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

HP0-277 OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

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

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

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

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

HP0-277 existent exam questions and Answers!
hey gentlemen I handed my HP0-277 exam using brain dump solemnize pilot in handiest 20 days of preparation. The dumps absolutely changed my lifestyles once I shelling out them. presently im worked in a first ratebusiness enterprise with a decent income. passage to and the total team of the trutrainers. tough topics are efficiently secured by them. Likewise they provide excellent reference thats beneficial for the test purpose. I solved almost everything questions in just 225 minutes.

No cheaper source trendy HP0-277 exam questions observed however.
that is an definitely convincing and dependable useful resource, with existent HP0-277 questions and correct solutions. The testingengine works very clean. With extra data and convincing customer support, this is a very precise offer. No free random braindumps to be had on line can evaluate with the top class and the coolest savor I had with Killexams. I passed with a in reality high marks, so Im telling this based on my personal revel in.

wherein gain to I seek to glean HP0-277 actual select a recognize at questions?
Subsequently it used to be troublesome for me to focus upon HP0-277 exam. I used Questions & Answers for a time of two weeks and figured out how to solved 95% questions in the exam. Today I am an Instructor in the preparation business and everything credits goes to Planning for the HP0-277 exam for me was at the very least a flagrant dream. Dealing with my studies alongside low maintenance employment used to expend practically everything my time. Much appreciated killexams.

located most HP0-277 Questions in existent test questions that I prepared.
Passing the HP0-277 exam became just impossible for me as I couldnt control my instruction time nicely. Left with handiest 10 days to move, I referred the Exam by using and it made my lifestyles clean. Topics were supplied nicely and became dealt well within the test. I scored a terrifi 959. Thanks killexams. I was hopeless but given me hope and helped for passing When i was hopeless that i cant emerge as an IT certified; my friend informed me about you; I tried your online Training Tools for my HP0-277 exam and became able to glean a ninety one bring about Exam. I own passage to killexams.

No time to study books! exigency something posthaste preparing. is a dream forward true! This brain promote off has helped me skip the HP0-277 exam and now Im able to rehearse for higher jobs, and i am in a position to pick out a higher company. That is some thing I could not even dream of some years inside the past. This exam and certification may be very centered on HP0-277, but i create that different employers is probably interested by you, too. Really the reality which you passed HP0-277 exam suggests them that you are a mighty candidate. HP0-277 guidance bundle has helped me glean maximum of the questions right. everything subjects and areas were blanketed, so I did no longer gain any distinguished troubles even as taking the exam. Some HP0-277 product questions are intricate and a little misleading, but has helped me glean maximum of them right.

determined maximum HP0-277 Questions in present day-day dumps that I organized.
This is my first time that I took this company. I suffer very assured in HP0-277 but. I prepare my HP0-277 the expend of questions and solutions with exam simulator softare through team.

it's miles actually notable savor to gain HP0-277 actual test questions.
im confident to intimate HP0-277 questions answers and exam simulator to anybody who prepares to select their HP0-277 exam. that is the maximum up to date education information for the HP0-277 available online because it virtuallycovers entire HP0-277 exam, This one is truly appropriate, which i will vouch for as I passed this HP0-277 examfinal week. Questions are updated and correct, so I didnt gain any hassle everything through the exam and were given goodmarks and i enormously intimate

need some thing speedy preparing for HP0-277. is the best IT exam preparation I ever came across: I passed this HP0-277 exam easily. Not only are the questions real, but they are structured the passage HP0-277 does it, so its very effortless to recall the acknowledge when the questions forward up during the exam. Not everything of them are 100% identical, but many are. The repose is just very similar, so if you study the materials well, youll gain no worry sorting it out. Its very icy and useful to IT professionals relish myself.

How much HP0-277 exam cost?
Tried a lot to pellucid my HP0-277 exam taking assist from the books. But the intricate motives and difficult instance made things worse and I skipped the test twice. Finally, my pleasant buddy suggested me the question & solution by means of And conform with me, it worked so well! The mighty contents were brilliant to undergo and recognize the subjects. I could effortlessly cram it too and replied the questions in slightly a hundred and eighty mins time. Felt elated to pass well. Thanks, dumps. Thanks to my adorable buddy too.

I've create a very safe source of HP0-277 material.
Being a network professional, I notion appearing for HP0-277 exam would genuinely assist me in my career. however, due totime restrains practise for the exam gain become absolutely tough for me. i used to be searching out a testguide that may perform matters better for me. exam questions dumps labored relish wonders for me as this is a scientificanswer for extra specified test. everything of sudden, with its help, I managed to finish the exam in only 70 mins which is surely a shocking. thanks to material.

HP OpenVMS Version 7.x to

VMS application, Inc. Launches modern edition of OpenVMS working paraphernalia worldwide | existent Questions and Pass4sure dumps

BOLTON, Mass.--(enterprise WIRE)--VMS application, Inc. (VSI) these days introduced the worldwide availability of VSI OpenVMS version 8.4-1H1 (Bolton unlock) operating gadget (OS) for HP Integrity servers based on Intel® Itanium® 9500 collection processor. The Bolton liberate is the primary by using VSI under an settlement signed with HP in 2014. the modern OS is besides suitable with HP Integrity servers running the Intel® Itanium® 9300 sequence processor. VSI intends to at final extend pilot for HP Integrity servers according to everything prior versions of the Intel® Itanium® platform. VSI additionally reconfirmed plans to present OpenVMS on x86-based mostly servers through 2018.

OpenVMS is the platform of election for purchasers within the mission captious market as a result of its unmatched protection, balance, and legendary uptime efficiency.

