What's up everybody, Jason here for jaspyscasebrakes.com. This is another wax party break guys. This is Jaspys Hip Raid Multisport Madness Dual Case Break. Three random seams each, number 10. And again guys, last two cases of the print run. 20 total boxes of course, 20 hits. Probably have pulled most of these, but there still could be a chance of a couple of these still hiding here of course. Now usually there's at least one of these in every case. Now of course there's more cases than what was shown here, right? So there was a couple of previews that are probably not shown that we did pull, but at least these ones here were like the main big ones probably. So of course it's a three random teams break. So of course it's Multisport. We're gonna have football, basketball, and baseball. So 30 total spots, every case a random team, the NFL, MLB, and NBA. Now we're gonna combo up two teams in the NFL of course because they have 32. It's gonna be commanders, raiders, Texans, partners. So what we're gonna do here guys, this dice roll is gonna be for the list of names. Then we'll paste it in, and then we're gonna do the randomizer here, right? So you're gonna stay in the same position for each sport, NFL, MLB, and then of course NBA. All right, in that order. So let's click dice roll. It is a four and a four, eight the hard way. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight times, eight, eight. Donald at the top, Donna Andrew at the bottom, eight, eight. Now again I'm gonna paste your names in here. It's the same thing for each one guys. So NFL, MLB, NBA. All right, so now put the same dice roll eight times. We're gonna go with the NFL first. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Lana Falcons down to the Cleveland Browns. And I'll let you look at these a little bit later. Let's go on to the next one of course. MLB, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Cardinals down to the Braves. Let's go eight times here. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. So eight. Falcons down to the Spurs.  It's just a lot of names and too many teams to say out loud. But I'll give you a quick minute or so to look at each one. So just as the way it came out right there, of course, with Donald with the Falcons all the way down to Andrew with the Browns. What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna alphabetize it, of course. All right, make it look nice. And then I'll give you like a quick minute to see your teams. Now you could make trades. A lot of people really don't. But if you wanna make a trade, you can only make it within the same sport. So you can't trade like the Arizona Cardinals for the Arizona Diamondbacks, right? Gotta keep it football, football. So there's the names of the teams there. I'll give you guys a quick minute and then we'll move on to the next one. Yeah, Jimmy wants to trade the Broncos. So if anybody else is interested for trading one of their NFL teams. All right, well in the meantime, you get the trade windows to be open. Let's move on to the next sport. So again, same thing here. I'm gonna show you guys the way it came out. Right from the Cardinals, down to the Braves. But let me alphabetize and make it look nice. And then of course, you guys can look at your teams really quick and see if there's a potential trade for one of you guys there. All right, let's go on to the next one. All right, again, so Pelicans, down to the Spurs. All right, so there's the teams there. All right, Jimmy, I don't know if anybody's gonna wanna make any trades. So try to trade, couldn't trade Mojo. Let's go. All right, guys, so let's close it. All right, so here we go. Here's our one. So case five of 20 is the last one here. And then the other case looks like it's nine of 20. Here we go, guys. We got the Big Hurt, Frank Thomas. That's from Top Supreme, 22 out of 32 for the Chicago White Sox. Now again, White Sox is over here and that's Brian Kordick. There you go. Brian K, next one. And usually the way the configuration was is at least three hits for each sport in a case and then one extra for another sport. So one sport should have four for the most part. At least that's what I've been seeing. You got Amonra St. Brown, little patch autograph from Origins Football. That one is not numbered, but of course that's gonna go to the Detroit Lions, which is Curtis, right? Yeah, Curtis, there you go. We've got Chris Olavi, patch autograph from Obsidian. That is numbered 66 out of 175. Saints is Andrew. Andrew C, there you go. On the board there, buddy. Why don't you say go Dodgers for Rex cause you need Dodgers to win for your cubby's sake. And we got a little Austin Reeves for the Lake Show. Resigned with the Lakers. Lakers that is going to Brian K. There you go, another one for you, buddy. We got Larry Walker for the Colorado Rockies, 19 out of 25. Karen Steele on the board. We got Bam on the bio. That's actually probably a rookie, this should be. Nice one there for the heat. Go to Craig. And we got a Jeremy Pena rookie autograph. Number to 75 and that graded a nine autograph 10. That is actually one of the cell sheets, I believe. Houston Astros, Brian K. But the other Brian K. Not Kordick. There's a couple of Bryant's right there. But that was Houston Astros. We got Larry Markendon, autograph to 99. That's from Noir basketball. Chicago Bulls. Bulls is Melissa Turner. Bryson or Grayson Rodriguez, sorry. That is 16 out of 25 for Baltimore. Or it was Jimmy on the board. That's one before the next case. We have Ray Lewis. Nice patch autograph from Camini Blackgold Football. 149. And of course Ravens. Will Brockman, there you go. Nice, O'Neill Cruz. Cruz. And I believe that's another cell sheet. I think he's still injured, right? Got injured early this season, but obviously a lot of people are on this kid. And 73 out of 99. The new Cruz right now is Ellie, the little Cruz, but very nice top scrum green for the Pirates. Or a PSA-9 or a Fracker autograph to 99. And of course Pirates is Jimmy. How about that, Jimmy, huh? That helps right there. Pittsburgh Pirates for you, buddy. All right, next one. We have a little Ray Allen. That looks like an autograph, right? Yeah, it's hiding right there. That is when he was a buck, I think, right? Who is he wearing a Bucks jersey? So Ray Allen, this is what, 1998, yeah. 1998 press, bro, that's crazy. So Milwaukee Bucks. I know that's how he got injured, right, Jimmy? Like I think he was sliding and then like, well, did he tear his knee up or was it like his leg? I have a feeling it was his knee though, right? So yeah, the Ray Allen is Bucks. And where's basketball? Steam Kendrick, there you go. Good question, Rex, good question. I love it all, man. I love chicken, I love beef, I love pork. But probably I could only eat one? I mean, obviously if I could only eat meat for the rest of my life, like beef, it's probably bad for me, right? Pork is probably really bad for me too. Probably have to juice chicken, man, honestly. I mean, I actually probably eat more chicken than any of those, but I love obviously meat and then pork. We have a Yard on Outdoors Gold Stars, PSA 10, Ricky for the Astros. Frank, oh, that's right, it was a half slide, you're right. And we got a Barry Larkin, that looks like a transcendent to 20. Cincinnati Reds, we're going to Andrew C. Yeah, probably.  I can eat chicken breast, you know. I mean, think about it, I can eat fried chicken, right? That's probably bad for me, but eat fried chicken with mashed potatoes and gravy and stuff like that. I can eat chicken with stir-fry, right?   But yeah, I mean, meats probably can do a little bit more. Chicken, obviously, is just all one thing, where I would be if I have, and I have the whole cow. John Stockton to 99 for the Utah Jazz. Karen's deal with the Jazz.  Bacon. We got a C.D. Lam, RPA from Certified. 31 out of 35, Dallas Cowboys. James, oh, nice, there you go, man. Yeah, Rex, yeah. I usually just see like grilled chicken, honestly.  Whoa, look at this, this is cool. This is one of those topscrow minis. This is when Aaron Judge was a prospect, that's awesome. Yeah, graded a nine-five. There was a 10 in there, a couple nine-fives and corners a nine, but that's pretty cool. 2013, Bowman Crow Mini, Aaron Judge, prospect. And of course, that is gonna go to the Yankees and Brian Corden. All right, we got a Chris Olavi patch autograph for the Saints, to 99 from Panini Black. Saints, I believe you call the Saints early, right? Andrew Seath. We got Mike Cal Bridges, there you go. Phoenix Suns. Jimmy with the Suns.  I mean, obviously just try to eat more hookmeals rather than processed or frozen, right? Just cutting little things out. I mean, obviously, I feel like if we wanna lose them most of the way, we probably have to not only eat better but also work out, right? But just cutting out certain foods or drinks, you can easily lose some weight. That's always the first step, right? And last one here is a nice Najee Harris. Looks like it's a redemption, little patch autograph, RPA to 99 for the Steelers. Steelers, that is Donald with the Pittsburgh Steelers. There you go. And there you go, folks, there you go, that was the break. So pretty nice stuff here. So it looks like the last two main cell sheet hits were, of course, the O'Neill Cruz.  So a couple of baseballs, cell sheet hits there. Other than that, guys, still some very, very nice stuff right here, guys. Appreciate it, guys. Again, this was the last two cases. So now what we're gonna do, guys, is give away that little watch party promo spot. All right, so there's all the customer names. Now again, I think Joe was talking, was saving some of these here, but I mean, obviously we already did these, so that wouldn't be there for that. Yes, and that's the difference for me, Rex. Obviously, I mean, I've always been a big person in general, but I used to obviously lose a lot more weight when I worked out, right? But me, now that I just sit down here at the shop for most of the time, the eating is the poor part. It's tough, man, you just get used to it. It's a drug, honestly. You know, if you don't drink and do actual drugs, food is a drug, especially junk food. All right, so Dice Row here, there's the names, of course. The winner here is gonna get a promo spot and then let me just put madness here, number 10. And of course, we got that. And then this is what, Wednesday? All right, so here we go, guys. Dice roll it, boom. One out of two, three times. One, two, three. Boom, boom, three, three. And Craig from the Hanger Pack 17. I don't even know if I called your name, Craig. Didn't call the Jaguars. Didn't call the Twins. Didn't call the Heat, right? So there you go, congratulations, man. You did get into that wax party. So there you go, folks. Again, that was our last multi-sport madness. We still have more hip-nery products on the website if you guys are interested. Got that one huge 190 box mixer. And of course, I'm sure we'll post up some more stuff soon. So appreciate it, guys, jaspyscasebreaks.com. Oh, wait!


