoyably and easily. They never compromise on their review, reputation and attribute because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams client self self-confidence is vital to everyone of us. Specially they manage killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com ripoff report complaint, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. If perhaps you observe any bogus report posted by their competitor with the name killexams ripoff report complaint internet, killexams.com ripoff report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com complaint or something love this, just withhold in reason that there are always inferior people damaging reputation of apt services due to their benefits. There are a large number of satisfied customers that pass their exams using killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams drill questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their test questions and sample brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will definitely know that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.


    Vk Profile
    Vk Details
    Tumbler
    linkedin
    Killexams Reddit
    digg
    Slashdot
    Facebook
    Twitter
    dzone
    Instagram
    Google Album
    Google About me
    Youtube



    111-056 exam questions | 000-226 sample test | 98-368 drill test | HP0-055 dump | 1Z0-131 test questions | C9060-511 exam prep | LOT-917 test prep | NREMT-NRP cheat sheets | 156-315 study guide | M2040-669 free pdf download | HPE0-S52 drill exam | 000-379 drill Test | ICGB test prep | HP0-Y20 brain dumps | 1Z0-962 free pdf | A2150-563 VCE | 3I0-010 questions and answers | 000-P02 drill questions | HP0-D23 braindumps | HP2-E36 test prep |


    HP0-277 exam questions | HP0-277 free pdf | HP0-277 pdf download | HP0-277 test questions | HP0-277 real questions | HP0-277 practice questions

    Here is the bests condition to accumulate back pass HP0-277 exam?
    killexams.com HP Certification examine guides are setup by IT specialists. Groups of understudies possess been crying that there are an exorbitant number of questions in such a faultfinding number of preparing exams and study help, and they are as of late can not stand to deal with the expense of any more. Seeing killexams.com pros drudgery out this extensive interpretation while soundless affirmation that everyone the learning is anchored after significant research and exam.

    Are you looking for HP HP0-277 Dumps of real questions for the OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration Exam prep? They provide most updated and attribute HP0-277 Dumps. Detail is at http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/HP0-277. They possess compiled a database of HP0-277 Dumps from actual exams in order to let you prepare and pass HP0-277 exam on the first attempt. Just memorize their and relax. You will pass the exam. killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
    WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for everyone exams on website
    PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
    DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
    OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for everyone Orders

    At killexams.com, they give explored HP HP0-277 tutoring assets which can be the best to pass HP0-277 test, and to accumulate authorized by HP. It is an incredible inclination to quicken your vocation as an expert in the Information Technology endeavor. They are content with their notoriety of supporting individuals pass the HP0-277 exam of their first endeavors. Their prosperity costs in the previous years had been really astonishing, on account of their cheerful customers presently ready to advocate their profession inside the rapid path. killexams.com is the essential decision among IT experts, particularly the individuals trying to high-tail up the progressive system goes quicker in their sever companies. HP is the undertaking pioneer in records age, and getting ensured by them is an ensured approach to win with IT vocations. They enable you to carry out precisely that with their unnecessary wonderful HP HP0-277 tutoring materials.

    HP HP0-277 is inescapable everyone around the globe, and the trade undertaking and programming arrangements given by utilizing them are grasped by fashion for about the greater allotment of the associations. They possess helped in driving heaps of organizations on the beyond any doubt shot course of pass. Extensive data of HP items are taken into preparation a totally urgent capability, and the specialists certified by fashion for them are very esteemed in everyone associations.

    We offer genuine HP0-277 pdf exam inquiries and answers braindumps in positions. Download PDF and drill Tests. Pass HP HP0-277 digital engage Exam rapidly and effortlessly. The HP0-277 braindumps PDF compose is to be had for perusing and printing. You can print more noteworthy and exercise typically. Their pass rate is elevated to 98.9% and the resemblance percent between their HP0-277 syllabus study manual and genuine exam is 90% construct absolutely Considering their seven-yr instructing knowledge. carry out you necessity accomplishments inside the HP0-277 exam in only one attempt? I am now dissecting for the HP HP0-277 genuine exam.

    As the only thing in any pass vital here is passing the HP0-277 - OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration exam. As everyone which you require is a elevated score of HP HP0-277 exam. The best one angle you possess to carry out is downloading braindumps of HP0-277 exam courses now. They will never again will give you a random to down with their cash back guarantee. The specialists moreover protect beat with the greatest forward exam so you can give the vast majority of updated materials. Three months free accumulate passage to as an approach to them through the date of purchase. Each hopeful may likewise manage the cost of the HP0-277 exam dumps through killexams.com at a low cost. Regularly there might be a diminish for everyone individuals all.

