From the SiliconANGLE Media office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Now, here's your host, Stu Miniman. Hi, and welcome to a special presentation of theCUBE in Amazon Web Services ReInvent 2016 preview. Happy to welcome to the program a first time guest, Joe Cansella, who is the founder and CTO of Cloud Health Technologies, based locally here in Boston, Massachusetts. Joe, thanks for joining me. Yeah, thanks for having me here. All right, we always love when we get to get the founders on, Joe. Working in the cloud space, you've been in tech for a lot of years. Give our audience a little bit about your background and what led to starting Cloud Health. Sure, so I spent the majority of my career actually building software that manages infrastructure and applications. So it's not a big stretch to think that I would go start a cloud management company. But I started Cloud Health in 2012 at the time. The cloud was still emerging and it wasn't clear that there was going to be such a dominance of Amazon and public cloud. I just saw a complexity problem evolving that I think I'd seen a couple times before in my career where just the complexity of managing applications and infrastructures and services in the cloud was outpacing our ability to contain it. So I set out to build a company around that and that was a little over four years ago. Yeah, Joe, speak to that complexity issue because people, you know, cloud, wait, it's simple, I swipe a credit card, it's easy to consume and do that. So what specifically are the complexity issues that the cloud helps helping to tackle? Yeah, so I think you step back and you look, the great power of the cloud comes with one great cost and that is complexity, which is, you know, the amount of effort you can put in to actually securing or driving cost efficiencies or driving, you know, performance and availability across your cloud infrastructure, it gives you a lot of flexibility, a lot of expressiveness and you can do fantastic things but it comes with that cost of complexity and just managing it as you scale it. So, I mean, I personally confronted this which is in the 2011 timeframe I built out a distributed system that was across multiple public clouds that was thousands of quarts of compute, petabytes of storage and when you do that you start to realize that the cloud is a disruptive innovation but it needs to be harnessed and it needs to be controlled and it needs to be governed and so what I set out to do with cloud health was to build an open management platform that integrates with the tools that you use. So these could be from any number of vendors from, you know, Chef and Ansible and New Relic and Datadog and AlertLogic and be able to harness what they do in a single pane of glass where you can actually drive, really I distill down to three core value propositions, integrated reporting, integrated recommendations and then active policy management where you can drive unified governance. Okay, Joe, can you give us some of the speeds and feeds of the company itself, how many employees you have, how many products, how many customers? Sure, so in terms of customers, we're just under 700 customers so it's been really rapid growth, I think just by pure KPIs, we're actually one of the fastest growing SaaS companies in Northeastern United States. It's been a bit of a rocket ship in terms of the growth of companies at just under 140 people right now and we've done all that, I mean if you look we've been pretty much doubling both in customer count as well as in employee count over the last several years and then last year alone we did over 400% growth from a revenue perspective. Congratulations and what situation is the funding? Oh yeah, so we are a venture-backed startup so we've raised three rounds of funding so we raised an A, B and a C both from East and West Coast so we have some Boston-based investors as well as Silicon Valley-based investors and total funding in is 40 million over three rounds. Great and you mentioned some of the services that you work with, you know, Chef Puppet Ansible. How about from a cloud standpoint, obviously we're talking about Amazon but what other, you know, what solutions do you plug into? Sure, so we're a hybrid cloud solution so we actually support, we effectively have four products in the market today so we have an Amazon product that's market leading, very rich product, you should see it on the show floor. We have an Azure product, we have a Google product, we also have a data center product that actually supports private clouds and supports physical infrastructure inside your data center.  It is, yeah, it's completely agnostic of what the underlying infrastructure is. Okay, and it's four different products, do you have a hybrid option or how does that fit together? It all fits into a single pane of glass so you could actually start with us with just using our Amazon product which is really, that tends to be the most common pattern across our customers is our customers start with Amazon and then they say, you know what? This, the insight, the value, the governance, the reporting, you know, what I'm getting, I need that same efficiency back in my data center. Can I have that too? And so typically that results in them turning on the product. Often the path back into the data center goes through migration. One of the things our product does is it makes great migration recommendations which is you turn on our product, we actually discover your infrastructure and we understand the workloads and we can assess how to cost effectively what and how to cost effectively move infrastructure into the cloud. Great, and Joe, to speak a little bit to the use cases there, kind of a low watermark that customers need to