A crew of US-primarily based OpenVMS builders, many harking again to the core DEC/Compaq/HP teams answerable for OpenVMS’ prior accolades for technical excellence, accomplished the evaluate and testing of the gadget. VSI’s modern unencumber of OpenVMS got inordinate marks when container confirmed through consumers in industries equivalent to protection, banking and pecuniary functions, manufacturing, global retail operations, and gaming.

“In under twelve months, they haven't simplest assembled a robust crew of OpenVMS developers and consumer pilot personnel however they now gain besides developed a roadmap with an aggressive schedule that contains relieve for modern platforms, points and applied sciences,” referred to Duane P. Harris, CEO of VMS application. “we are enthusiastic about their plans to continue enhancing this marquee operating gadget and meeting the needs of a loyal customer foundation that has relied on OpenVMS to faithfully elope their mission vital purposes over the remaining 30 years.”

The settlement between VSI and HP makes it possible for consumers to proceed to purchase OpenVMS licenses and pilot via HP’s international earnings and assist networks. consumers besides gain the pliability of procuring licenses and relieve without laggard from VSI. In both case, consumers who currently dangle qualifying HP OpenVMS licenses should buy the Bolton liberate for a 50% alternate-in discount. VSI works in near collaboration with HP to perform certain that shoppers of the modern VSI application receive the equal inordinate level of pilot that consumers gain expected from HP during the past, despite whether valued clientele purchase from HP or VSI.

Digital paraphernalia enterprise (DEC) launched the primary liberate of OpenVMS in 1977, beneath the identify “VMS.” The platform received legendary enchantment for its catastrophe tolerance, up to 100% uptime, reasonable of ownership, and stellar security. “The operating paraphernalia has a extremely loyal installed foundation of valued clientele [who] panoply no signals of desperate to give it up,” pronounced one user in an InformationWeek article.

Michael Lamont, Chief know-how Officer at routine software in Framingham, MA, a premier agency of communications application options for mission-important environments, referred to that procedure’ shoppers, together with great executive organizations, Fortune 500 groups, and most distinguished universities, want a extremely stout operating equipment, and that OpenVMS units the typical for reliability. “When it’s set to work, OpenVMS is the working device of alternative.”

system application became some of the first companions VMS utility Inc. included within the beta recognize at various angle of OpenVMS V8.4-1H1. “We desired to construct and fully verify their utility on properly of it, and the manner was as effortless as may be. They gain been very pleasantly shocked,” he noted. “It took us about 45 minutes to improve a device from birth to finish, without any hiccups. We’re very enthusiastic that VSI has stepped ahead to select over the platform,” he persisted. “there's a renewed suffer of enthusiasm for this outstanding working gadget.”

“Mission distinguished valued clientele countenance ever-increasing demands for safety, stability and uptime efficiency for their crucial purposes,” talked about Randy Meyer, vp and typical supervisor, Mission captious solutions, HP Servers. “With the VSI OpenVMS Bolton unencumber and its extended construction roadmap, shoppers could gain much more flexibility to opt for the OpenVMS platform that's privilege for their enterprise.”

About VMS application

VMS utility, Inc. develops, sells and helps ingenious and superior releases of OpenVMS, the most secure working paraphernalia in the world. The business’s core motivation is to advocate and enable customers to elope their mission essential applications at the legendary uptime levels OpenVMS is accepted for, at optimum performance levels, these days and into the long run. VMS application Inc. is headquartered in Bolton, MA. For greater assistance, travel to

HP kills off OpenVMS | existent Questions and Pass4sure dumps

HP has announced the quit of relieve for a variety of flavours of OpenVMS.

OpenVMS began lifestyles in 1977 as VAX/VMS on DEC VAX minicomputers. Later it become ported to DEC's posthaste Alpha RISC chips.  HP ported the utility to the Itanium, however the tech titan has determined it might’t be bothered moving the code to the newest generation of IA64 chips. solemnize in the street is that HP is pulling the plug on future edifice of that chip anyway.

HP has introduced that carrier aid for Alpha and Itanium OpenVMS pre-edition eight.4 will conclusion in 2015 and advocate for Alpha will are live on to 2016 and Itanium OpenVMS v8.four except 2020. VAX-eleven/VMS become merry common company OS within the late Seventies. VAX/VMS ran minicomputers from little to mainframe-sized as well as personal workstations.

2020 Alpina B7 xDrive Coming With 600 HP And $141,700 Tag | existent Questions and Pass4sure dumps

consumers out there for a extra dynamic version of BMW’s updated 7-collection sedan will soon be capable of power the modern Alpina B7 xDrive, scheduled to head on sale in Q3 of this yr, priced from $141,seven-hundred in the U.S.

If efficiency is your leading challenge, know that the four.four-liter twin rapid V8 engine within the 2020 B7 can deliver 600 HP and 590 lb-feet (800 Nm) of torque, allowing you to glean from zero to 60 mph (ninety six km/h) in precisely 3.5 seconds, before maxing out at 205 mph (330 km).

in comparison to the outgoing B7, the brand modern one is quicker to 60 mph by means of 0.1 seconds and sooner ordinary by 11 mph (18 km/h). The German tuner besides up-to-date the 8-pace automated transmission’s application, while the custom chrome steel activities exhaust system reduces each lower back power and weight.

different technical mods consist of a revised brake device with four-piston fastened calipers paired to 15.55 x 1.forty two inch discs up entrance, and larger 15.67 x 1.10 inch discs on the rear, Michelin efficiency tires, 20-inch Alpina classic wheels (optional 21″ ones attainable), and a re-calibrated efficiency oriented xDrive all-wheel force system, said to enhance agility, mainly beneath lateral acceleration.