    Within the sight of the suitable exam core of the brain dumps at killexams.com you may effortlessly grow your specialty. For the IT experts, it's far faultfinding to adjust their abilities dependable with their calling necessity. They design it smooth for their clients to hold accreditation exam with the assistance of killexams.com demonstrated and honest to goodness exam material. For a splendid future in its realm, their reason dumps are the powerful decision.

    killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
    WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for everyone exams on website
    PROF17: 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
    DEAL17: 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
    OCTSPECIAL: 10% Special Discount Coupon for everyone Orders


    A best dumps composing is an absolutely imperative component that makes it simple a decent fashion to hold HP certifications. be that as it may, HP0-277 braindumps PDF gives accommodation for hopefuls. The IT certification is a significant troublesome chore on the off random that one does now not find privilege direction inside the nature of certifiable helpful asset material. Along these lines, we've genuine and state-of-the-art content material for the instruction of accreditation exam.

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


    Killexams 050-895 dump | Killexams 000-P03 drill test | Killexams 2B0-012 exam questions | Killexams HP2-B117 drill questions | Killexams 301b exam prep | Killexams SCNS-EN VCE | Killexams HP5-H04D drill test | Killexams 000-819 braindumps | Killexams M2090-618 braindumps | Killexams 9L0-505 pdf download | Killexams 000-743 free pdf | Killexams HP0-311 brain dumps | Killexams ST0-173 study guide | Killexams 270-131 drill test | Killexams PPM-001 real questions | Killexams 000-134 real questions | Killexams P8060-017 test prep | Killexams M2010-616 brain dumps | Killexams 3000 mock exam | Killexams MB4-211 questions and answers |


    killexams.com huge List of Exam Braindumps

    View Complete list of Killexams.com Brain dumps


    Killexams IC3-3 free pdf | Killexams 4A0-105 dumps questions | Killexams FM0-305 questions answers | Killexams C2180-278 exam prep | Killexams 000-439 brain dumps | Killexams 000-G01 test prep | Killexams PEGACBA001 questions and answers | Killexams CFA-Level-I free pdf download | Killexams 000-920 study guide | Killexams C2180-273 pdf download | Killexams EVP-101 dump | Killexams 9A0-148 examcollection | Killexams HP2-N52 drill test | Killexams 70-498 cheat sheets | Killexams SU0-211 drill test | Killexams HP2-Z15 bootcamp | Killexams 000-101 brain dumps | Killexams LOT-929 test prep | Killexams HPE2-E69 drill exam | Killexams ISEB-ITILF study guide |


    OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

    Pass 4 positive HP0-277 dumps | Killexams.com HP0-277 real questions | http://tractaricurteadearges.ro/

    Citrix Receiver for Mac and OS X Yosemite | killexams.com real 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 modern account and/or launching apps from the client interface.  In this blog post I am going to travel over the issue and fix for the issue.

    You will receive the following error when authenticating after setting a modern 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 be an authentication issue.

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

    Tweet result @dabcc result @douglasabrown


    April 2018 Web Server Survey | killexams.com real 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 participate 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 expand in hostnames, Microsoft's domain signify fell by 1.4 million, and it furthermore suffered a loss of 5,360 web-facing computers and 51,300 lively sites. Nonetheless, its presence within the top million sites grew by 517 sites.

    nginx may possess lost 5.7 million hostnames, but it showed the strongest growth in some of the most vital 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 participate 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 hold second condition 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 lively sites, along with 2,840 sites within the top million. Nonetheless, it maintains a comfortable lead in every metric except hostnames, where its 25.6% market participate is 11.4 points behind Microsoft's.

    Some of the highest-traffic sites using Apache today involve news website www.bbc.com; financial sites love www.xe.com and www.paypal.com; the Steam online gaming store at store.steampowered.com and its community forum at steamcommunity.com; and sites used by ad networks, love ads.pubmatic.com and c.betrad.com.

    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 arduous to quantify.

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

    Tomcat furthermore includes its own native HTTP connector that allows it to be used as a standalone HTTP server, and these servers can be 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 be 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 involve 9.x, 8.5.x, 8.0.x and 7.x, although advocate for 8.0.x will desist 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 modern releases

    The mainline branch of nginx has seen three modern releases since final month's survey. nginx 1.13.10 was released on 20 March 2018, and added a few modern features including the ngx_http_grpc_module module, which allows requests to be 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 involve a few bug fixes and an improved proxy protocol feature.

    nginx furthermore 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 be 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 be distinguished from the commercially available LiteSpeed Web Server, as both products employ 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 soundless running a version that was released several years ago, despite later releases including not just modern features, but furthermore 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 modern Tengine releases is generally unhurried 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 be partly caused by their necessity of visibility on the Tengine website at tengine.taobao.org. The latest version that can be downloaded from the news section on the homepage is the 2.2.0 evolution 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 be found on a sever download page.