hit before they're ready for your technology, what kind of leads them to start using you? It's a good question, it's all about complexity which is that complexity that we kind of opened with. Once that complexity feels like it's starting to get out of control and for us we start to see it, you see it based on the amount you spend in the cloud which is when you start doing Dev and test in the cloud and you have really small number of workloads and fairly low complexity, you don't need cloud health. And you can pretty much get away with whatever vendors tools you're working with and that's sufficient. It's as you start to grow, you start to confront that complexity and you need some centralized way to actually manage it. And that's where cloud health steps in. If you look at the top 50 companies that are pushing the bounds in the cloud today, I guess is the vast majority of them are actually cloud health users. Great, so what's it like living in kind of the Amazon ecosystem? Are you guys in the marketplace? Is there any kind of partnership with them? How much does Amazon kind of impinge on some of the services that you're offering? Sure, so Amazon's been a great partner. I mean they've really helped fuel the growth over the last four years. We've been very happy to work with them and we work on them multiple levels from, we work with the product managers. One of the keys to being in the middle of this nexus of what's happening in the cloud is, and I say this to everybody I meet at Amazon, which is the key for us is not that Amazon might not infringe or displace some feature that we might come out with. The key is for us is to always make sure we're complimenting and extending what they're doing and what other partners that we work with are doing. And that's the key to our business, which is once you bring together eight or 10 different products to go manage your cloud and you have hybrid cloud infrastructure, you have one or more public clouds, the complexity there is great enough to justify a really strong product to help solve that. The key is to understand where the opportunities are and make sure you're driving real customer value. All right, so Joe, it's going to be my fourth year going to Amazon re-invent, really excited we're going to have the cube there for the fourth year. Have to say it is by far the most impressive show that I go to year after year, just the growth of just the size of the show it's affected over 25,000 people this year.  It's just, you know, amazing to watch. What are you looking at for the show this year? Any kind of themes or, you know, key things that you're excited about? I always look forward to the themes at re-invent. So, and I've been going for four years as well. So, I think there's several themes that I'm kind of expecting to see a lot around. So, one is serverless, you know, I don't know if you're kind of plugged into what's happening there. Yeah, so for audience that haven't heard, it's the AWS Lambda feature. Sometimes people struggle with that serverless term. It's heard functions as a service is another alternative or, you know, we can call it, I think, Fred or Jim. If you don't like that, Brian Graceley, who does the Cloudcast podcast, they're launching a serverless podcast. But yeah, I'm familiar with it. I'm not sure how much of our audience is familiar with it. Sure, yeah. Why serverless? Exciting.  So, you look like when we had digital cameras, the original digital cameras came in a box and looked suspiciously like film-based cameras. And today that isn't how you engage with digital photography, right? And I think the same has been happening with Cloud, which is today we're starting to see the glimpse of what the cloud could become, which is, I think much of the cloud over the last several years has been better virtualization. Consumption-based on-demand, third-party managed better virtualization. But things like serverless and a lot of the platform services that Amazon is innovating on, I think that's the future of the cloud. That's where the disruption is fully realized. And so I would be surprised if there's not some big announcements around that. So that's just one of several things, I think. And Joe, specifically, if I'm reading into what you're saying correctly, it's that potential to really change the way I build and create applications, right? Exactly. Which has tended to be, I mean, to the long pole in the tent, I've heard a lot of discussion about, do we just lift and shift to the cloud? VMware on AWS, is that an okay way to go? Any feedback on your end on that time to solution which is coming next year?  I think one of the likely scenarios is, I mean, the truth is, is that most companies have VMware are already doing something in the cloud. So it makes great sense for VMware to actually have a play in Amazon that actually makes good business sense for them. But I do think the future of infrastructure is not going to have servers involved in it. And it's not going to have virtualized servers involved in it. And that may be the 10-year future or the five-year future. And just to clarify, when you say there won't be servers, it's that the application won't have to worry about that. At the back end, somewhere, there's compute that it lives on. Yeah, sadly, that's not true. But yeah, no, absolutely. I think the- It was like cloud, the old Larry Ellison, cloud's nothing but water vapor. It's like, no, it all lives on hardware eventually, but absolutely. No, the consumer will, it'll be an abstraction to the consumer at some point in time. So I find that exciting. I think enterprise, I would expect another big push around enterprise. I felt like two years ago, I felt like the theme was the enterprise is coming. Last year, I felt like