Sharp and stylish

the exterior of the 2020 Alpina B7 has been fitted with a modern front bumper with purposeful air intakes, free-floating Alpina lettering and horizontal personality strains, custom rear spoiler, quad elliptical tailpipes and exclusive paint finishes akin to Alpina Blue metallic and eco-friendly steel.

inner, patrons will ascertain Nappa leather-based, multi-purposeful console seats, a leather-based instrument panel, ceramic inserts and gentle-shut doorways as normal. in the meantime, features just relish the full-colour head-up monitor, rear view digital camera and the latest BMW iDrive 7 device are additionally accessible. still, the tuner did advert personal touches comparable to hand-entire surfaces boasting splendid Lavalina leather, blue and green stitching on the sports steerage wheel, custom inscriptions and individual creation plaque, a modern Alpina design for the color digital instrument reveal, concurrent Piano lacquer or classic Myrtle luxurious timber indoors trim, door sills with blue illumination and enhanced acoustic console – laminated glass with an extended thickness of 0.2 inches used on the windscreen, aspect windows and rear window.

consumers can additionally select on the non-compulsory Rear government Lounge Seating with finger Command and Rear-seat amusement, although it’s the conventional gadget listing that impresses most: Dynamic Damper handle and two-axle air suspension, energetic consolation pressure with road Preview, smooth-shut computerized doors and console keyless entry, panoramic sunroof, vigour rear sunshades, entrance ventilated and heated multi-contour seats with massage function, heated entrance seat armrests, heated steerage wheel, heated rear seats, Harman/Kardon environ sound device, adaptive full LED lights with automatic inordinate beam, wireless charging, token handle, Wi-Fi hotspot, Apple CarPlay with 1-yr crucible and lots greater.

Then there are everything of the non-compulsory extras, just relish the in the past-outlined Nappa leather-based and how it’s now available in Mocha and Cognac colour choices, Nappa to full Merino leather-based improve in six colour mixtures, the purchasable indoors Design kit (timber seize handles, Rear Seat Belt cowl in timber trim, Rear middle armrest with wood trim, luxurious Rear floor Mats and Alcantara Headliner in Coordinated Upholstery colour), luxurious Rear Seating package (rear ventilated seats, rear consolation seats, heated steerage wheel with front & rear Heated seats and armrests, rear massaging seats and 7 inch finger Command pill), and the Rear executive Lounge Seating programs, which contains electric Reclining Seat and Footrest, govt Lounge Rear Console and Rear-seat entertainment skilled.

As for in my opinion purchasable options, they encompass the panoramic Sky Lounge LED roof, BMW Laserlight, Bowers & Wilkins Diamond encompass Sound gadget, Rear-seat amusement expert, evening Vison with Pedestrian Detection and 21-inch Alpina traditional wheels.

ultimate however now not least are the common safety aid systems, which encompass the extended traffic jam second for limited entry highways, active Blindspot Detection, Frontal jar Warning with city jar Mitigation, Lane Departure Warning, accelerate restrict assistance, and Rear-pass-site visitors Alert and jar education – everything a fraction of the lively using second knowledgeable bundle. meanwhile, regular Parking second Plus talent having lively Park Distance manage, a encompass View 3D digicam gadget and a lower back-up Assistant, at your disposal.

While it is difficult errand to pick solid certification questions/answers assets regarding review, reputation and validity since individuals glean sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. ensure to serve its customers best to its assets as for exam dumps update and validity. The greater fraction of other's sham report objection customers forward to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams cheerfully and effortlessly. They never contract on their review, reputation and trait because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer certainty is imperative to us. Extraordinarily they deal with review, reputation, sham report grievance, trust, validity, report and scam. On the off haphazard that you view any mistaken report posted by their rivals with the cognomen killexams sham report grievance web, sham report, scam, protestation or something relish this, simply recall there are constantly terrible individuals harming reputation of safe administrations because of their advantages. There are a mighty many fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams exam questions questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that is the best brain dumps site.

Back to Bootcamp Menu

200-045 dump | LOT-404 study guide | EX0-003 rehearse test | 133-S-713.4 existent questions | 000-375 bootcamp | ITILFND braindumps | 00M-503 questions and answers | 650-299 study guide | 000-M60 braindumps | 190-701 cheat sheets | P2090-068 pdf download | 650-312 braindumps | C9560-658 rehearse test | 3002 dumps | M2090-744 existent questions | 642-162 exam questions | 70-552-VB dumps questions | HP0-066 rehearse Test | 9A0-019 study guide | MB3-216 braindumps |

HP0-277 existent Exam Questions by
We are doing incredible battle to give you actual OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration exam questions and answers, along clarifications. Each exam questions on has been appeared by methods for HP ensured specialists. They are colossally qualified and affirmed people, who gain quite a long while of expert suffer perceived with the HP evaluations. They check the question as per actual test.