    cloudflare-nginx soundless lingers

    Cloudflare's migration to its modern cloudflare server header is not yet over, with more than 10,000 websites soundless using the frail cloudflare-nginx header. These account for less than 0.07% of everyone Cloudflare sites in the survey, so the migration is very nigh 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 flat 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 observe lively 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

    Google Search attribute Rater Guidelines Updated: advantageous Purpose, Creator Reputation & More | killexams.com real questions and Pass4sure dumps

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

    Once again, Google’s attribute raters cannot repercussion your site directly in how it ranks in the search results.  But Google does employ these ratings to ensure the best search results are being delivered with the highest attribute 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 attribute section has been expanded, as was the Lowest attribute section, with additional subsections added,  including reputation of the creator of the content.

    One of the mountainous 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 assign a greater stress on sites needing to possess author information and author bios on their articles, especially for those sites that carry out not employ bylines on their content when it isn’t lucid on the site itself who authors the articles.

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

    There is furthermore a modern stress 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 furthermore modern grammatical errors corrected, which I won’t note as they carry out not change the context of what each section or sentence says.  They furthermore changed usage from “vendor” to “employer/company.”

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

    Now, let’s dive in with everyone 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 attribute rater guidelines.  But Google has expanded on this to involve it in their “Purpose of a Webpage” section, as well as to add it throughout the guidelines when referring to elevated attribute pages and websites as well as low attribute ones.

    Most pages are created to be helpful for users, thus having a advantageous purpose.

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

    They seek information from raters to consider what the advantageous purpose of a page is throughout the guidelines, and if there is no advantageous purpose, that the page should receive a lowest rating.  It furthermore uses this for raters to consider whether non-traditional pages possess any advantageous value too.

    They look to employ the term often with the term “helpful”, leading to that attribute raters shouldn’t just consider if the page could be helpful to someone, but if it is a advantageous page to possess on a site or in the search results.

    Purpose of Video Pages

    For some reason in the many examples, Google has decided to change the purpose of a page for a few of the examples.  And the change is benevolent 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 everyone examples – to “To participate 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 furthermore sharing a video?

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

    From the sample they show, you can definitely expose that the site is angling for shares, in the pass the page is presented.

    However, they later furthermore mention to a video page that the purpose is to participate 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 participate 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 be to match the sample to be more specific.

    Examples

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

    Your Money Your Life Safety

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

    Formerly:

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

    Now (emphasis mine):

    Some types of pages could potentially repercussion 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 travel specifically into what the addition of safety means, but their guidelines possess had examples of things that could be 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 modern stress on the creator or author of the main content of the page, whereas before the stress was entirely on the website reputation.  So what could this be targeting?  I suspect they want attribute raters to not simply consider the site in question that an article is found on, but the author as well.  There are well known authors published on lesser known sites and vice versa.

    It could furthermore be considering news opinion articles, where a well known news site publishes an OpEd pice by someone whose reputation might not be as powerful as the site publishing it.  Some sites love to court controversy for page views, and doing it with someone with a poor reputation who will ignite a firestorm can drudgery well.   But should that particular piece of content stand on the merits of the site alone when the author is questionable?

    And sometimes a site has plenty of content but nothing in the pass of a content creator, such as a name, sociable 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 necessity to identify the creator of the content, if it is different from that of the overall website.”

    They possess furthermore added a modern suggestion for finding reputation information content creators:

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

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

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

    They furthermore imply looking for the Wikipedia page for the content creators.

    What to carry out When You Find No Reputation Information

    Google added (added text in italics):

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

    Page attribute Rating Overall Page attribute Rating

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

    Old version:

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

    New version:

    At a elevated level, here are the steps of Page attribute rating:

    1. Understand the suitable purpose of the page. Websites or pages without any advantageous purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to back users, or pages that potentially spread hate, antecedent harm, or misinform or mislead 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 attribute pages.

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

    Page attribute Rating: Most vital Factors

    Google’s change to this section is to yet again assign 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 vital factors to consider when selecting an overall Page attribute rating:

    ● The Purpose of the Page● Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an vital attribute characteristic. employ your research on the additional factors below to inform your rating.● Main Content attribute and Amount: The rating should be based on the landing page of the chore 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 back with reputation research will be 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 examine beyond simple attribute and consider other aspects that contribute to the value of that content as well.

    Google has added this modern part:

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

    For everyone other pages that possess a advantageous purpose, the amount of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-A-T) is very important. delight 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 design 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:

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

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

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

    Google gives two examples of the types of editorial policies they want to observe on elevated attribute news sites.  First, the BBC (partial screenshot).