the theme was the enterprises here. I feel like there's been the shift where I think most cloud providers were expecting the enterprise to come to the cloud. And I think that's happened, but I think there's a shift to realizing that the cloud has to come to the enterprise now. And so I think, I would expect you're going to see a number of things around that. And I think you can already see some of the announcements around some of the migration services that have come out over the course of this year and some that are in preview and beta, gives a glimpse of the fact that Amazon realizes that the vast majority of infrastructure still does not reside in Amazon. And reducing that friction, reaching out and embracing complex hybrid cloud deployments is going to be key to their long-term success. Okay, Joe, give us a little bit of insight. Any announcements coming from cloud health or what can we expect to see from your company at the show? Sure, yeah, so if you've been following us, there's a number of announcements that we've done around security, which is, so key to cloud health is is we seek to complement and extend the products that matter to our customers. And our customers use a wide variety of different products from a security perspective. And so we don't seek to displace those products, but there's a piece of security around just configuration monitoring that is just our customers are struggling with and fits right into the unified governance that cloud health drives. So what we did is we launched a new feature in our platform. It comes just as part of the base platform. You don't have to pay extra for it. And what it does is it does active governance across your security of your infrastructure. It applies best practice rules. We're also including third-party benchmarks like Center for Internet Security so that you can actually get quick time to value and understand how well are you complying with third-party standards. It's just a great way to actually understand the health of the security or infrastructure. Another announcement we're making is just around hybrid cloud, which is the single pane of glass, the ability to have a single dashboard where you see all of your infrastructure across all of your public and private clouds is just surprisingly powerful today, which is it's a struggle for CIOs and enterprises today to really get a handle on that. And when they've had cloud health for the public cloud, there's been a natural gravitation to say, you know, well, why can't I have that for my on-premise infrastructure? That's another big announcement. We're also announcing our ADS support, application discovery service from Amazon. Yeah, I'm interested to see, you know, Amazon for the last couple of years has talked about, you know, customers being all in on Amazon. We talk to customers, it's a multi-cloud world and even, you know, tend to look more from an application standpoint and say, okay, you talked to a customer, I'm all in on Amazon.  Of course you are. Are you using Salesforce? Of course you are. Are you using SAP and Oracle? Yeah, I'm probably using some of those too. And, you know, where do those all live? Well, some of them on Amazon, but many of them, you know, not in that environment. And how do I get my arms around, you know, managing and, you know, orchestrating all of the various pieces? And where does my data live? My data lives lots of different places and, you know, getting access to that is really challenging. Yes, it's a crazy world we've unleashed, which is, it's very complex, it's very hybrid, it's multi-vendor, it's heterogeneous and with that comes complexity. And I think, you know, that is the whole mission. My mission in life is to just collapse that complexity of managing disparate services, disparate vendors, disparate data that might reside in multiple locations. Yeah, Joe, I mean, think back to the data center world. The problem that we had in, you know, IT, I would have all these various pieces and therefore managing, you know, each one of those temples that I created for all my applications was a bit of a mess. I thought cloud was supposed to give us homogeneity, but as you pointed out, we've got a lot of complexity because, you know, lots of different services across multiple different platforms and, you know, we need solutions to help us pull those together. It sounds like that's one of the things you're tackling. It is, yeah, yeah. And I think that that's essential to our customers. Last thing just to hit on is, right-sizing is, we have a series of features that we're announcing and have announced around right-sizing. And that's just the constant optimization, which is one of the things we do that's really unique is we're trying to automate your business processes. So instead of you managing at a low level, like the cloud-embraced automation at a configuration management and provisioning level very early, but it hasn't at a business automation level where you want to say, here's the economics I need to manage that application to. Here's the security I need it managed to. Here's the usage, the performance, the availability, and then enabling software to actually automatically drive that efficiency. What we do with our, with CloudHouse is we actually have a policy engine that has integrated into it, business automation with the ability to actually go drive changes back to your cloud. So you can think of it as just this constant optimization engine that's looking for opportunities to actually make you more secure or more cost-effective or more performant. All right, Joe, last thing I want to get into is, you talked to a lot of customers. Where's their mindset at? How do they think about cloud? Do they really have a clear strategy yet? And ones that