At, they give absolutely tested HP HP0-277 exactly same Questions and Answers which will be lately required for Passing HP0-277 exam. They in reality enable individuals to prepare to recollect the exam questions and assure. It is a mighty conclusion to accelerate up your position as an expert within the Industry. Click We are thrilled with their notoriety of supporting people pass the HP0-277 test in their first attempt. Their prosperity quotes inside the preceding two years had been completely excellent, as a consequence of their cheerful clients who presently ready to impel their professions inside the rapid tune. is the principle conclusion amongst IT experts, particularly those who hoping to scale the chain of command stages speedier in their divide associations. Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as below;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for everything tests on internet site
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders more than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders extra than $99
DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for everything Orders

On the off danger which you are looking for HP0-277 rehearse Test containing existent Test Questions, you're at correct location. They gain accumulated database of questions from Actual Exams with a specific quit goal to enable you to devise and pass your exam at the primary undertaking. everything coaching materials at the web site are Up To Date and confirmed by means of their experts. supply most current and updated rehearse Test with Actual Exam Questions and Answers for modern syllabus of HP HP0-277 Exam. rehearse their existent Questions and Answers to improve your perception and pass your exam with high Marks. They guarantee your success within the Test Center, overlaying each one of the points of exam and construct your erudition of the HP0-277 exam. Pass beyond any doubt with their unique questions.

Our HP0-277 Exam PDF includes Complete Pool of Questions and Answers and Brain dumps checked and showed which comprehend references and explanations (in which applicable). Their objective to accumulate the Questions and Answers isnt just to pass the exam before everything attempt however Really improve Your erudition approximately the HP0-277 exam points.

HP0-277 exam Questions and Answers are Printable in high trait Study pilot that you may down load in your Computer or a few other device and start setting up your HP0-277 exam. Print Complete HP0-277 Study Guide, deliver with you when you are at Vacations or Traveling and savor your Exam Prep. You can glean to updated HP0-277 Exam exam questions from your on line document whenever. Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for everything tests on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $ninety nine
DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for everything Orders

Download your OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration Study pilot immediately next to purchasing and Start Preparing Your Exam Prep privilege Now!

Since 1997, we have provided a high quality education to our community with an emphasis on academic excellence and strong personal values.

Killexams C9550-606 exam questions | Killexams C9560-515 mock exam | Killexams 000-050 pdf download | Killexams HP2-Z16 rehearse exam | Killexams 9L0-207 rehearse test | Killexams 000-M42 study guide | Killexams A2040-442 free pdf | Killexams A2010-590 VCE | Killexams 9L0-062 questions and answers | Killexams 650-156 rehearse Test | Killexams CPD-001 existent questions | Killexams 70-698 brain dumps | Killexams P2140-021 questions answers | Killexams P6040-025 test prep | Killexams 000-637 brain dumps | Killexams HP0-850 dumps | Killexams BAS-011 dump | Killexams HP2-Z20 rehearse test | Killexams 000-854 study guide | Killexams 642-164 sample test |

Exam Simulator : Pass4sure HP0-277 Exam Simulator

View Complete list of Brain dumps

Killexams LOT-406 brain dumps | Killexams CHFP free pdf | Killexams GED sample test | Killexams 1Z0-408 braindumps | Killexams C2010-650 questions answers | Killexams DTR brain dumps | Killexams 9L0-621 pdf download | Killexams 920-163 rehearse exam | Killexams 1Z0-559 bootcamp | Killexams 000-N31 rehearse test | Killexams A2180-607 dumps | Killexams 650-294 existent questions | Killexams 920-271 rehearse questions | Killexams M2040-669 existent questions | Killexams 000-386 braindumps | Killexams HP0-409 free pdf | Killexams 000-872 exam prep | Killexams 70-547-CSharp rehearse test | Killexams 1Y0-A11 cheat sheets | Killexams HP0-M17 cram |

OpenVMS Version 7.x to 8.2 Migration

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

April 2018 Web Server Survey | existent questions and Pass4sure dumps

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

Microsoft dominated this month's hostname growth, with 25.1 million additional hostnames bringing its leading market 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 great extend in hostnames, Microsoft's domain count fell by 1.4 million, and it besides suffered a loss of 5,360 web-facing computers and 51,300 active sites. Nonetheless, its presence within the top million sites grew by 517 sites.

nginx may gain lost 5.7 million hostnames, but it showed the strongest growth in some of the most distinguished 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 select second region 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 active sites, along with 2,840 sites within the top million. Nonetheless, it maintains a cozy lead in every metric except hostnames, where its 25.6% market participate is 11.4 points behind Microsoft's.

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

Apache Tomcat – the hidden backend

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

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

Tomcat besides includes its own autochthonous 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 comprehend 9.x, 8.5.x, 8.0.x and 7.x, although advocate for 8.0.x will quit on 30 June 2018. The most recent versions of Apache Tomcat are 8.5.30 and 9.0.7, which were both released on 7 April.

Other modern releases

The mainline fork 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 comprehend a few bug fixes and an improved proxy protocol feature.

nginx besides 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 expend 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 besides 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 penniless uptake of newer releases could be partly caused by their want of visibility on the Tengine website at The latest version that can be downloaded from the intelligence section on the homepage is the 2.2.0 development 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 create on a divide 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 customary cloudflare-nginx header. These account for less than 0.07% of everything Cloudflare sites in the survey, so the migration is very near to completion.

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

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

For more information view active Sites

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

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

Now that OS X Yosemite has been released to the wild, you may notice the Citrix Receiver has issues after adding a 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 oversight 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, gratify refer to the following page, Citrix Receiver for Mac and OS X Yosemite- Jarian Gibson 

Tweet supervene @dabcc supervene @douglasabrown

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

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

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

One of the colossal 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 Put a greater emphasis on sites needing to gain author information and author bios on their articles, especially for those sites that conclude not expend bylines on their content when it isn’t pellucid on the site itself who authors the articles.

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

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

Remember, trait raters cannot repercussion your site directly.  So you don’t gain 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 expend raters to evaluate how well – or not – their search results are performing based on the trait of sites that are ranking higher in the search results.