Hey, welcome back to my channel. Today we're gonna talk about the 10 things not to do in New Zealand. If you haven't seen my previous video, I will link it above. And I just got a huge response. It's probably my best video on this channel. And there is a lot of things that I did not cover and it's been years now. And so I've thought of other things and you guys have commented. So this is part two of the 10 things that you should not do in New Zealand. Here we go. We are a family of six that have moved from the US to New Zealand and have been here for eight years. If you're thinking about moving to New Zealand, definitely check out my free 50 minute masterclass that's in the description. It's free and it's kind of insightful on everything you need to know about moving here. So here we go. Now I've thought through this list and the first one that I'm gonna say and I just, I couldn't come up with something better as my number one thing to recommend to not do when you come to New Zealand is don't get frustrated when things are done differently. Okay, they do things differently here. They say different words that you're not familiar with. They have smaller coffees than you're familiar with. They do things differently and just embrace that, okay? Embrace the fact that you come to a different culture. Don't try to find the same things. Don't try to find your people, okay? Now that can be very comforting and that could be a part of your life if you end up moving here, but just embrace a new experience, embrace a new food, try the meat pies, try the sausage rolls, try things you thought I would never like that and having a sausage on a slice of white bread. Just go for it, just do it. Okay, number two. Number two of the thing that you should be aware of that you should not do, you should always have a bike helmet when you are on a bike in New Zealand, it's required.  People will yell at you while you're on the bike. They're like, hey, where's your helmet? You know, it's required. So don't come to New Zealand and go on a bike without a bike helmet. Okay, number three. Number three, now this is a value and a tradition of the Maori culture. Do not sit on a table. Don't sit anywhere where food is typically served. This is something that you just need to know. Don't do it because the whole room will go, it's like, no, don't get off the table. You know, like you don't always know. Now there isn't a lot of situations that you're sitting on the table, but even if you're on a park and you're sitting up on a picnic table or you sit up on the actual table part, don't do that. Don't sit where people generally eat food and you'll be okay. Okay, number four. Number four, do not go on a hike unprepared. Okay, think about, check the weather, check the elements, have something on underneath. Just be aware, be prepared for rain, wear the right shoes, whatever you do, just prepare for it because there's mountains here. The weather changes a lot and a lot of people get in bad, precarious situations and they're like, oh, let's go for a hike or really find out how far it is, make sure you know where you're going. All these basic things, but I'm just telling you, it's just a very common thing to do in New Zealand is to go hiking or trekking or whatever you're doing, but just be prepared and kind of ask questions. You know, you visit the ice sites and just check out, know what you're doing and just be prepared for every type of thing that could happen, bring enough food, bring enough water. You should be good to go. Number five, when you go to someone's house, if they invite you over to something, make sure you bring a gift or a contribution of food or drink to the meal that you're going to. This may be normal for you, this may be what you already do, but let me tell you, there's a lot of people that don't do that. Okay, and so it is just like, nobody's gonna be mad here if you don't show up without something, but it is kind of expected. And so if you don't know that, that isn't normal for you for wherever you're from, just make sure that you bring something, bring a bottle of wine, ask, hey, what can I bring? And they'll generally tell you, just don't show up empty handed, just be, come prepared with something because it's just kind of the culture and expected. And it's so funny because I've said this many times and people in New Zealand are like, wait a minute, what? Like, why would you have to say that? My mom raised, not everybody's been raised like that, okay? And in fact, sometimes when I have people over to my house and they ask what they can bring, I like really don't need them to bring anything. Like I have everything figured out or I know they've been going through a hard time and I just really want to do everything and I don't want you to think about anything, but that's hard for them. They're always used to bringing something. So just be aware of that. Number six, do what you can to avoid using plastic. It is not a, you know, they don't have plastic in the grocery stores anymore.  Like plastic is kind of like, don't use it, okay? Don't show up with all of these prepackaged things. Don't wrap your kids lunch in plastic. Plastic is no good here. Like they've moved beyond that. They're very good with environmental things. Not perfect, nobody's perfect, but they're just way farther along than let's say Americans, okay? I don't know where you're from, but just be aware of that plastic is kind of like, no, we don't do that. You know, we don't wrap everything in plastic. They have like these beeswax wraps that you can wrap things in or you know, they're just very creative in how to honor the environment a lot better in the way that they do things. So just be aware. Number seven, do not disrespect the rips and the currents any warnings that you're seeing when you go to the beach. People drown here. Things happen. It's not a joke.   I was even at a beach a couple summers ago and someone drowned. Just like right there when I was there, they drowned, they got caught in a current and a rip and they died. And it's just, it's horrific, but it happens all the time. It's just, we live on an island here and so that's what happens. So just pay attention. Don't think that you're above that and be cautious when you're swimming and just being aware and being honest. Make sure people know where you are if you're going in and just, just don't be dumb. Okay, number eight, do not expect to get places quickly. Okay, do not expect to get places quickly. If you go from Wellington to Auckland is eight hours. Don't expect to get there in eight hours. The roads are winding, very winding. So you can't just go at the full kilometers per hour that you would all the way there, okay? Just be aware of that. Also be aware that people drive slow here.  You drive slow here. Everybody drives slow, nobody's in a hurry. It's just part of who they are and what they value and it's a great thing. So just embrace that, go slow. Okay, I could learn a lesson or two from that, to be honest. And take breaks. You'll even have signs on the road that say, take a break, get a coffee. There's cafes everywhere, okay? There's just, and then people also stop for pedestrians all the time, even in the weirdest spots. Like you're in the middle of a roundabout and they're stopping to let someone go. And it's just, it's very dangerous actually from a road rules perspective. But they do and so they will always stop.  People are gonna stop, okay? I don't want you to rear end anybody. Number nine, do not litter. Do not disrespect nature, okay? Win whatever you pack in, pack out at any sort of height. Do not drop anything.   You shouldn't litter anyway. But if you have a bad habit of that from wherever you're from, just be aware. Do not do that here. Do not leave anything when you're on a hike. That's a huge no-no. You'll even see signs for it. And it's just not good. People, they get really mad.  You need to respect the way that they do things and that's a big one here. And number 10, I have to say this because this is probably one of the things that I am absolutely the worst at. Do not speed. Do not speed. Don't go over the speed limit. Sometimes it's hard to tell when you're on the off roads, like how, what the speed limit is, but do the best that you can because there's cameras everywhere. And what you will do is you will get a speeding ticket in the mail.  Don't speed. Don't speed. Be aware of the parking, okay? If you need to pay for parking, read the sign, figure it out. Or you'll get a ticket. And the tickets are not cheap, okay? A parking ticket is not $15. It's at least 30 to $45, a speeding ticket. I get them $100 here, $200 here all the time. Like it's crazy. And it's like sometimes they're in like speed traps where they kind of catch you or just like everybody's going down a hill or whatever, be aware. Do not speed. It's not gonna be good. You'll get tickets in the mail. All right, I hope you enjoyed the video this week. Definitely comment below. Let me know some things that I might have missed about what not to do. I will also link the previous video above and definitely check out my 50 minute master class. If you're moving here, it's everything you need to know in all your first steps. And I will see you guys next week.