are looking at Amazon, what's their mindset at? Yeah, so almost all of our customers, large portion of our customers are very passionate about Amazon. And many of them you'll actually see here in re-invent. So what we, when we look at what our customers are saying, one of the biggest problems they're confronting right now is just governance, which is the model of the cloud. The cloud came kind of bottoms up. It came from line of business inward to central IT. And so the struggle is that you have infrastructure that's no longer being centrally managed like the infrastructure of 10 years ago. You have applications no longer being centrally managed. But yet you reside in an enterprise where that centralized governance is absolutely essential to what you do. So we see customers struggling with adopting a new model where they can have centralized governance and distributed management. And I think there's a missing process model. In the same way that DevOps kind of came on the scene and helped us bridge the gap between, the impedance mismatch between operations and engineering, the same thing needs to happen across just governance, across line of business and central IT. So that's one of the challenges we see. Security is a constant ongoing. I mean, four or five years ago, security was the concern for why you wouldn't move to the cloud. Now, everyone's moved beyond that. Now it's just how do I keep up with it? How do I do it better? And in many cases, customers are actually more secure when they actually move their infrastructure into a public cloud like Amazon. And that results from the ability to actually take advantage of all these different underlying components that allow them to put controls in place that were harder to do inside their data center. So that's a common theme we see. And then just overall governance, just being able to automate that governance and being able to drive change without having to put human beings in the middle of it is another common theme we see. Yeah, just on the security point, we definitely found, it used to be a little bit of barriers like, oh, wait, security in cloud, something I need to worry about. What people found was the engage. It's an opportunity to at least restart that discussion on security because if you hadn't changed your security processes in a while, you're really out of date. And my friends that are in the security industry is the thing you can do the most is be up to date. And when I'm using Amazon, what version of AWS are you using? It's a joke, right? Because you're on the latest version and therefore they can make sure to patch and fix everything. You mentioned governance. I'm curious, the customers you talk to, just to global events concern people around governance. I think about Brexit over in the UK, political situation here in the US. Amazon, US based, but very much a global footprint today. It does, I think one of the things cloud providers and especially Amazon has done well is they've put regions in all the places that matter, which gives data locality. So it gives the ability, just like the expressiveness of the security features that are available from Amazon, allow you to actually do certain things that make you more secure in the data center. You actually have that same expressiveness from a data locality perspective. So I think when it comes down to the mobility of data and being able to have data reside where it, in country or in region, there's the ability to do that now today. And that wasn't possible just a few years ago. So I think there's a concern there, but there's also a lot of building blocks to actually deal with different types of compliance that exists out there, different types of governmental regulations that exists out there. And then even within a enterprise, just being able to deal with your own policies and best practices around how to manage applications and infrastructure. All right, Joe, I want to give you the last word. You've been watching cloud since the early days. What excites you about today? What are just kind of the things that going forward are going to be able to help companies grow more, improve their businesses? Yeah, I feel like a lot of people feel like the cloud is much further along than it actually is, which is I think we're on the cusp of the next interesting part of the cloud, which is to me this is where the transformation really begins. This is, if you go back and equate it to the dot-com boom, to me I feel like we're entering 1996 of the dot-com boom, which is there's enough building blocks, there's enough expressiveness, there's the opportunity to really innovate and is really there. So I expect people are going to start to construct different types of applications that not only leverage the cloud, but would not be possible without the cloud. And I think once that happens, I think you're going to start to see a transformation and almost like a flywheel acceleration that will force businesses that really weren't innovating all along to actually play catch up to their peers that took the chance early in the cloud and drove that innovation. So I think we're in an exciting time. I think it's, this market's moved faster than any market I have ever been in. And just looking forward to the next few years of seeing how it plays out. Absolutely, we sometimes use the sports analogy. If we have moved on in innings, it's probably a double header. So, you know, lots of innovation left to go in the cloud space. Joe, really appreciate you coming. Help us give a preview for AWS 2016. Be sure to check out cloud health booth at Amazon re-invent and check out siliconangle.tv for all the coverage there, including our coverage of AWS re-invent 2016. Thanks so much. You've been watching theCUBE.