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

Purpose of a Webpage Beneficial Purpose

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

Most pages are created to be helpful for users, thus having a beneficial 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 comprehend (but are not limited to):”  Now, it has been changed to “Common helpful or beneficial page purposes comprehend (but are not limited to):”

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

They look to expend the term often with the term “helpful”, leading to that trait raters shouldn’t just deem if the page could be helpful to someone, but if it is a beneficial page to gain on a site or in the search results.

Purpose of Video Pages

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

Formerly, it listed the purpose of a video page as “To allow users to watch a video.”  But now, Google has changed it – in everything examples – to “To 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 besides 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 besides optimizing to those shares as well.

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

However, they later besides refer 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 panoply a blog post.”  Again, this could just be to match the specimen to be more specific.


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

Your Money Your Life Safety

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


Some types of pages could potentially repercussion the future happiness, health, or pecuniary 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, pecuniary 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 gain 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 emphasis on the creator or author of the main content of the page, whereas before the emphasis was entirely on the website reputation.  So what could this be targeting?  I suspect they want trait raters to not simply deem the site in question that an article is create on, but the author as well.  There are well known authors published on lesser known sites and vice versa.

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

And sometimes a site has plenty of content but nothing in the passage 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 exigency to identify the creator of the content, if it is different from that of the overall website.”

They gain besides added a modern suggestion for finding reputation information content creators:

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

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

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

They besides intimate looking for the Wikipedia page for the content creators.

What to conclude When You Find No Reputation Information

Google added (added text in italics):

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

Page trait Rating Overall Page trait Rating

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

Old version:

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

New version:

At a high level, here are the steps of Page trait rating:

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

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

Page trait Rating: Most distinguished Factors

Google’s change to this section is to yet again Put 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 distinguished factors to deem when selecting an overall Page trait rating:

● The Purpose of the Page● Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an distinguished trait characteristic. expend your research on the additional factors below to inform your rating.● Main Content trait and Amount: The rating should be based on the landing page of the task URL.● Website Information/information about who is liable for the MC: Find information about the website as well as the creator of the MC.●Website Reputation/reputation about who is liable for the MC: Links to relieve 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 recognize beyond simple trait and deem 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 convincing purpose of the page. Websites or pages without some sort of beneficial purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to relieve users, or pages that potentially spread hate, occasions harm, or misinform or delude users, should receive the Lowest rating.

For everything other pages that gain a beneficial purpose, the amount of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-A-T) is very important. gratify 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 perform some changes specific to the content creators in several key areas, including medical, news, science and pecuniary sites.

Here are those changes, with the changes in italics:

● high E-A-T medical counsel should be written or produced by people or organizations with preempt medical expertise or accreditation. high 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.● high E-A-T intelligence articles should be produced with journalistic professionalism—they should contain factually accurate content presented in a passage that helps users achieve a better understanding of events. high E-A-T intelligence sources typically gain published established editorial policies and robust review processes ( specimen 1 , specimen 2 ).● high E-A-T information pages on scientific topics should be produced by people or organizations with preempt scientific expertise and delineate well-established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists.● high E-A-T pecuniary advice, legal advice, tax advice, etc., should forward from trustworthy sources and be maintained and updated regularly.● high E-A-T counsel pages on topics such as home remodeling (which can cost thousands of dollars and repercussion your live 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.● high E-A-T pages on hobbies, such as photography or learning to play a guitar, besides require expertise.

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

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

Google gives two examples of the types of editorial policies they want to view on high trait intelligence sites.  First, the BBC (partial screenshot).

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

Google has besides 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 besides be produced by those with relevant 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 trait Pages Characteristics of high trait Pages

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

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

What makes a high trait page? A high trait page should gain a beneficial purpose and achieve that purpose well.  In addition, high trait pages gain the following characteristics:

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

Highest trait Pages Highest trait Pages

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

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

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

But they gain removed references to this on pages for stores or other pecuniary transactions.

Here is the customary version:

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

What makes a page Highest quality? A Highest trait page may gain the following characteristics:

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

And the updated version:

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

What makes a page Highest quality? In addition to the attributes of a high trait page, a Highest trait page must gain at least one of the following characteristics:

● Very high level of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● A very satisfying amount of high or highest trait MC.● Very positive website reputation for a website that is liable 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 pecuniary 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 conclude “extensive” reputation research when giving Highest ratings.

Examples of Highest trait Pages

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

Low trait Pages

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

Low trait Pages

The first paragraph has been updated completely.

This was removed:

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

And it was changed to this:

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

Here is the reference to beneficial purpose once again.  But this time it besides concedes that sometimes these pages were intended to serve a beneficial 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 trait 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 gain 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 trait of the MC is low.● There is an unsatisfying amount of MC for the purpose of the page.● MC is present, but difficult to expend 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 safe understanding 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 level of Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T).● The trait 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 safe understanding 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 trait 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.


Some topics exact expertise for the content to be considered trustworthy. YMYL topics such as medical advice, legal advice, pecuniary advice, etc. should forward 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 forward from those with suffer and everyday expertise in order for the page to be trustworthy.

You should deem who is liable for the content of the website or content of the page you are evaluating. Does the person or organization gain sufficient expertise for the topic? If expertise, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness is lacking, use the Low rating.


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

● The creator of the MC does not gain adequate expertise in the topic of the MC, e.g. a tax form instruction video made by someone with no pellucid 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 besides 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 trait rating spectrum. Note that in some cases, contributors select their own topics with no oversight and may gain very penniless 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 trait rating spectrum. gratify pay watchful attention to websites that allow users to publish content with little 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 want E-A-T.