All right. Welcome, everyone, to today's Google Search Central SEO Office Hours. My name is John Mueller. I'm a search advocate on the search relations team at Google. And part of what we do are these Office Hours Hangouts where people can join in and ask their questions around Google Search. And hopefully, we can find some answers along the way. Lots of stuff was submitted already on YouTube. So we can go through some of that. But as always, if any of you want to get started with the first question, you're welcome to jump in. Hey, John. Yeah, can I start first? Sure. Sure. OK, so you might have answered this question in one of the previous meetings, but somehow I missed it. This is related to core web vitals. Just wanted to ask this web vital thing is going to impact a website on the domain level or the page level? Like, for example, there is a website with 20 pages with good vitals score. And then there are other 20 pages with average to poor score. So these four pages can impact rankings for these good pages also. Good question. So the Chrome user experience report data is available on different levels. So that's something where, depending on the website, the amount of data that we have available to work with, then we might be able to be more fine grained or we might just have one score that we need to use across the whole site. And you can see some of that in Search Console directly, where you see how many pages are grouped together in this one data point that you have. So this domain, does it include subdomains also, or subdomain is separate thing? As far as I recall, the crux data is kept on an origin level. So for Chrome, the origin is the host name, which would be kind of on a subdomain and protocol level. So if you have different subdomains, those would be treated separately. OK, thank you. All right, Lee, I think you raise your hand. Yeah, this might be a silly question and maybe one that you've covered beforehand. But I work with a company that has a very large footprint on the internet. We have over 100 million pages that we're trying to have indexed. And obviously, that's a struggle. But in Google Search Console, we have submitted a site map index with over 1,000 different site maps contained therein. Currently, in Google Search Console is saying that we have submitted and indexed three million pages. However, when I look at the site map coverage, under that site map index, it is only saying that it has indexed 40,000 pages. And it's only recognizing one file out of the 1,000 site maps in that site map index. So there's some discrepancy there, because that one site map that it's recognizing only contains 40,000 files. My question is, we have some issues with Google crawling our site and returning server errors, like 500 errors and some soft 404s. Would that contribute to Google stopping crawling or not recognizing our site maps, because it's getting stalled up somewhere? I guess I'm just a little bit confused as to where to go from here as far as next steps. Now, I am not 100% sure. But I suspect in Search Console, maybe you're just seeing a part of the picture because of the way that the site map files within the site map index files are treated there. So that's something where maybe you're just seeing one of those site map files in Search Console. But actually, if you added the site map files individually, you could probably see that for the other ones. And that's more of a reporting thing rather than an indexing thing. So it's more that you just don't see the details there. With regards to crawling in general with a really large website, it sounds like that's the case there, it is helpful for us to be able to crawl as much as possible. And that kind of flows into the general topic of crawl budget. So there was a blog post, I think, now maybe three years back from Gary about crawl budget kind of going into the different aspects that we take into account there. And on the one hand, we have kind of the crawl demand from our systems where we think, oh, this is a fantastic site. We need to crawl as much as possible from it. And with a really large website, sometimes we have make signals there. Sometimes it's like, oh, there's a lot of content here. But actually, we found it's not as useful. So maybe we don't crawl as much. I don't know if that plays a role there. And the other side is kind of the technical aspect that we don't want to cause problems on the server. And that's kind of something where things like server errors flow in, where kind of the delay on responses from the server flows in, where if we see when we crawl a certain amount of pages per day that the number of server error goes up, then we'll back off. And we'll kind of assume, oh, maybe we're crawling too hard and causing these problems. And we want to leave capacity for users, too. So we'll back off a little bit. And similar with server response time. So the rendering side, kind of the speed aspect that most people focus on is usually less critical when it comes to crawling. But the response time, like how quickly does a server respond to requests? That's something that, kind of on a technical level, slows us down from crawling. Got it. OK, well, thank you for the insight on that. I do appreciate it. Sure. All right, Michael, I think you have your hand raised, too. So I often notice that an established outlet will republish a wire stories article, such as Reuters. And then the leapfrog in search of the original wire service, whether it's Reuters or Associated Press. Although services aren't spammy, they're very trustworthy, what factors would contribute to that happening? I don't know. It's hard to say. I think in most cases, we try to recognize situations where exactly the same article is just being republished. And then to kind of treat that accordingly in search by showing maybe the original or the one that we think where it might have come from. But there are lots of cases where we can't really recognize that completely. And then it's sometimes a matter of, well, this content is here, but someone also wrote about the same topic in somewhere else. And then we kind of have those two viewpoints. So that's something where it's not, I don't think there is anything technical or anything specific that is happening there where it's like, well, if it gets republished here, then we just take that one. But anytime you have content that is syndicated, it can happen that our systems don't recognize that we should be showing this version instead of the other version. Is there any difference between a press release and any other type of content publishing? It's just content, isn't it? Yeah, usually it's just content. I think to some extent, we probably try to recognize press releases and understand that these are pieces of content that are just republished in lots of places and to try to act accordingly for that. But otherwise, it's just content. It's kind of like if I write a blog post or a news article, it's essentially a piece of content for us. The nature of press releases is that you want it to be somewhere else. I mean, the whole point of releasing a press release is that it goes out into the wild where people actually read it. No one goes to Reuters to read the news. They go, if there's a new iPhone released, for example, which is always the most popular example, you go to all of the bloggers and tech reviewers and Apple itself to read that. So it's the very nature of a press release that you send it out into the wild, hoping that people will read it elsewhere. Now, I don't know if Google News does something slightly different than the web search in that regard, though. So that might be something that also kind of plays in there. I know from, I don't know, some book about Google, Long Time Back, where in the early days of Google News, they definitely tried to recognize a situation where people were writing about the same topic or writing with the same content and trying to understand, like, does that make this topic or this article more important than other topics? But within web search, it's really mostly a matter of these are different HTML pages, essentially, and we find content there and we try to index it. John, quick question just jumping in. First to say hello, Long Time No See. Just while you're talking about syndication, how might geolocation come into that if people are syndicating, let's say, an English article across different locales, Australia, US, Great Britain, could there be an impact there with geolocation also on that? I suspect that could be the case. Yeah. I mean, when there are situations where we recognize that people are searching for a piece of text that's included in a lot of other articles, then we try to pick which one is the most relevant one for the user. And if we recognize that there are some pages or sites that are particularly relevant for users in some locations, then that's something that we might highlight there. So that could also be playing a role there a little bit. And that, I don't know, if something is originally released in the US and a UK news site picks it up and you're also located in the UK, then maybe you would see the UK news site. All right, Robin. Yes, hello. So we have a bit of a conundrum here. I just posted a question in the comments, but I don't think you have responded yet. I joined seven minutes late, sorry. So we have a big site with a global footprint and a lot of different English variant language sites, which are located in different sub-directors on our domain. And we are using self-referencing canonicals and the correct hreflang tags for each of the countries. So we are specifying that the Australian site, for example, is using Australian English. It is the fact that we do have a bit, since the sites are virtually copies of each other, we are using one English language master site and then allowing each country to localize the country as they see fit, but in most cases they don't do that because we have, for example, product pages which are identical in all countries. So we can see in Google search console that there are a lot of exceptions due to Google either choosing another canonical than the one that we have specified. So initially we thought this would be a huge problem because we would not have any visibility, any local visibility. But I have done some tests where I either tried to use an Australian IP to Google on google.com.au and the same for the American site and I still get the US sites for pages which shouldn't be indexed. So the pages are indexed according to search console but it still is the URL in Google search which is a bit strange. So my question is basically twofold. Is there any way we can get around so we could have our pages indexed without Google search console complaining too much even though the sites are technically duplicates? And if we can't do that, is how is Google evaluating the ranking? Because we, I think that, I mean, some domains will have more links, for example, external links to the American site is much bigger than the Philippine site, for example. And so the American site would have much more links if that page is not indexed but the Philippines page is the one that is indexed. I see my theory is that the Philippine version would have a lower Google rank even though, but it's the one that's the template for a rank on the search results page even though it displays the American page. Yeah, I think this is like a super complicated topic and we make it extra complicated, I think in search console, unfortunately. So it makes it, I don't know, super confusing. So basically what is happening is we're recognizing that, like, I don't know your site, so I don't know 100% sure if this is actually the case, but usually this is what happens. We recognize that the content is the same. So you have the same English language content, maybe for, I don't know, Australia, New Zealand or something like that. And our systems will then understand that these are duplicates, put them into one cluster and then we will pick one canonical URL to use for indexing for that. We do pick up the hreflang annotations on these pages, so we understand the connections between the URLs but we still index them as one canonical URL. And in the search results, when you search, if we understand the hreflangs properly, then we will show the appropriate local URL in the search results, but we will base it on the canonical index version. So in the snippet, you might see kind of signs that, oh, this is that canonical version, but the URL should be the right one. And the ranking should be based on whatever for that local URL should be relevant. So it's not the case that we would pick, like if we had the Philippine version as canonical and all the links go to the US version, then when we put them into a cluster for canonicalization, then essentially, like whoever is shown gets those links. So it's not that those get lost, but the tricky part is in Search Console, we