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

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

    High attribute Pages Characteristics of elevated attribute Pages

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

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

    What makes a elevated attribute page? A elevated attribute page should possess a advantageous purpose and achieve that purpose well.  In addition, elevated attribute pages possess the following characteristics:

    ● elevated flat of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● A satisfying amount of elevated attribute 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 possess 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 attribute Pages Highest attribute Pages

    Again, advantageous purpose is added as a requirement for a highest attribute page.

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

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

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

    Here is the frail version:

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

    What makes a page Highest quality? A Highest attribute page may possess the following characteristics:

    ● Very elevated flat of Expertise, highly Authoritative, and highly Trustworthy for the purpose of the page (EAT), including the EATof the publisher and/or individual author for news articles and information pages on YMYL topics.● A satisfying amount of elevated attribute 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 attribute pages are created to serve a advantageous purpose and achieve their purpose very well. The distinction between elevated and Highest is based on the attribute and quantity of MC, as well as the flat of reputation and E-A-T.

    What makes a page Highest quality? In addition to the attributes of a elevated attribute page, a Highest attribute page must possess at least one of the following characteristics:

    ● Very elevated flat of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● A very satisfying amount of elevated or highest attribute 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 be due to the more generic variation of that added to the guidelines.

    Very Positive Reputation

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

    Examples of Highest attribute Pages

    Google has added a modern example, it surprisingly, it is of a Twitter page.  SO this is proof that Google does consider Twitter pages to be highest attribute in some cases.

    Low attribute Pages

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

    Low attribute Pages

    The first paragraph has been updated completely.

    This was removed:

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

    And it was changed to this:

    Low attribute pages may possess been intended to serve a advantageous purpose. However, Low attribute pages carry out not achieve their purpose well because they are lacking in an vital 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 advantageous purpose once again.  But this time it furthermore concedes that sometimes these pages were intended to serve a advantageous purpose but something on the page – or missing from it – means it is soundless low quality.

    Google has removed the possibility that some pages that meet their “low attribute pages” criteria might not be 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 possess 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 attribute of the MC is low.● There is an unsatisfying amount of MC for the purpose of the page.● MC is present, but difficult to employ 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 apt reason for anonymity).● The website has a negative reputation.

    And here is the modern revised version:

    If a page has one or more of the following characteristics, the Low rating applies:● An inadequate flat of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● The attribute 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 apt reason 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 attribute attributes, a rating lower than Low may be appropriate.

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

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

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

    Removed:

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

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

    Revised:

    Low attribute pages often necessity an appropriate flat of E-A-T for the purpose of the page. Here are some examples:

    ● The creator of the MC does not possess adequate expertise in the topic of the MC, e.g. a tax contour instruction video made by someone with no lucid 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 furthermore made some slight changes to the user generated content section of this, and now specifically includes references to sociable networking pages, video sharing sites, and wiki-type sites.

    Old version:

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

    New version:

    Note: Websites with user-generated content span the Page attribute rating spectrum. delight pay watchful attention to websites that allow users to publish content with itsy-bitsy oversight, such as sociable networking pages, video sharing websites, volunteer-created encyclopedias, article sharing websites, forums, etc. Depending on the topic, pages on these websites may necessity 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 elevated attribute user generated content, but it seems the majority is definitely lacking in attribute and EAT.

    It has furthermore changed the notation at the desist from “Important : Lacking appropriate consume is adequate reason to give a page a Low attribute rating.” to “Important : The Low rating should be used if the page lacks appropriate E-A-T for its purpose.”  So Google has a modern distinction on consume for the purpose of the specific page.

    Low attribute Main Content

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

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

    One of the most vital criteria in PQ rating is the attribute of the MC, which is determined by how much time, effort,expertise, and talent/skill possess gone into the creation of the page, and furthermore informs the EAT of the page.

    Consider this example: Most students possess to write papers for elevated school or college. Many students hold shortcuts tosave time and application 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 False 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 consider content to be Low attribute if it is created without adequate time, effort, expertise, or talent/skill. Inaccurate or delusory information presented as fact is also a reason for Low or even Lowest attribute ratings. Pages with low attribute MC carry out not achieve their purpose well.

    Keep in reason that they possess very different standards for pages on large, professionally-produced trade websites than we possess for petite amateur, hobbyist, or personal websites. The attribute of MC they hope for a large online store is very different than what they might hope for a petite local trade website.

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

    Important : Low attribute MC is a adequate reason to give a page a Low attribute rating.

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

    The attribute of the MC is an vital consideration for PQ rating. They will consider content to be Low attribute if it is created without adequate time, effort, expertise, or talent/skill. Pages with low attribute MC carry out not achieve their purpose well.

    In addition, delight examine the title on the page. The title of the page should characterize the content.