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

It has besides changed the notation at the quit from “Important : Lacking preempt ingest is sufficient understanding to give a page a Low trait rating.” to “Important : The Low rating should be used if the page lacks preempt E-A-T for its purpose.”  So Google has a modern distinction on ingest for the purpose of the specific page.

Low trait 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 renowned as removed here, doesn’t connote it was removed entirely.  But they besides glean their modern guidance on the clickbait style titles vs actual content that Google now wants raters to convoke Low.

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

One of the most distinguished criteria in PQ rating is the trait of the MC, which is determined by how much time, effort,expertise, and talent/skill gain gone into the creation of the page, and besides informs the EAT of the page.

Consider this example: Most students gain to write papers for high school or college. Many students select shortcuts tosave time and effort 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 mistaken sense of doubt about well-established facts.● Writing quickly with no drafts or editing.● Failing to cite sources, or making up sources where notany exist.● Filling the report with great 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 ingest bamboo. Pandas ingest a lot of bamboo. Bamboo is the best food for a Panda bear.”

Unfortunately, the content of some webpages is similarly created. They will deem content to be Low trait if it is created without adequate time, effort, expertise, or talent/skill. Inaccurate or misleading information presented as fact is also a understanding for Low or even Lowest trait ratings. Pages with low trait MC conclude not achieve their purpose well.

Keep in sarcasm that they gain very different standards for pages on large, professionally-produced business websites than we gain for little amateur, hobbyist, or personal websites. The trait of MC they anticipate for a great online store is very different than what they might anticipate for a little local business website.

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

Important : Low trait MC is a sufficient understanding to give a page a Low trait rating.

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

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

In addition, gratify examine the title on the page. The title of the page should describe the content.

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

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

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

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

Unsatisfying Amount of Main Content

Here there is a little change, but it does perform a rater sensible that there is a incompatibility between the amount of content for the purpose of the page.

Old version:

Important : An unsatisfying amount of MC is a sufficient understanding to give a page a Low trait 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 solitary section.

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

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

This is the specimen Google uses to present distracting ads and SC, which besides has a mistaken clickbait title.

Here is the full modern section:

We anticipate 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) perform it difficult to expend the MC. Pages with Ads, SC, or other features that distract from or interrupt the expend of the MC should be given a Low rating.

A solitary pop-over Ad with a pellucid and easy-to-use near button is not terribly distracting, though may not be a mighty user experience. However, difficult-to-close Ads that supervene page scrolls can be truly distracting and perform 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 specimen 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 trait raters, Google is now stating that it is typical for business to gain a few negative reviews.

Here is the modern version with changes in italics.

Extensive reputation research is required for everything PQ rating tasks unless you gain previously researched the reputation of the website. Many websites gain little reputation information, unfortunately. Of the websites with reputation information, most websites gain a safe reputation. gratify exercise impregnate 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 business 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 gain reputation as well, including YouTubers, bloggers, vloggers and professionals.  So raters are now expected to conclude 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 gain 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 occasions for a Low rating.

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

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

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

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

Changes are in italics:

We anticipate some form of website information for many or most websites. They anticipate pellucid information about who (e.g., what individual, company, business, foundation, etc.) created the MC, unless there is safe understanding for anonymity. A long-standing Internet alias or username can besides serve the same office 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 solitary may be sufficient.

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

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

Lowest trait Pages

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

Lowest trait Pages

One mighty fraction of this section that SEOs and site owners will want to select note of is the fact Google summarizes the page trait points made throughout the page trait sections and Put them into 3 concise steps.  Here they are:

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

1. Understand the convincing purpose of the page. Websites and pages should be created for users in order to serve a beneficial purpose, in other words, they should exist to relieve users.2. Websites or pages without a beneficial purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to relieve users, or pages that potentially spread hate, occasions harm, or misinform or delude users, should receive the Lowest rating. E-A-T and other page trait characteristics conclude 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 besides added a modern summary, but note  that these are simply drilled down points that were previously in 7.x sections in the final trait 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 existent purpose for users.”

Pages that Fail to Achieve Their Purpose

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

Lowest E-A-T

One of the most distinguished 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 distinguished for a page to achieve its purpose well.

If the E-A-T of a page is low enough, users cannot or should not expend the MC of the page. This is especially convincing 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 trait Main Content

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

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

Have high standards and think 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 profit from theMC.

Copied Main Content

Interesting fraction they removed from the rise of this section is the observation that “Every page needs MC.”

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

They did remove the following:

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

That is a snoopy fraction to remove, since it is a convincing passage to determine if there is any passage 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 passage to create MC with little 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, gratify expend 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 near without clicking on the Ad.● An interstitial page that redirects the user away from the MC without offering any path back to the MC.

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

Inadequate Information about the Website or Creator of the Main Content

Another revised section from 7.5, formerly called “No Website Information” again dealing with the reputation of not only the website itself but besides 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 gain been added to this section:

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

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

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

Again, Google does mumble there are reasons why some site may gain anonymous contributors or authors, provided there is “a safe understanding for anonymity.”  I conclude miracle how well this is applied in rehearse by the raters though.  There is a colossal incompatibility between anonymity for something relish a political source, versus anonymity for flagrant stories not bring attributed to anyone so the site owner doesn’t gain to perform a fake persona.

Unmaintained Websites, and Hacked, Defaced, or Spammed Pages

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

Google added:

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

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

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

Google has besides removed the following specific to spammed comments:

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

I am not certain 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 besides includes additional specific groups that are targeted by detest groups.  The additional groups now comprehend socio-economic status, political beliefs, and victims of atrocities.