report on the canonical URLs for the most part. So in both the index coverage report and in the performance report, we will simplify things for you and show the canonical URL. So if in Australia, like, well, take for example this situation where you have the Philippine in the US site and we pick the Philippine version as canonical for whatever reason, in the US you would probably still see the US URL if we understand hreflang properly, but in Search Console, we would report that as being the Philippine URL. So in the performance report, it will say like, oh, the Philippine URL is like very popular. And you look at the details in Search Console and say it's popular in all of these countries where it's kind of the same content that's being shown just with the local country versions. And similar in the index coverage report, we'll focus on the canonical URL. So if you have, say, a separate sub-directory for US, then it would look like maybe the US version is not getting indexed at all, but the Philippine version is getting indexed. And that can be very confusing. But essentially, from a ranking point of view, that should be working out. So if we understand the hreflang, we'll show the right version. It'll rank accordingly in Search. It's just everything with Search Console, with the tracking there is super complicated. We see this a lot more in Europe with German language content, where the German language countries are right next to each other. And in Switzerland, we have different currencies, and we can't kind of import things from Europe, all of those weird extra situations. And still, we kind of have that canonical issue there as well. So it's not just specific to English things there. I don't see this changing in Search Console in the near future. So that's kind of something where you have to keep that in mind and understand that for your content, one version is being chosen as canonical. And the reports that you see in Search Console, you kind of have to pick them apart and try to understand them on your own. To avoid that, the only thing you can really do is make sure that these pages are not recognized as duplicates, which would be to make sure that they're really significantly localized, which if it's an e-commerce site and you have the same product across all of these different country versions, that's probably not that feasible. If it's mostly content that you have there and it's not a lot of pages, then maybe that is something that you could be doing. So those are kind of the options there. OK, thank you very much. I think our worst worry was that our ranking was negatively impacted. But I did find that one of my UK colleagues sent me a couple of URLs for changing. And I think he googled it because he did not send the UK versions. He sent me the Philippine versions. That's why I used that as an example. Is there any way to help Google even more beyond the hreflang tag to understand that these are really localized pages? Not really, not really. I think also with hreflang, especially if you have a lot of different country versions, then it is something that sometimes we pick it up properly and sometimes we struggle with it. So that's something where anyone who has worked on bigger international sites, you'll see that lots of hreflang gets picked up and used and then some parts just like Google gets confused and shows the wrong version. Yeah, I think we have like 30 English versions and 10 or so Spanish, no even more Spanish, 15 versions or something like that. I mean, one thing that I usually recommend is to assume that users might be going to the wrong version on your site and to try to catch them on your site as well. So show something like a banner on top and it's like, hey, it looks like you're from the UK. You want the UK version and make it so that you can get there fairly quickly. OK, yeah, thank you. Yeah, we've thought of that, but we wanted to know if our ranking foremost was negatively impacted before we did that type of action. OK, thank you very much. Sure. Let me run through some of the submitted questions and I'll get back to everyone who's raising hands as well. Later on, don't worry. Let's see, I'm working on the biggest mom advice site in our country, which was demoted with a core update. They have a great brand search and a community of loyal returning users. So my approach is going through the content that is deemed the most relevant in Google for queries from Search Console and making sure that when users come, the content is the highest quality content, solves the need behind the query, and is trustworthy. Is that the right approach? I think in general, that's a great approach and that's especially when you have a larger website, you can't do everything at the same time, but focusing on the parts that are seen as the most relevant for your website that are kind of the most important gateways kind of to your content, I think that always makes sense. So that seems like a good approach. There are various people within the SEO community who have kind of focused on the whole topic of EAT, expertise, authority, trustworthiness, and they've written lots of really interesting blog posts and case studies. So I would also go through a lot of that just to make sure that you're not missing anything obvious that might be relevant for your site as well. Core web vitals and subdomains, I think we talked about that briefly. The Chrome user experience report data is based on kind of the browser origin, which is the host name. So it would be separate for a subdomain. How long does it usually take to show a web story in Discover after creating it? The answer is it depends, unfortunately. So it's something where sometimes we can pick up content very quickly after it was created and crawl it very quickly, index it very quickly. Sometimes all of that takes a lot longer. And Discover, in particular, is yet another level on top of that because for Discover, we want to make sure that we're actually recommending something that is really appropriate for users because users are not searching for something specifically. So we have to be kind of almost extra careful with regards to the content that we show in Discover. So there, in particular, it can happen that it takes a little bit longer for it to start showing up in Discover. It can also happen that it is never shown in Discover. So it's not the case that all web stories are shown in Discover. What would be the difference between the new passage index, passage ranking algorithm, and the current featured snippet? From my understanding is the UI part of this is completely separate from the ranking aspect there. When it comes to passage ranking, it's more a matter of us going into the content and recognizing that this page is relevant for something that is kind of hidden away on the bottom of the page and then how we display it in the search results is a completely different question. So it's not that the featured snippet or longer snippet or anything like that would be tied to the way that we do ranking for those pages. What's the best practice of guest posting and is it recommended by Google? Oh, my gosh. OK. So from our point of view, it's fine to go off and promote your content on other people's sites. So if you're creating content and you're publishing it on other sites to kind of draw awareness to your website to what you're working on, that's perfectly fine. It's just the links within these guest posts should be no follow-up, because essentially you're placing those links on other people's sites. So from our point of view, that's something where you're putting these links on other people's sites, so those links should not be passing any page rank. And that's essentially the main aspect there. So going off and creating something to draw awareness for what you're working on, that's perfectly fine. Just make sure that the links don't pass any page rank. If we get links from a subdomain, will they count as PBN backlinks? No, not necessarily. So PBNs are private blog networks, which is kind of a technique that I don't know. Some people, usually spammers, use to try to create a network of sites that looks natural, that all tend to link to something that you care about. With the hope that when Google runs across this, it thinks, oh, so many people are recommending this page. We should show it higher in the search results. And obviously, if you're creating these sites and you're just putting links there, we would see that as web spam, or at least as links that are unnatural and try to discount those. So from our point of view, links from subdomains are perfectly fine. It's not that we would see subdomains as a private blog network. Sometimes sites use subdomains. WWW is a subdomain, technically. And PBN backlinks are essentially something completely separate, where if we understand that this is a part of a private blog network, then we will just discount that by default. And it doesn't matter if it's on a subdomain or on a main domain or anything like that. So those are kind of completely separate things. Just to make it clear, I would not recommend using private blog networks to promote your website, because that's essentially against our webmaster guidelines. What matters the most? The number of unique referral backlink domains are the total number of backlinks. So I don't think we differentiate like that in our system. So from my point of view, I would tend not to focus on kind of the total number of links to your site or the total number of domain links to your website, because we look at links in a very different way. And we try to understand what is relevant for a website, how much should we weigh these individual links. And the total number doesn't matter at all, because you can go off and create millions of links across millions of websites if you wanted to. And we could just ignore them all. Or there could be one really good link from one website out there that is for us like a really important sign that we should treat this website as something that is relevant, because it has that one link. I don't know, maybe from like a big news site's home page, for example. So the total number essentially is completely irrelevant. Do you ever consider content published across various websites sourced from the same press release as duplicate content across those sites? We talked a bit about that in the beginning. Technically, if you're duplicating content, then that is duplicated content. We don't penalize duplicate content in our algorithms. It's just that we would try to pick one version and show that appropriately. And the other things that we talked about with syndicated content are kind of in the beginning if you want to watch that on the recording. My home page outranks my internal pages. How can I fix it? It's not necessarily something that you need to fix. So this is something that just happens sometimes. Sometimes internal pages rank higher than the home pages, and people complain about that. But essentially, for individual queries, we try to recognize what is the most relevant result from within your website or across the web. And we try to show that appropriately in the search results. And sometimes that's your home page. Sometimes that's a product page. It might be a category page. It might be a blog post on your site about a specific product. From our point of view, that's not something that we would consider something wrong. The thing that you can do a little bit, though, within your website is to help us understand which parts of your website you consider to be the most important. And the best way to do that is with internal linking. So the clearer you can make it to us that this is something that is really important within your website by showing it to users more frequently, having kind of visible links to that content within your website, the clearer we can understand that this is probably something that you care about and that you want to treat with a little bit more weight. For example, if you have a lot of products on your website and there's one product that you really care about, because maybe it's the product that you're most proud of or it's the product where you earn the most money from or whatever reasons, if you have all of your products linked in the same way within your website that you have different categories and subcategories and then it links to the products, then from our point of view, we can't really tell that this is a really important product, because it's just one out of a thousand other ones that you have on your site. Whereas if you were to go forward and specifically link to that product from your home page, for example, from other important pages within your website, then it's a lot easier for us to recognize that, oh, like this one particular product is so much more important for this website than all of these thousands of other products that are on the website. And that way you can kind of guide Google to