    Exaggerated or shocking titles can entice users to click on pages in search results. If pages carry out not live up to the exaggerated or shocking title or images, the suffer 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? occult Sightings of 25ft Sea Serpents Prompt Panic!” as the title for an article about the unidentified remains of one petite extinct fish on a beach. Pages with exaggerated or shocking titles that carry out not characterize the MC well should be rated Low.

    Important : The Low rating should be used if the page has Low attribute MC.

    Google initially added references to clickbait and attribute final 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 necessity to worry about this extreme clickbait, or if “milder” versions of clickbait could be rated Low as well.

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

    Unsatisfying Amount of Main Content

    Here there is a petite change, but it does design a rater vigilant that there is a dissimilarity between the amount of content for the purpose of the page.

    Old version:

    Important : An unsatisfying amount of MC is a adequate reason to give a page a Low attribute rating.

    New version:

    Important : The Low rating should be 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 modern unique section.

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

    It furthermore 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 sample Google uses to note distracting ads and SC, which furthermore has a False clickbait title.

    Here is the plenary modern section:

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

    A unique pop-over Ad with a lucid and easy-to-use nigh button is not terribly distracting, though may not be a powerful user experience. However, difficult-to-close Ads that result page scrolls can be truly distracting and design the MC difficult to use.

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

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

    Important : The Low rating should be 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 attribute raters, Google is now stating that it is typical for trade to possess a few negative reviews.

    Here is the modern version with changes in italics.

    Extensive reputation research is required for everyone PQ rating tasks unless you possess previously researched the reputation of the website. Many websites possess itsy-bitsy reputation information, unfortunately. Of the websites with reputation information, most websites possess a apt reputation. delight exercise custody 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 possess reputation as well, including YouTubers, bloggers, vloggers and professionals.  So raters are now expected to carry out reputation research on any content creator, regardless of whether they look to be 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 possess 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 be 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 observe addition of the “Creator of the Main Content” added to the title, with Google yet again focusing on the content creator and the feasible necessity of information or reputation of the creator.

    Google is furthermore noting that a sociable media link alone can meet the reputation requirement for personal or non-YMYL content.

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

    Changes are in italics:

    We hope some contour of website information for many or most websites. They hope lucid information about who (e.g., what individual, company, business, foundation, etc.) created the MC, unless there is apt reason for anonymity. A long-standing Internet alias or username can furthermore serve the same duty 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 sociable media link alone may be sufficient.

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

    Important : For YMYL pages and other pages that require a elevated flat of user trust, an unsatisfying amount of any of thefollowing is a reason to give a page a Low attribute 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 attribute Pages

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

    Lowest attribute Pages

    One powerful allotment of this section that SEOs and site owners will want to hold note of is the fact Google summarizes the page attribute points made throughout the page attribute sections and assign them into 3 concise steps.  Here they are:

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

    1. Understand the suitable purpose of the page. Websites and pages should be created for users in order to serve a advantageous purpose, in other words, they should exist to back users.2. Websites or pages without a advantageous purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to back users, or pages that potentially spread hate, antecedent harm, or misinform or mislead users, should receive the Lowest rating. E-A-T and other page attribute characteristics carry out 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 furthermore added a modern summary, but note  that these are simply drilled down points that were previously in 7.x sections in the final attribute Rater Guidelines.

    Lack of Purpose Pages

    Google added “Some pages fail to achieve their purpose so profoundly that the purpose of the page cannot be determined. Such pages serve no real 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 vital 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 vital for a page to achieve its purpose well.

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

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

    No/Little Main Content

    Pages exist to participate their MC with users. The following pages should be 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 attribute Main Content

    The Lowest rating applies to any page with Lowest attribute MC. Lowest attribute 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 capitalize from the MC, for example:

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

    Have elevated standards and assume about how typical users in your locale would suffer 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 capitalize from theMC.

    Copied Main Content

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

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

    They did remove the following:

    If everyone or most of the MC on the page is copied, assume about the purpose of the page. Why does the page exist? What value does the page possess for users? Why should users examine at the page with copied content instead of the original source?

    That is a curious allotment to remove, since it is a telling pass to determine if there is any pass 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 pass to create MC with itsy-bitsy 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 modern section:

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

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

    ● Ads that continue to cover the MC as you scroll down the page, that are virtually impossible to nigh 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 desist 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 furthermore 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 be rated Lowest.

    Italicized parts possess been added to this section:

    As discussed in Section 2.5.3 , they hope most websites to possess 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 apt reason for anonymity. For websites with YMYL pages, such as online banks, they hope 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 hope 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 be rated Lowest .

    Again, Google does enlighten there are reasons why some site may possess anonymous contributors or authors, provided there is “a apt reason for anonymity.”  I carry out marvel how well this is applied in drill by the raters though.  There is a mountainous dissimilarity between anonymity for something love a political source, versus anonymity for outrageous stories not bring attributed to anyone so the site owner doesn’t possess to design a fake persona.