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

They did remove another reference for the understanding behind the creation of the pages.  They no longer comprehend that they are “pages created with the sole purpose of promoting detest 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 detest and/or violence, because some could wrangle they weren’t created for that purpose.  A fine line, but the only understanding I could view for them removing it.

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

The Pew Research focus , the Anti-Defamation League , and the Southern Poverty Law focus 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 detest 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 detest or violence can  occasions existent world harm.

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

Extensive reputation research is distinguished for identifying websites that promote detest or violence. gratify identify reputable and well-established organizations that provide information about detest groups in your locale when researching reputation. Some websites may not gain reputation information available. In this case, gratify expend your judgment based on the MC of the page and erudition 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 besides comprehend numerous examples of the types of sites they want to view rank Low or Lowest.

It besides covers death threats, which is an gripping 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 relieve forestall these from being ranked from sociable media sites as well.

It besides covers ‘”how to” kind articles that could be used to relegate terrorism or violent extremism.  Google has been criticized in the past for ranking pages that relieve people learn to perform 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 besides shows Google is trying to view those types of results rank lower.

Here is the full section:

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

● User discussions that attempt to justify sexual ill-treat of children.● How-to or step-by-step information on how to relegate acts of terrorism or violent extremism.● Depictions of extreme gore or violence, without a beneficial purpose.● Suicide promotion or pro-anorexia webpages that animate users to engage in 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 connote links to low trait sites?  Or only malicious links that lead to malware?

They besides define malicious sites as “Malicious pages are created with harmful intent or created to profit 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 fairly taken from section 7.6 “Highly Untrustworthy, unreliable, Inaccurate, or Misleading.”

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

Google adjusted the trait 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 collusion theory pages when the searcher is clearly searching for information about that collusion theory.   So this goes into a bit more details on the types of sites that should be rated Lowest.

They besides specifically talk about collusion theories that may look amusing to some people – such as their specimen that the US government is controlled by lizard people  – but that this kind of content can gain long reaching repercussion because there are some people who conclude believe these collusion theories, even the seemingly outlandish ones.

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

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

Here if the full modern section:

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

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

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

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

Some examples of information that would be create on Lowest trait 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 gain been existent world consequences from people believing these kinds of internet collusion theories and misinformation.

Find high 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 collusion theories. Fact-checking websites cannot maintain up with the volume of collusion theories produced by the Internet. Some collusion theories are impossible to debunk because they pretense everything debunking information is inaccurate. If a pretense or collusion theory seems wildly improbable and cannot be verified by independent trustworthy sources, deem it unsubstantiated.

Pages that Potentially delude Users

This is taken from the customary 7.3 section.  As a lead in to the next section, Google added “The following sections describe characteristics of deceptive pages. However, no list of deceptive characteristics will be complete—deceptive websites continue to evolve as users and search engines motif 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 besides view that clickbait is now considered deceptive, when the title doesn’t deliver what the actual content was about.

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

The modern changes are in italics.

Some pages are deliberately created to delude users, for example:● A webpage or website that impersonates a different site (e.g., copied logo or branding of an unaffiliated site, URL that mimics another site’s name, etc.).● A non-satirical sociable network profile made by an impersonator.● A webpage or website that looks relish a intelligence source or information page, but in fact has articles to maneuver users in order to profit a person, business, government, or other organization politically, monetarily, or otherwise.● A webpage claims to present an independent review or participate other information about a product, but is in fact created to perform money for the owner of the website without attempting to relieve users. For example, the MC may contain intentionally misleading 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 perform money for the owner of the website without the license of the celebrity. For example, the page may gain mistaken 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 misleading title or a title that has nothing to conclude with the content on the page. Users who come to the page expecting content related to the title will feel tricked or deceived.● A webpage or website with deceptive website information. For example, the website may misrepresent who owns the site, what the website purpose really is, how the content was created, how to contact the site, etc.

Any page or website that may delude or trick users should be rated Lowest , regardless of intent. expend the Lowest rating even if you cannot view a understanding for the deception or even if you think most users wouldn’t “fall” for the trick.

You should besides expend the Lowest rating if you suspect a page is deceptive, even if you’re not able to completely substantiate it. gratify exercise caution and rehearse safe Internet safety skills since deceptive pages may be malicious.

Deceptive Page Design

Google has added a modern understanding to rate a site Lowest due to deceptive page design.  They gain 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 profit of the user.

While mostly they view 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 present very little 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 full article accidentally clicks the ad too while doing so.

Examples of Lowest trait Pages

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

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

There is a modern specimen targeting sites promoting detest or violence.

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

Medium trait Pages Medium trait Pages

Google has revamped what qualifies as a medium trait page.

They removed this:

In this section, they will describe pages that should glean the Medium trait rating. Medium pages achieve their purpose and gain neither high nor low expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. However, Medium pages want the characteristics that would advocate a higher trait rating. Occasionally, you will find a page with a mix of high and low trait characteristics. In those cases, the best page trait rating may be Medium .

It now reads:

In this section, they will describe pages that should glean the Medium trait rating. Medium pages gain a beneficial purpose and achieve their purpose.

There are two types of Medium trait pages:

It is unclear why they reduced the description here.

They besides slightly changed the criteria for a page that his mixed trait but with high trait characteristics.


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

Now it has been changed to:

The page or website has stout high trait rating characteristics, but besides has mild Low trait characteristics. The stout high trait aspects perform it difficult to rate the page Low.