understanding your website and what you consider to be relevant a little bit better. We have a website that we found many spammy sites pointing to in the links section. Is it worth disavowing those domains? We don't have any manual actions in Search Console. And we think those bad sites are dragging down our traffic. So in general, in cases like this, you don't need to disavow those links. Our systems are really good at understanding which links are relevant and which links we can completely ignore. And there are lots of levels in between. But essentially, random spammy links pointing to a website is super common. It's something that happens to pretty much every website out there. And our systems have, I don't know, tens of years of experience with dealing with that and ignoring a lot of that. So offhand, I would not worry about this. If you're seriously worried that these might not be getting picked up properly by Google Systems and you really, really want to make sure that they don't cause any problems, then go ahead and drop them in the disavow file. The disavow file is something we see more as a technical thing. It's something we look at and we say, oh, you don't want these links, then fine, we will take them out. It's not something that we would count against your website. It's not something where we would say, oh, this person must have been a spammer because they're trying to disavow all of these links now. It's really just a clean sign for us. Like, you don't want those links counted, and so we won't count those. So if you're really, really worried about these links and you're losing sleep and you're kind of wondering, is it affecting our rankings, then just drop those domains in the disavow file and move on. Then you're really, really sure that our systems are ignoring it. For the most part, I think sites don't need to do anything there. If you've had a site on the internet for a while, then you'll see all of these weird links to your site. And you can assume that Google is pretty good at seeing that, too. During the December update, we had a ranking drop to our game site. This is very surprising. As in my opinion, we have one of the best and most complete experiences for this type of site. While other sites offer mainly questions for the game, we do that as well as show votes for question. And we even have country-specific data. My question is, was this dropped due to something technical, such as site speed or hosting, or are we somehow not satisfying users as well as other sites? Or was it a mistake? I don't know. The last part, was it a mistake? I tend to assume that these kind of changes are not mistakes, but they can happen. So if you're really kind of super sure that you've checked everything and you think you've kind of gone through everything with regards to your website, then what I would recommend doing first off is posting in the Webmaster Help Forum and getting some input from other people there. And the folks in the forums can also escalate that to Googlers as well. So if there's something really, really weird happening, then it's theoretically possible that there's a mistake on our side. I think it's super, super rare. It's extremely rare that I run across something where when I send it off to the engineering team, they're like, oh, something weird is happening that we have to fix, but it's theoretically possible. That said, my assumption would be that it's really more tied to other parts of your content, other parts of your website, and trying to understand how we should be showing that content more. So site speed, I suspect, is less of an issue. In particular, the Core Web Vitals are something that we'll start using in May. So that wouldn't be affecting your site now. It might be that there's some crawling issues if you have a really large website with regards to speed. But it sounds like if your site has been around for a longer time, then probably we have indexed the appropriate content for your site already. So that's less of an issue. So my assumption would be more in the direction of the content and the way you're providing that content for users. I took a look at a handful of pages from your website, and I could see how our algorithms might be a little bit confused with regards to how we should be showing this site in search. In particular, because on a lot of these pages, there isn't a lot of content there. So that's something where if I go to random pages on your site, I'll have that card in the center, and essentially everything else will be ads. And I could imagine that our systems struggle a little bit with understanding what should this page be relevant for. So that's something where maybe it's worthwhile to rethink a little bit how you want to be found in search and how you can put your best foot forward when it comes to being found in search. One thing might be to think about, do you actually need all of these individual pages indexed? Or should you have something more about the content overall itself as an indexed thing? So maybe less focusing on individual pages, which just have one or two questions on them, and focusing more on, I don't know, a category of items where you have more actual content on a page. How does Google judge to show more images in the search results in a single blog post? I don't think we have anything specific in that regard. Sometimes we can pick up images through structured data, and we can show those in the search results. But essentially, the algorithms that we have for showing the thumbnails within the individual search results entries are things that are more, I don't know, broader algorithms in terms of us recognizing their multiple images on a page and making the assumption that maybe these multiple images on a page are particularly useful or relevant for users to understand why your pages are relevant for the user now in the search results. So that's kind of the direction I would head there. I think there's two or three types of structured data that are slightly different in that regard in that you can provide a carousel of images or a carousel of pieces of content. I think something like the how to structured data falls into that category and maybe something around recipes. I'm not quite sure. But all of that should be documented in our developer's guide, and you can kind of look at that to see is there something specific that you could be doing. My recommendation would be to look in the search results of what your site is focusing on and then based on that to try to work backwards. Is there a specific type of structured data that these people are using? Or is this just Google's algorithms trying to be helpful and just show more images? Cool. OK. I think maybe we'll just switch back a little bit to questions from you all since there seem to be more and more hands being raised. Not quite sure where we were. Rob, were you next? I said Lee was, but I don't know if he's already been. But I just want to ask about 404 errors in Search Console or 400 errors in general. Are they still a thing? Because I only see 500s and no 400s despite having lots of 404s. Are they still reported? Or are they moved to some other section? Good question. I don't know. Yeah. When you say I have the crawl errors report, but I think some of that was moved. It's index excluded, I think. You can find them in the excluded. So they're not errors anymore. They're excluded instead. Oh, OK. They're in the index coverage report in that case. OK. But could you then drill down and see them? Yeah. I'm actually in that report right now because I had to pick out one before. So you can click on the 404 post in the coverage. Oh, yeah, if you're right. Click on the 404, and then you can drill down and export it. Yeah. OK. Thanks, John. Slash Robin. Cool. You always start with an I don't know anyway as a disclaimer. I think, yeah, I don't know. Like these changes in Search Console, it's sometimes hard to keep up. That's why we have Daniel on the team working directly with Search Console. And I'm like, oh, yeah. OK. So many things. That's all for me. Cool. Rita. Hi. I have two questions. First, I have a question about these pages that don't have actual content on them. And it doesn't make sense to directly put content on them, like online tools, online calculators, online translator. They don't actually have content. How do we optimize those pages for Google? I don't know. We should write blog posts and link to them or what? Sure. Yeah. I mean, from our point of view, we don't have a kind of a system that uses online tools and tries to see what they're useful for.  We don't necessarily know that it's a calculator. So anything that you can do to make it easier for us to understand what this page is for, that helps us. So that's something like using clean titles and headings on the page, having some informational text on the page itself is really useful. If you have a blog where you can write about these tools, that's obviously also useful because then we understand a little bit the context of those tools a little bit better. So essentially, anything that you can do to bring more textual information to those tools, that helps us. In particular, if these are tools where you have some functionality that we just don't see because Googlebot doesn't interact with the tool. So if you have something like a map and you can click on different locations and you can see opening hours for different, I don't know, businesses that you're working with, Googlebot is not going to click on the map and see what happens. But rather, we need to be able to find that information in some textual format in another way. So either having more general information on the page, in a case like that, would help. These are the opening hours of our different branches. Or even listing that information directly on the page itself, that also helps us. So if it's like a lookup of the opening hours, then maybe just list the addresses along with the map on the page so that users can click on the map if they feel more comfortable with the map or they can scroll through the list to find that information. So essentially, when you have these kind of online tools, anything that makes it easier for us to understand what we should be showing this page for, that's useful. Thank you.  And on December update, we lost like 50% of the traffic. And mostly, the discover part, it completely suddenly got gone away. And we couldn't find out the issue. Can you please explain more about that? Yeah, I don't know. That's kind of tricky. So I guess I'm tricky on multiple levels there because I suspect you're talking about the decor update that happened in December. Yes, yes. Yeah. So with the decor updates, it's not so much that we're flagging problems within a website and saying we think this website is bad or has a problem, but more that we're trying to understand the relevance of these pages a little bit better. And the relevance is something that is tied to so many different factors. And that's essentially what we try to pick up with the core updates. And the information from the core updates is also used in other parts of search, in particular, in discover as well. And because of that, it can also happen that maybe a change is kind of subtle in search in general, but has a stronger effect in discover just because we're a little bit more critical on the discover side. With regards to kind of improving the situation there, we have a blog post about core updates that has a little bit more background information on the kind of things we look for when we try to understand relevance. I would definitely go through that. It also has a little bit of information on how things work with regards to recovering after making changes within your website. Because from our point of view, it's not the case that a website is doing something wrong, that it has to fix when it comes to core updates. But obviously, you want to have similar traffic as before. So improving your website overall, that will help us to better understand how the relevance is kind of better than before for your website. So unfortunately, there is no one simple thing to focus on there. There are lots of small things that kind of add up. And a lot of that is listed in the blog post as well. OK, thank you. Sure. And Feros, I don't know if I'm pronouncing your name properly. Hi, John. Hi. Actually, I have a question. One of our clients, we are working for him. I apologize for my English. It is very weak. So please don't mind. So the issue is that a few of the competitors, they have raised some kind of reviews on other websites. So the problem that we are paging right now is that our ORM is not maintained as it was before. So what we did is we asked the website that showing up the reviews in Google. But ultimately, the result is that they are asking for $2,000 to remove those reviews. So I'm not sure that what exactly should we do. Yeah. I don't know what the best approach is there. I