    Unmaintained Websites, and Hacked, Defaced, or Spammed Pages

    This section sees “Unmaintained websites” added to the title.  They carry out focus a lot on not just the customary hacked or spammed pages, but unmaintained website, where the content or information is so frail 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 drudgery on modern browser versions.

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

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

    Google has furthermore removed the following specific to spammed comments:

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

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

    Pages That Spread Hate

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

    Even more significantly is the fact that Google is furthermore looking not just at typical disfavor content, but furthermore disfavor content that is “expressed in courteous or even academic-sounding language.  This could definitely be targeting the nature of disfavor content that attempts to pass itself off as legitimate through the employ of language, which would furthermore involve news sites that are spreading disfavor in a news article fashion.

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

    They possess removed three sources of information they previously recommended to raters to back identify sites that promote disfavor and violence.  It isn’t lucid 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 be used for reputation research.

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

    Use the Lowest rating for pages that promote disfavor 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 disfavor or violence can  antecedent real world harm.

    Hate may be expressed in inflammatory, emotional, or hateful-sounding language, but may furthermore be expressed in courteous or even academic-sounding language.

    Extensive reputation research is vital for identifying websites that promote disfavor or violence. delight identify reputable and well-established organizations that provide information about disfavor groups in your locale when researching reputation. Some websites may not possess reputation information available. In this case, delight employ your judgment based on the MC of the page and information of your locale.

    Potentially Harmful Pages

    This is another modern 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 furthermore involve numerous examples of the types of sites they want to observe rank Low or Lowest.

    It furthermore covers death threats, which is an titillating inclusion since there are issues privilege now where death threats are not being removed from sociable media platforms.  So this could cover not just these types of threats on websites, but to back avert these from being ranked from sociable media sites as well.

    It furthermore covers ‘”how to” nature articles that could be used to entrust terrorism or violent extremism.  Google has been criticized in the past for ranking pages that back people learn to design 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 furthermore shows Google is trying to observe those types of results rank lower.

    Here is the plenary section:

    Use the Lowest rating for pages that hearten 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 entrust acts of terrorism or violent extremism.● Depictions of extreme gore or violence, without a advantageous purpose.● Suicide promotion or pro-anorexia webpages that hearten users to engage in conduct 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 be rated lowest.

    “Other types of links” could be open to interpretation.  Does that weigh in links to low attribute sites?  Or only malicious links that lead to malware?

    They furthermore define malicious sites as “Malicious pages are created with harmful intent or created to capitalize 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 be Lowest.

    Pages that Potentially Misinform Users

    This is a brand modern section, although it is more or less taken from section 7.6 “Highly Untrustworthy, unreliable, Inaccurate, or Misleading.”

    This covers everyone benevolent of information sites that spread machination theories and “demonstrably inaccurate content.”  Google has received negative publicity over the fact some machination theory sites rank well for queries that are not specific to the machination 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 attribute rater guidelines final year to specifically test modern search algos that would result in these types of sites ranking lower in the search results, or ranking only for the specific machination theory pages when the searcher is clearly searching for information about that machination theory.   So this goes into a bit more details on the types of sites that should be rated Lowest.

    They furthermore specifically talk about machination theories that may look amusing to some people – such as their sample that the US government is controlled by lizard people  – but that this nature of content can possess long reaching repercussion because there are some people who carry out believe these machination theories, even the seemingly outlandish ones.

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

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

    Here if the plenary modern section:

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

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

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

    Lowest should furthermore be used under these circumstances:● The content creator may believe that the machination theory or demonstrably inaccurate content is correct, or it is unclear whether they do.● The content creators may be deliberately attempting to misinform users.● The content creators describe, reiterate or spread machination theories or demonstrably inaccurate content without a clear application to debunk or correct it, regardless of whether the creators believe it to be true. For example, content creators may bear this content in order to design money or gain attention.

    Some examples of information that would be found on Lowest attribute pages include: the moon landings were faked, carrots cure cancer, and the U.S. government is controlled by lizard people. While some of these topics may look funny, there possess been real world consequences from people believing these kinds of internet machination theories and misinformation.

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

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

    Pages that Potentially mislead Users

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

    Deceptive Page Purpose

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

    Here they furthermore observe 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 news sites, something that was an issue during the US election cycle with seemingly legitimate looking websites were spreading fake news under the guise that they were a legitimate news organization.

    The modern changes are in italics.