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

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

This was removed:

The trait 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, ingest 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 ingest is distinguished when a website has different authors on different pages. This is the case for article websites or websites relish YouTube, which gain usergenerated content. EAT for pages on these websites may differ drastically based on the EATof the creator of the content on the page.

Website ingest is distinguished in the following situations:● everything content on the website is produced by the same person or organization. An specimen is a medical website that is produced by a reputable physician group.● The content of the website is produced by different authors or organizations, but the website has very active editorial standards. An specimen of this is a science journal with very high 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 deem the reputation and E-A-T of both the website and the creators of the MC in order to apportion a PageQuality rating.

The reputation and E-A-T of the creators of the MC is extremely distinguished when a website has different authors or content creators on different pages. This is convincing of forum and exam questions mp;A pages, intelligence websites, or websites that gain 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 trait YouTube videos created by highly reputable and expert content creators, as well as Lowest trait YouTube videos created with a unsafe want of E-A-T on YMYL topics.

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

It is gripping 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 trait Rating FAQs

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

Third question:

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

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

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

For most page purposes and topics, you can find experts even when the realm itself is niche or non-mainstream. For example, there  are expert alternative medicine websites with leading practitioners of acupuncture, herbal therapies, etc. There are besides 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 luminary gossip, that always gain Low trait content?

Answer: For almost any kind of page or informational topic, there is a scope of content quality.  recall that high trait content is defined as content that takes time, effort, expertise, and talent/skill. Pages that gain a harmful purpose should be rated Lowest quality, regardless of their topic.

For example, there are both high and Low trait luminary blab pages. Often, the purpose of these pages is to participate scandalous, but potentially convincing personal information about celebrities. They can deem the MC of a blab page to be high trait if it is accurate and gripping information from a reliable source. On the other hand, demonstrably inaccurate information and unsubstantiated collusion 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 comprehend a User Location in the form of a city and state. Note that in the actual rating tasks, you will exigency 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 specimen that doesn’t match the user intent for the query.  Perhaps Google is seeing fewer of these featured snippet examples and hence it was removed.

Highly Meets Examples of Highly Meets (HM Results) Blocks

Google has added a modern visual specimen 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 specimen here for an app install suffer in the search results.

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

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

Needs Met Rating for Porn Results Needs Met Rating for pellucid 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 trait 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 gain specific tasks which are testing algos specifically on how well (or not) nasty or upsetting content is ranking in the search results.

Here is the addition:

In addition, some rating tasks may interrogate 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 gain besides made additions to what kind of content is typically considered to be upsetting-offensive to flag.  And yes, they view more of their modern favorite trait rater buzzword, beneficial.  Additions in italics:

Upsetting-Offensive content typically includes the following:

● Content that promotes detest 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 nasty terminology without context or beneficial purpose.● Depiction of vivid violence without context or beneficial purpose.● vivid violence, including animal cruelty or child abuse.● definite how-to information about harmful activities (e.g., how-tos on human trafficking or violent

However, they changed “For example, a result with content that encourages or graphically depicts child ill-treat should be flagged asUpsetting-Offensive” to “For example, a result with content that encourages child ill-treat 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 interrogate for or tolerate potentially upsetting, offensive, or sensitive content, they will call the query a “Upsetting-Offensive tolerant query.


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

It is not entirely pellucid 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 view any other understanding for its removal.

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

Under the Holocaust example, they added the following distinguished 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: weight of Browsing and Researching Product Queries: weight of Browsing and Researching

This section besides 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 sarcasm that many users savor browsing and visually exploring products online, similar to window shopping in reallife. Give high Needs Met ratings to results that allow users to research, browse, and select what to purchase.

Users may not always passage 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 select region 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 exigency extra impregnate and attention.

Often, the results for product queries are YMYL pages. Users exigency high trait 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, great fitness equipment).When buying products, users exigency websites they can trust: safe reputation, extensive customer service support, etc.Results for product queries may be distinguished for both your money and your life (YMYL)!

They  gain besides added a modern product example:

Appendix: Using the Evaluation Platform Releasing Tasks

Something rater specific, they are asking raters to “Please leave a observation 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 task Page

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

Final Thoughts

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

One of the colossal takeways is the modern concept they refer to as “beneficial purpose.”  Again and again they stress that raters should be able to find the beneficial purpose of a website to rank it high, and likewise, expend the want of beneficial purpose to rank a website lower.

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

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

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

  • The Purpose of the Page

  • Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an distinguished trait characteristic. expend your research on the additional factors below to inform your rating.

  • Main Content trait and Amount: The rating should be based on the landing page of the task URL.

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

  • Website Reputation/reputation about who is liable for the MC: Links to relieve with reputation research will be provided.

  • The modern YMYL change means that more sites that may not gain 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 scope of modern content areas.

    There is another stout emphasis 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 comprehend additional information requiring raters to search for the background and reputation of these creators.

    This will Put a greater emphasis on those who soundless publish articles from contributors to conclude 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 everything their contributors conclude gain a safe reputation.

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

    Fake intelligence and collusion theories are soundless be targeted by Google as being lower trait and their guidelines gain become even more robust since they were first added final year.

    Pages that spread detest are besides 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 view these types of results ranking lower.  Most notably is the addition of political beliefs as a target for detest pages, but socio-economic status and victims of atrocities were besides specifically added.

    You can find a copy of the latest guidelines here.  Update July 27, 2018:  Google has removed the trait 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 create grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, situation of Search, Brighton SEO and more, and has been presenting at conferences for over a decade.

    Latest posts by Jennifer Slegg (see all)

    Direct Download of over 5500 Certification Exams

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

    References :

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

    Back to Main Page
    About Killexams exam dumps | |