mean, that's something we sometimes hear about as well. I think the most straightforward approach is either to find some kind of a solution there in regards to having that content removed. If that's something where you think for legal reasons that they're publishing things that are not correct, then that might be an approach that you could take there. The other approach, in general, with regards to reputation online is to make sure that the more relevant content is also visible in the search results, which could be something from your side that you provide there. So that might be an option there. If this is something where it looks like there is a really big scheme in play with regards to this kind of content, then that might be something that we can pass on to the team here to kind of take a look at and to understand a little bit better. But I would see that more as kind of a long term approach. So for things like that, I would recommend also maybe posting in the Webmaster Help Forum so that other people can take a look and give you some tips there. I don't think there is one simple answer that you can use in these kind of cases. And it's similar with other situations where maybe there is a legitimate negative review out there where you can't just force people to remove negative reviews. But in the Webmaster Help Forum, you'll probably get some input on some options that you can do there. Maybe you'll also get more straightforward feedback on how, well, maybe you should just be providing a better service or whatever. But I think this kind of direct and, I don't know, more or less honest feedback is sometimes very useful to understand, well, what is the general perception externally with regards to this type of issue? And is it something that I can resolve on my own? Or is it something I need help with from other people? Or do I need to kind of rethink what I'm doing with regards to how you're active online? That might be something that also comes into play there. And as I mentioned in the other questions before, the folks active in the help forums can also escalate these issues to Googlers. So if they see something that comes up again and again in the forums from the same sites that are doing similar schemes kind of thing, then they do pass that on to the team here. And we do try to take a look at that. It's sometimes tricky with regards to what we can do in cases like that, in particular, if the website is not spammy. If it's a normal website that we wouldn't remove for web spam, then there's no kind of web spam policy reason for us to remove it. There might not be other policy reasons for us to remove it either. Sometimes it's really quite complicated. But yeah, I think taking this step and getting more input from other people might be a good first step. Thank you so much, John. I have one more question that is, can I please? Sure. So basically, one of our page was not indexing. I don't know the exact reason what it was. So what we did is we started Google Ads for that page. And besides this, we started social sharing. We started to share this on Facebook and other platforms. Now, I'm not sure what was the exact reason, but first that page was on third page of Google result. And now it is under 10. So I'm a bit confused at what was the exact reason. Was it traffic that matters, or was it, yeah, please? Yeah. So both of those things, ads and social sharing are not things that we take into account for search. So my guess is it's either something, an indirect side effect of that, or it's just that our systems decided at some point that, oh, we should also index this page there. But both the ads and the social sharing side are things that we don't take into account. Traffic in general also not. It's something where various SEOs externally have made tests with regards to traffic to see if traffic can get a page indexed. And that's not the case. So from my point of view, probably it's just, it was almost indexed. And at some point, our system said, OK, we will actually index this page and show it in search. OK, so it was the hard work of our team. Thanks a lot. Yeah. All right. Sure. Lena. Yeah, I'm happy that we got some time. So we have a news website that, in addition to articles, publish a bunch of URLs with short updates, so not much content. So I'm wondering if there's a best practice for news websites to avoid being content. And if you would recommend to just no index all of these, you're also just the short stories. I mean, if you don't want them showing up in search, you can use noindex. But I don't think you would need to noindex something just because it's a short news article. Sometimes short articles are completely fine. So I wouldn't focus so much on the length of the article, but rather, like, do you want it indexed or not? Yeah, we would. But I was just afraid that it will be viewed as short stories because it's just a paragraph, not nothing else. And yeah. So for web search, we don't care about the length of the articles. I don't know if there's any kind of policy thing around Google News. So especially if you mentioned that this is on a news website, I vaguely recall some errors that we had in Search Console way in the beginning where we would show this content, this news article is too long or too short. Maybe that's something that plays a role there with regards to news content. But if that is the case, you can also use the Google News meta tag to specifically block it from Google News so that you can keep it shown in Search and just block it for Google News. OK, thank you. Sure. OK, let me just pause the recording here. I'll stick around a little bit longer for all of the questions that are still pending. And if anyone has anything else they want to share. But thanks for joining and watching so long, if you're watching this as a recording. And thanks again for all of the questions that were submitted. And hopefully, I'll see you all again in one of the future Hangouts. Bye, everyone. Thanks, John.


Okay, good afternoon everybody and welcome back. So this afternoon, you have two lectures on applications of small angle neutron scattering. So I'll be giving the first one and I believe it's Judith Houston who's giving the second one. So my examples are going to focus on some aspects of what I touched on in my lecture yesterday on magnetic small angle neutron scattering. So, and what we're going to look at is we're going to spend some time talking about some examples relating to diffraction at small angles. And then we're going to look at using a field to control the signal and exploring the role of anisotropy and other factors in the diffuse small angle neutron scattering signal. So that's the plan for today. And as a part of that, I will also be raising some other issues that can come up during experiments. So we'll start off with some examples of diffraction at small angles. So I will start off with an illustration using vortex lattices in superconductors. I'll do that because that's something I do quite a bit. But I will also give some other examples, including some non-magnetic ones. And then we will use this as a way to illustrate the differences between pulse and continuous sources. And then I'll highlight some problems that may arise that one needs to think about a little bit. And as I said before, if you have any questions, please interrupt or type them into the chat. Okay. So there are a few to use this demonstration of vortex lattices and superconductors there are a small number of things that you need to know not too much about vortex lattices and superconductors basically a superconductor. And as you may know has zero resistance when it's inside the superconducting state and it expels magnetic field this is something called the Meissner effect. And this is what you may have seen various demonstrations of at various points. However, in some superconductors, in most actually above a certain critical field. You end up with the small regions of normal states, which are called flux lines, entering into the superconductor, and they lie parallel to the magnetic field. So this is supposed to be an illustration, you can think of them as tubes or pencils stacked parallel to the direction in which you apply the magnetic field. And so, as well as when you stack pencils together, you will normally get some sort of close packed lattice, which may be hexagonal in nature. And one of the useful things about these is that they have a fixed amount of magnetic flux in them. And so that means that as a function of the applied magnetic field, you can work out exactly how far apart they must be. And so it turns out that the distances between these objects fits perfectly into the small angle neutron diffraction range. And the objects are generally straight they are mono dispersed. And so they are an example for looking at the looking at diffraction in this in this range. So this is a sketch of the standard monochromatic type of small angle instrument. So we have our neutrons coming in. And then we have our detector here. And then we have our superconductor sample with these with these flux lines or water seas inside it. And basically the geometry that we're adopting here is that we have our lattices of water seas set up, and they are arranged in a particular pattern, and then we basically have them aligned parallel to the field. And then if we rotate, if we rotate the field by a very, very small angle, then we will end up in the brag diffraction the brag condition for scattering off the planes of the the arrangements of water seas. So that's the that's the geometry. So this is easiest, if the field is basically nearly parallel to the neutron beam. So you start off with the field parallel to the neutron beam, and you rotate slightly to meet the brag diffraction condition. And this is the usual geometry, the studies of vortex lattices, and also for magnetic skirmeons, which behave in a very similar way. And this is not the type of geometry you would use with the magnetic field necessarily, when looking at other magnetic materials. But in this case, it's the right one. So, yeah. So if you want to basically measure something, measure a brag peak, then just as you were done on an ordinary diffractometer, what you want to do is you want to try to capture that reflection completely. And the way that we usually do that is by a rocking curve. So effectively we have a rotation axis, as indicated here so we have the sample sitting here and we rotate and the beam would be coming into the into the screen. And then we rotate about that axis. And the video that you can see here is taken from niobium. So niobium is is is the favorite material for looking at these vortex lattices because it scatters extremely strongly. And indeed, it's actually used to check the alignment of fields in magnets to check that one knows exactly how the magnets how the axis of the field is oriented with respect to the external markers on the magnet because basically it's the vortices lie directly parallel to the field. So what you can see on here is we've got our detector are small and standard detector. And then as we rotate the sample we bring some of these spots into the diffraction condition and then they move out. So the center of the beam would be here. And you can see these spots coming in and out. And basically what we then do is we if you imagine if we concentrate on this spot here, we put a box around this particular region of the detector. And then we measure all of the intensity in that box as a function of the angle that we've changed. And if we do that, then we will end up being able to construct peaks that look like this. So I have the box that I would be imaginary box I was drawing was here, and that would correspond to this green, this green peak. And then if I were to draw a box around say this one, then I would get this orange peak, for example. So I make my measurement. And then I can use this information to infer some of the behavior of the some of the properties of the niobium. So, if I were to extract quantitative data, then I take these rocking curves. If I want to make nice pictures, then I should sum over all of the rocking curves. And then I will get some picture that allows me to see all of the individual features so this is the sum of the video that you just saw. So we have the center of the beam here and then we can see our first order diffraction spots, second order diffraction spots, and etc. And this is obviously a picture in reciprocal space. So the real space orientation in this case is the same shape, but rotated by 90 degrees about this shouldn't say B axis rotated 90 degrees in the in the plane of the, I don't know about the B axis so that, so that basically this spot would be up here and this spot that this spot would be the here or rather the flex lines that would correspond to those basings would be in those in those positions. Okay, so one thing to note here, and we'll come back to this in