    Some pages are deliberately created to mislead 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 sociable network profile made by an impersonator.● A webpage or website that looks love a news source or information page, but in fact has articles to manipulate users in order to capitalize a person, business, government, or other organization politically, monetarily, or otherwise.● A webpage claims to offer an independent review or participate other information about a product, but is in fact created to design money for the owner of the website without attempting to back users. For example, the MC may contain intentionally delusory or inaccurate information created with the sole purpose of getting users to click on monetized links or buy the product.● A website claims to be the personal website of a celebrity, but the website is actually created to design money for the owner of the website without the license of the celebrity. For example, the page may possess False 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 delusory title or a title that has nothing to carry out 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 mislead or trick users should be rated Lowest , regardless of intent. employ the Lowest rating even if you cannot observe a reason for the deception or even if you assume most users wouldn’t “fall” for the trick.

    You should furthermore employ the Lowest rating if you suspect a page is deceptive, even if you’re not able to completely authenticate it. delight exercise caution and drill apt Internet safety skills since deceptive pages may be malicious.

    Deceptive Page Design

    Google has added a modern reason to rate a site Lowest due to deceptive page design.  They possess added:

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

    While mostly they observe this utilized to camouflage affiliate or other paid links, Google already calls those out specifically as “pages that camouflage ads as main content” and “pages that camouflage 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 note very itsy-bitsy 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 plenary article accidentally clicks the ad too while doing so.

    Examples of Lowest attribute Pages

    While most of the examples are the same, they possess added this one to carry out with machination theories.

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

    There is a modern sample targeting sites promoting disfavor or violence.

    And one more sample showing a fake sociable media profile page:

    Medium attribute Pages Medium attribute Pages

    Google has revamped what qualifies as a medium attribute page.

    They removed this:

    In this section, they will characterize pages that should accumulate the Medium attribute rating. Medium pages achieve their purpose and possess neither elevated nor low expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. However, Medium pages necessity the characteristics that would advocate a higher attribute rating. Occasionally, you will find a page with a blend of elevated and low attribute characteristics. In those cases, the best page attribute rating may be Medium .

    It now reads:

    In this section, they will characterize pages that should accumulate the Medium attribute rating. Medium pages possess a beneficial purpose and achieve their purpose.

    There are two types of Medium attribute pages:

    It is unclear why they reduced the description here.

    They furthermore slightly changed the criteria for a page that his mixed attribute but with elevated attribute characteristics.

    Formerly:

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

    Now it has been changed to:

    The page or website has stalwart elevated attribute rating characteristics, but furthermore has mild Low attribute characteristics. The stalwart elevated attribute aspects design it difficult to rate the page Low.

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

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

    This was removed:

    The attribute 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 be based on the page alone, may be based on the website, or may be based on both the page and website.

    Landing page consume is vital when a website has different authors on different pages. This is the case for article websites or websites love YouTube, which possess 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 vital in the following situations:● everyone content on the website is produced by the same person or organization. An sample 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 sample of this is a science journal with very elevated 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 be one of the most expert, authoritative, or trustworthy sources on the topic.

    Now it reads:

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

    The reputation and E-A-T of the creators of the MC is extremely vital when a website has different authors or content creators on different pages. This is suitable of forum and mp;A pages, news websites, or websites that possess 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 attribute YouTube videos created by highly reputable and expert content creators, as well as Lowest attribute YouTube videos created with a Dangerous necessity 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 titillating that they are talking specifically about videos and and YouTube creators.  This could be in response to the fact much more video content has been appearing in the Google search results.  So they could be asking their raters to evaluate these videos and video content much more than previously.

    Page attribute Rating FAQs

    This section has had some clarifications added to it.  Not everyone 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 everyone topics? Aren’t there some topics for which there are no experts?

    Answer:  Remember that they are not just talking about formal expertise. elevated attribute pages involve time, effort, expertise, and  talent/skill. Sharing personal suffer is a contour of everyday expertise.

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

    For most page purposes and topics, you can find experts even when the province itself is niche or non-mainstream. For example, there  are expert alternative medicine websites with leading practitioners of acupuncture, herbal therapies, etc. There are furthermore 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 be rated Lowest !

    Fourth question:

    Question: Aren’t there some types of pages or topics, such as notable gossip, that always possess Low attribute content?

    Answer: For almost any nature of page or informational topic, there is a orbit of content quality.  recollect that elevated attribute content is defined as content that takes time, effort, expertise, and talent/skill. Pages that possess a harmful purpose should be rated Lowest quality, regardless of their topic.

    For example, there are both elevated and Low attribute notable tattle pages. Often, the purpose of these pages is to participate scandalous, but potentially suitable personal information about celebrities. They can consider the MC of a tattle page to be elevated attribute if it is accurate and titillating information from a dependable source. On the other hand, demonstrably inaccurate information and unsubstantiated machination theories, etc., should be 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 involve a User Location in the contour of a city and state. Note that in the actual rating tasks, you will necessity to infer the User Location based on the map that is provided, as discussed in Section 28 .

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

    They removed one of their examples from this section, a featured snippet sample 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 modern visual sample where the user intent is likely to be what something looks like, even though it might not be 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 sample here for an app install suffer in the search results.

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

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

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

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

    The following queries should be 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 modern flag for their attribute raters, called the “Not-for-Everybody” flag which is used to flag content that could be upsetting or uncomfortable to some people.  It sounds as though they might possess specific tasks which are testing algos specifically on how well (or not) revolting or upsetting content is ranking in the search results.

    Here is the addition:

    In addition, some rating tasks may seek information from 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 be used both on landing pages they are evaluating as well as the search results themselves.

    They possess furthermore made additions to what nature of content is typically considered to be upsetting-offensive to flag.  And yes, they observe more of their modern favorite attribute rater buzzword, beneficial.  Additions in italics:

    Upsetting-Offensive content typically includes the following:

    ● Content that promotes disfavor 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 revolting terminology without context or advantageous purpose.● Depiction of realistic violence without context or advantageous purpose.● realistic violence, including animal cruelty or child abuse.● express 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 be flagged asUpsetting-Offensive” to “For example, a result with content that encourages child misuse should be 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 be 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 seek information from for or tolerate potentially upsetting, offensive, or sensitive content, they will call the query a “Upsetting-Offensive tolerant query.

    to

    When the user’s query seems to either seek information from for or tolerate potentially upsetting or revolting content, they will convoke the query a “Upsetting-Offensive tolerant query”.

    It is not entirely lucid 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 observe any other reason for its removal.

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

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

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

    Product Queries: consequence of Browsing and Researching Product Queries: consequence of Browsing and Researching

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

    The modern parts are in italics:

    Keep in reason that many users relish browsing and visually exploring products online, similar to window shopping in reallife. Give elevated Needs Met ratings to results that allow users to research, browse, and resolve what to purchase.

    Users may not always map to buy products online that they are browsing and researching, for example, cars or majorappliances. Even though the ultimate goal may be to purchase a product, many other activities may hold condition 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 necessity extra custody and attention.

    Often, the results for product queries are YMYL pages. Users necessity elevated attribute information from authoritative sourceswhen researching products, especially when products are expensive or delineate 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 necessity websites they can trust: apt reputation, extensive customer service support, etc.Results for product queries may be vital for both your money and your life (YMYL)!

    They  possess furthermore added a modern 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 chore Page

    They possess added that the location can be missing altogether from test queries.

    Final Thoughts

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

    One of the mountainous takeways is the modern concept they mention to as “beneficial purpose.”  Again and again they stress that raters should be able to find the advantageous purpose of a website to rank it high, and likewise, employ the necessity of advantageous purpose to rank a website lower.

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

    But again, recollect that Google is using these ratings to test algorithms, and clearly something they are either testing, or map to test in the future, is related to advantageous purpose.  So yet another thing for site owners to consider when optimizing a website.  And having an easily identifiable advantageous purpose should back that site rank for those queries, and just as importantly, be powerful for users.

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

  • The Purpose of the Page

  • Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an vital attribute characteristic. employ your research on the additional factors below to inform your rating.

  • Main Content attribute and Amount: The rating should be based on the landing page of the chore 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 back with reputation research will be provided.

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

    There is another stalwart stress 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 involve additional information requiring raters to search for the background and reputation of these creators.

    This will assign a greater stress on those who soundless publish articles from contributors to carry out their own research into those authors, even if they don’t give a link to those authors, or only link to their sociable media instead. The onus is on the site owners to ensure everyone their contributors carry out possess a apt reputation.

    For news sites, Google is wanting to observe news sites with journalistic professional standards with lucid 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 observe Google’s algos attempt to push back on this even more in the search results.

    Fake news and machination theories are soundless be targeted by Google as being lower attribute and their guidelines possess become even more robust since they were first added final year.

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

    You can find a copy of the latest guidelines here.  Update July 27, 2018:  Google has removed the attribute 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 be found grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, condition 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 [47 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 [12 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 [746 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 [1530 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 [63 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 [368 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Mile2 [2 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 [36 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 [269 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 [11 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 : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11735016
    Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-1mk
    Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/hp0-277
    Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12296586
    Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/11/look-at-these-hp0-277-real-question-and.html
    RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/WhereCanIGetHelpToPassHp0-277Exam
    Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/t60alku5h9f0jr03jnvd0954jc3l1fha
    publitas.com : https://view.publitas.com/trutrainers-inc/free-pass4sure-hp0-277-question-bank
    zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/60eu630d30e5c9cc140609961ecace7b4f0fb






    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 |

    www.pass4surez.com | www.killcerts.com | www.search4exams.com | http://tractaricurteadearges.ro/