a moment is to think about the effects of gravity. So, in this type of instruments you may often have a very long distance between the sample and the detector, and for that matter, between the velocity selector and the sample. And the neutrons, they're traveling very fast, but they are not traveling fast enough that we cannot see the effects of gravity so basically over this long path length. You will start to see that that some of the some of the spots they basically drew. And this, this drooping effect is due to the some of the neutrons. They require a certain they basically move down in the in the y direction so they move downwards because they're basically following a parabola and that parabola starts somewhere back here, and then they basically moving down a bit. So, as you move your detector further and further away, you may need to correct for this kind of thing. It's very obvious when you are looking at these spots. It's also obvious if you pay attention to the position of the beam center as you move further out. But obviously this would also happen if you're looking at something that's nominally cylindrically symmetric, and you may end up not quite seeing is it so it says cylindrically symmetric in this case. Okay. One of the very nice things about small angle scattering when you use it for diffraction purposes is that you really can. It makes it very easy to get your data out in absolute units, which can be which can be very helpful. So this is a key strength in neutrons gathering in general. And so I will use the example of these vortex lattices to illustrate to this. So basically we try to measure the direct beam. We use that to normalize our results so that we can then basically extract actual field but actual values for the magnetic fields that are causing the distortions inside these inside these materials. So for vortex lattices, this is done via something called the Kristen formula, which is in this box here. But one can do similar things for other features such as scumions for example, and in this formula. We've got the integrated intensity that we've measured at a particular spot. So that's taking the area under say this green spot, we've got the intensity of the beam so this is the, this is the direct beam. And one does that by basically removing any beam stops, and then measuring, measuring the total, the total intensity in the central in the central spot. And then we have things like the wavelengths of the neutrons the thickness of the sample gamma which is this 1.9 one factor that came up in the lecture yesterday I didn't highlight it particularly but it's relating to the gyromagnetic ratio of the neutron. We've got our flux quantum, which is basically the amount of flux each of these vortex lattices hold the associated wave vector. And then this quantity F which is actually the quantity that we can then compare that we want to extract. And this is basically the Fourier component of the spatial variation of field inside our vortex lattice. So you can think of this as being basically related to the, to the size of the change in the in the magnetic field in the flux lattice and in the bulk of the superconductor. And so typically, the value of this of this form factor will be of about the order of a chaos. So that is something that we can detect. And if we do our normalizations properly, then we can extract actual values of this field in reproducible as the reproducible quantity. So that's an example of what you can do if you're looking at vortex lattices. And what I've said there applies to other types of other types of material. And so the question then is what sort of periodic structures will exist on these length scales where we may have chemical structures with very large unit cells. We could have ordered arrays of large length scale objects. And we could also have magnetic superstructures. And this is just a picture that's prepared by prepared by I forgot her first name, Edela, the University of Bath. I apologize for that, where it shows different different scales of objects and also give some information indication of different techniques that are well suited. So we're basically focusing on things that may occur in this particular region. And sometimes some of these other objects will fall into fall into these into these areas. So to give an example of something like small angle diffraction in a different context. Karen, that's it. Karen, Edela. Then what we can, we can consider basically things like liquid crystal that are behaving in a little bit like liquid crystal material. So these are actually micelles. And basically they're disordered so you see nothing. And then at some point, we get some orientational order on the application of sheer in this particular case. There is some some order. They're basically all oriented in this particular direction. And we have some characteristic length between them. Then we see a pattern like this. And depending on how ordered this is this may get closer to a true brag peak, but we can still extract information on the separation from that. And then eventually as you apply more sheer in this case, you get it going to an isotopic case. So if you want to examine these features here, you can do the same type of rocking as I just described. Yes. And so other examples of this type of behavior would be in certain types of liquid crystals, as you move through the transitions in liquid crystals. Okay. In terms of the long range chemical structures and long range magnetic superstructures. It depends on the specifics of the particular material. So I've picked an example here. So this is the, this is the chemical structure for what this is an example from the family of hexa ferrite. So basically, as you can see these are these are materials containing iron and oxygen, hence the ferrite. And then, then you have something out the front here, which could just be the original one of these is barium with nothing else and then the iron and oxygen. And these, these materials basically have a very, very long repeat length along the C direction. So what, what this, this region here represents one unit cell of this material and as you can see, there are a lot of things stacked up stacked up the C axis. And the thing to focus on to try to make sense of this particular picture is safe use concentrate on the blue atoms which represent the irons or the magnesiums in this particular case. And so you can see here that we have a diagonal component, a vertical component, a diagonal component, a vertical component, etc. repeating up until we get to the point. So this has a large, a pretty large unit cell, and it contains iron, and the iron has a carries a magnetic moment. And in fact, it can develop a very complicated magnetic structure, which is supposed to be illustrated by the bits here to the right. So basically, the irons carry the magnetic moment, and they are split into different types of behavior. So you can see here that it's written L three S three, etc. L three is referring to, to this diagonal component, and it has a large moment on this kind of larger cone here pointing upwards, and then the vertical parts classified as S three and then it points downwards in this case. And so over the whole of this unit cell we build up a rather complicated magnetic structure. And that leads with a with an even longer repeat distance than the chemical structure. And this, this particular example will fall into the range of what we can see using small angle neutron scattering. And so this is an example from a material like that. And this is a screenshot of the detector at D 33 at the Institute of Langiova. So this is a small angle neutron scattering instrument where you can take the detector to be about 30 meters away from the sample. And it is equipped with a central detector, but also with four side detectors. And basically, the magnetic reflection the large magnetic superstructure in this case is is shown here. Basically, the software that was used to prepare this particular picture is a software called grasp which is what they can do it's it's it's doesn't do the same kinds of things is not optimized for the same kinds of things as SAS view. But it is optimized for basically looking at, looking at magnetic reflections and considering how well at reflections brag reflections, and considering how they change as a function of applied angle. In this case, you can see that there are several little boxes, and these are the regions that are being integrated over to construct the rocking curves to extract integrated intensity, and in the way that I was telling you about earlier for the, for the vortex lattice. One other thing to notice here is that you can see some features. The circle sort of associated around here. And so I believe that in this case this circle here represents the detector window. So you have your sample before the window to the detector tank, and that has a particular size, and in this case, our detectors were placed in such a way that some parts of the device would never receive any neutrons, because, because the neutron beam have to go through a whole load of the tank is through the window to get in. So, that's another thing to be aware of when setting up, setting up your particular experiment. Okay. I also wanted to use this to give an illustration of the difference between time of flight and monochromatic measurements. So the layout of the instrument that I showed you before. This one here is for the monochromatic measurement. And here you set the wavelengths for one measurement, given that you have a spread of wavelengths but you have a central you have a central wavelength and a relatively small spread. So if you look at a particular momentum transfer, then you just move the detector backwards and forwards, and you may play with the collimation to alter the beam divergence, as is most optimal for your experiment. If you're using a time of flight sound spectrometer, then in this case typically the detector is fixed. So the example that I've taken here is Taycan at Jay Park. The detector is fixed and you have multiple detectors actually to cover different angles. And then you basically in your experiment you are measuring multiple wavelengths at the same time. And it is the spread of the wavelengths that sets the momentum transfer range that you can access. In the end we're trying to get to the same quantities, but here we changed the move the detector distance to set the key range and here we play with the wavelengths to set the key range. Okay. And that's just a photo of D33 the instruments I mentioned, and it's neighbor D11 where this tank is I think 40 meters long. Very large. So if I'm looking at Bragg diffraction peaks, then I already showed you this video for the measuring niobium measuring the flux line lattice in niobium. And so we rotated the sample to get into the Bragg reflection condition for various peaks. And if we're doing our time of flight measurement, then in principle we can set our sample at a particular angle at a particular angle so not necessarily straight on but slightly off. And then we're using the different wavelengths to construct information about the peak. So here, this is basically one measurement. But what is changing between the different frames in this video is that we are looking at different wavelength bins. So the spot that you can see here is a spot from a skirmy on lattice. And you can see that it's moving across the detector. And that is not because the queue is changing but because the wavelength is changing so the spot always appears at the same queue. But we are able to pick up the spot of different wavelength values. And so if we're careful, then we can convert, we can end up with the same information as we would get from this. So eventually the information that we want to know is the relative intensity or the absolute intensity of a given reflection. And in this case, we can look at it in the way that I showed you before, we change the angles and then we sum over the intensities. And in this case, we are looking at the intensity at different wavelengths, and using that in a similar way to extract information. Now typically you should probably measure at a couple of different angles to get sufficient information here. But you can get quite a lot of information from one angle position. And you can also see that early on at small, there was a spot appearing here, so some kind of spurious spot that only appears at a certain point. And that is probably something, some scattering, some Bragg scattering from the window, I would have guessed. If the windows are made of silicon, then you can get, then you can get sharp Bragg peaks appearing at certain times. Okay, so that is a kind of illustration of the difference. And hopefully it gives you an idea of the kind of things you need to be aware of when considering the differences between what you're measuring in the monochromatic case and in the time of light case. Okay, so I also said that I would say something about unexpected problems. So I showed you this picture before, and I commented on the effect of gravity. And so, although this is something that one just has to correct for in our experiment in the kind of experiments that I do. And so being able to see that you have this effect actually motivated some experiments to try to see if, if, if when you created a gravitational potential well for the neutrons to exist in that you would also be able to get that you might also be able to see quantized states. And so an experiment was set up, this has nothing to do with the small angle neutron scattering parts, but it was motivated, I would say, in part by the original observation of the effects of gravity. So the idea is that the neutrons come in, they reflect off a mirror, there's an absorber. And then you end up basically with the neutron sitting at particular positions which are quantized quantized heights, let's say, so that we can indeed see bound quantum states in a gravitational potential well. This is the kind of key plot where you see that you're getting neutrons, like so, in these kinds of steps. So it's just something a little bit different. Right, I'm going to move on to the next section, but if you have any questions. Now would be a good time to ask. Okay. So, we're now going to look at the case of these two cases using a field to control the signal and exploring the role of anisotropy and other factors. So, I'm just going to start by thinking about the effects of alignment in a ferromagnet. So if we have a real ferromagnet, then we have these magnetic domains, as we talked about a little bit yesterday, and they form these closure circles to reduce stray fields in general. As illustrated here, we go from having many stray fields to a little bit of stray field to hardly any stray field. And so, and the boundaries between these, between these domains, we have the domain walls, which in this picture are drawn as straight line as thin lines, but as you may recall from yesterday, they have a particular length. And that length is set by the exchange interaction between the magnetic moments in this material, amongst other considerations. Okay. And so as we increase our magnetic field, then we will end up getting closer and closer to a saturation magnetization. And so supposing we're applying a field in a particular direction, we would start off with our domain pattern like so. We have this closure loop. And then as we apply the field in this particular direction, we will end up preferring certain directions of the magnetic moments. And eventually, some of these domains will win out. And then eventually the moments, those domains will start, the magnetic moments in them will all start to rotate to get closer and closer to the applied field. Until at last, we end up with all of the, all of the domain walls gone, and the magnetic moments applied parallel to the field, or the magnetic moment lines parallel to the applied field. So this picture here would be a point that is exactly on this dotted line, which is meant to represent the saturated magnetization. So as we move along this particular curve, we move through these different domain states. Okay, so if you actually do small angle neutron scattering experiments of what is happening in a material. So this is the magnetization curve like I just showed you for nano crystalline cobalt. The cobalt has is a furrow magnet. And you can make, you can make nano crystalline samples that to whether the average grain sizes is reasonably well controlled. So in this case it's about 10 nanometers for the grain size. And then if you do that. And you compare what you see in the small angle neutron scattering experiment as you move around this. As you move along these fields, then what you'll see is that here, basically, there should be very little difference between the orange star and the pink triangle. In fact, what you can see is that as you're moving up, you do see changes. So these changes here are expected to be due to the to the domain scattering. And the so due to the scattering from the domain walls, but also from the different contributions from the overall moment orientation of the different domains. And when you get in principle to this point here, then you might expect that in this case, all of the magnetic moments are pointing in the same direction. That means that there is no more magnetic contrast, because everything is doing the same thing. And therefore you would expect to have a diminished magnetic scattering. And here you have to think about the direction in which you are applying your given magnetic field. So if I'm applying my magnetic field parallel to the to the to the neutron beam. Then I will then everything in my detector should basically behaving be behaving in the same way. If I apply my magnetic field in a different direction, then I may might expect to get some differences between the vertical and the horizontal directions as we discussed. As we discussed yesterday. So in this particular case you can see small change it you can see changes smoothly as you as you move up in field. But then the difference between the 243 mini Tesla and the 1800 mini Tesla is perhaps larger than we might have expected if we just relied on the magnetization information because it would seem that we would expect only a very small difference. So this is a common issue when carrying out when looking at the behavior of when using small angle neutron scattering to study to study the behavior of this we basically see see a lot more changes than we're sensitive to in the in the magnetization. And that brings into question the idea of whether we can really use this as a background so what when I said that if we're looking at this there is no magnetic contrast what I am implicitly interested in doing is using using this as a means as something that I can then subtract off all of the data to to get information about the magnetic components only because I want to try to make the assumption that what I see here is just the nuclear is just the nuclear behavior the nuclear small angle neutron scattering. And then ideally I would subtract a couple of this subtract this from all of the others and then I would have my magnetic scattering. But because I see these changes here it does and indeed if you keep on going you'll still see some small changes. It does bring into question how high in field you have to go to actually be achieving to be actually be able to use this as a background. So, yes, so as it says here, the neutron can see transverse deviations in the magnetization long after the magnetic magnetization measurements are giving you no further information. So, one way to get around this there are there are several ways to get around this. One of those ways is with polarization analysis because that gives you a very clear indication of what you are seeing. But as I mentioned yesterday this can cause problems with the reduces your flux. I'm going to give an example of applying as large a field as you can with the field parallel to the beam and using this to give you a contrast free background. So, why put the field parallel to the beam so the idea is that then qx and qy should behave in the same the same way. And therefore you can carry out a radial averaging of the data and that will improve your statistics on that data and you don't have to worry about including any angular corrections, which you might do. In the case of yesterday I showed you an example of magnetite, and there you have to include a trigonometric correction to be able to handle the data correctly. If you're looking away from the strict true vertical and strict true horizontal. So, if you do that so this is taking this is basically taking these nano crystalline cobalt systems and applying as larger field as is as is possible. If you're wondering about the field values here. These might seem like strange values to have set. And the reason that these are particularly odd values is due to the application of the de magnetization factor. So you may recall I mentioned that yesterday you have to take into account the de magnetization factor associated with the shape of your particles. In this case the field applied in for this year was 16 Tesla. And but after application of the de magnetization factor that is an effective field experienced by the particles of 14.71 Tesla and similarly for all of these others. They correspond to. They correspond to more intuitive numbers that you would have applied the field that before making the correction. So what we can see here is that we're going through a particular we're looking at the, so on the right you can see the magnetization as a function of field with the various points measured. And as you can see 15 Tesla 14.7 Tesla is an order of magnitude well there's significantly larger than the other fields apply. So the hope is that this really is getting rid of everything and that this can be used as a true measurement, and so that you can extract the, the magnetic information from what's being seen from what's being seen here. So we have all of the individual fields illustrated here. And then the idea is to subtract is to subtract this information off. In these pictures this has all been normalized so that can, so it has all been corrected so and reduced so that one has absolute units for the small angle cross section. And this is what the subtractions look like if we subtract off the orange high field data. So you can now see that the basically we are reproduced we are getting a similar pattern, a similar type of shape of pattern qualitatively with some changes in the apparent intensity as we increase the field. Okay, so there are a number of things you can do this this particular experiment. The aim was to try to explore what was happening in the low q region with the aim of trying to see if there is some something equivalent to the Guinea approximation that we can think about quantitatively when looking at magnetic materials. So I know you've already learned about the beginning approximation. In terms of thinking about the radius of gyration associated with a polymer or a particle a particle size or shape. And that is based on certain assumptions about sharp edges. And as I mentioned yesterday and tried to mention just before now, in the case of our domains or magnetic structures we don't really have sharp interfaces. We have relatively, relatively diffuse interfaces that take place over a particular length scale. And that length scale is set by the strength of the magnetic interactions between between the individual magnetic moments. And so that we can we can construct what's called a micro magnetic or magnetic exchange length, which is basically this term here so a here is the exchange constant for our particular in this case cobalt for the exchange interaction. And so this is a length scale. And basically we have to find a way to incorporate that length scale in and see if we can in fact, in a perfect case, or in a, in a, how do you call it, a simple case, let's say, and see if we can actually get something that looks a bit like the Guinea law. So the that's the so that these nano crystalline cobalt systems are good for that because they have this kind of well controlled and particulate size and cobalt is pretty well understood as magnetic materials go. And so here, what has been done is so this is the data originally showed you and then one subtracts off the high field, and you end up with the curves I showed you just before so this is the this is the this is the cost section against the wave vector. And so if we now plot the logarithm of that against q squared, then you can see we get these nice straight lines. There are. So they're very well behaved here and then we start to see very small deviations up here as we get to lower fields but basically, we can we can basically get a straight line in this straight lines here when we apply that when we apply these changes to the axes. And that means that indeed we can think about this as behaving in a way similar to the Guinea approximation. But what we have to do is instead of just taking a radius of duration based on the particle shape we have to introduce an additional term relating to the magnetic exchange link so this contribution here. And so you can see. So the, the slope of these lines is used to get this this quantity this r squared. And then this is plotted against the applied field. And to give the to give a straight line to show that indeed in this case we can in fact develop and show that we are seeing something like this. And to show that indeed in this case we can in fact develop and show that we are seeing something like the Guinea law, but for magnetic materials if we make the appropriate additions to the to incorporate the information about the magnetic interfaces. Okay, so that is basically all that I have to say for the examples here. I'll stop.