Hello everyone, and welcome to our last module. Wow, I know this course has been a lot of work, but I hope that you are as proud of yourselves as I am of you. The amount of work that you've done in the course development, along with helping each other, along with ideas and encouragement, is truly wonderful. So congratulations! This video will give you an overview of your EMI final portfolio. For your final portfolio, you will be taking some of the materials that you have created throughout this course, revising them as needed, and putting them into one document that can be posted and shared with other professionals. So what is going to be included in your final portfolio? Well remember that you will hopefully share this portfolio with other instructors or your department, or you can present portions of it in a conference. Therefore, it is useful to put everything together in a way that is clear and organized. There are three main sections. First, you'll have a short introductory statement. Second, you'll have your EMI course materials, and this will be the longest part. And third, you'll include a brief summary of revisions that you have made to the portfolio contents. Let's look at each of those parts in a bit more detail. For your introductory statement, you will write two to three sentences welcoming readers to your portfolio. An example introductory statement is, welcome to my EMI final portfolio. This collection demonstrates my work over eight weeks to create materials that I can use in my EMI course, Introduction to Biology. In this portfolio, I will include the following, a syllabus for an EMI course, a lesson plan, an assignment and rubric, and a learning in an EMI course tip sheet for students. The second part of your portfolio is the bulk of it, your actual EMI course materials. These include at least the following. One, your EMI syllabus from group two share module two, two, your EMI lesson plan from module seven, three, your rubric assignment from module six, and finally four, your learning in an EMI course tip sheets for your students, which you made in modules three through five. If you have other course materials or photos you want to include in your EMI final portfolio, you can include them as well, but that is optional. For example, maybe you want to include a photograph of your students during a small group discussion. That would be great. Be sure to get any students permission before you share their photograph and please include a short description of any photographs or extra course materials that you include. Or maybe you want to include a sample outline of your main lecture notes for students. That would be great as well. This is your portfolio, so please include additional materials if you have them available. Just be sure to include the required materials for sure. The first step to assembling this part of your portfolio is to go back and review each of these materials so that you can decide what you would like to revise. In order to make revisions, you can look at feedback you received from your peers or from me as your instructor. You can also look back at content from the different modules. Another great way to get ideas is to share your content with other EMI professionals who are not in this course or with students in an EMI course and ask them for their feedback. Here is an example of changes you might make to contents of your portfolio based on feedback. Let's say that in this course in the peer review you received from your classmates about your lesson plan. They said that the lecture seemed to be too long and the interactivities seemed to be too short. Your classmates were concerned that students would become disengaged during the class time.  You found some content that you think you can take out so that the lectures aren't so long and you decided you will change the order of the class time so that it moves to this order from warm-up to mini lecture to a small group discussion to a mini lecture to a concept map activity in small groups and then regroup and summarize. You create a new lesson plan on the template provided in module 7 and you put that lesson plan into your EMI final portfolio. I encourage you to make at least three revisions to your contents before you submit them in your final portfolio. The final part of your portfolio is a brief summary of the revisions to the portfolio contents. For this you will write a summary of the changes that you made to your portfolio documents based on instructor or peer feedback for about one to two hundred words. This can be in a paragraph form or a bulleted list. For the example I gave earlier you revised your lesson plan to be more interactive. Therefore in this section you can write something such as the following I revised my lesson plan by making it more interactive for the students. I shortened my one 30-minute lecture to two 10-minute lectures and I added another interactive activity between those mini lectures. I added a discussion. That way students can discuss the ideas before the next mini lecture and they can do a concept map activity at the end of class so that I can see how well they understand the content. Then you would go on to explain the other revisions that you made. Please contact me if you have any questions with creating or submitting your final portfolio. I very much look forward to looking through all of your hard work.


The Equitable Life Assurance Society presents this is your FBI. This is your FBI, an official broadcast from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation presented as a public service by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and the Equitable Society's representative in your community. You own your own home or are you planning to buy or build a home? Then we suggest that you have pencil and paper ready to make notes when the Equitable Life Assurance Society sponsor of this program tells you about America's finest plan for home ownership. The announcement on this plan is due in about 14 minutes.  Tonight's FBI file, The Fugitive Horse Player. There are many decent honest people connected with the sport of horse racing. These people are interested in trying to keep the sport clean and well conducted. However, there are millions of loose dollars connected with the business and where you find millions of loose dollars you will also find many loose characters. Parasites who will engage in any amount of hard work to make a dishonest dollar. Such a parasite of racing is the pout. A genius with patches in his pants who offers to make you a millionaire overnight. Sometimes the price is ten dollars, sometimes the price is five dollars and sometimes as you will learn from the night's case from the files of your FBI he takes his payment in blood. Just about the time a recent meeting opened at an eastern racetrack a shabby office was opened in the large city nearby. There was more than coincidence in the twin openings because the office was to be the headquarters for Joe Muncie. Official title, Joe Muncie Toute. Muncie, a trimly built dapper man is sitting at his desk. Brownie, his girl, his secretary, his life who just entered the office in the small reception room. Joe. Come right in, Miss Brown. What is it? Oh, not yet a customer, Brownie. Are you kidding? Don't worry, baby, that code ad I put in the morning record will bring them in. The place to find suckers is at the track. We'll get a bite right here. Don't say that word bite of making me hungry. Look, baby, I don't like this no-dole routine any more than you do. Then let's get out to the track and find some Muncie. Brownie, you don't have to go looking for horse players. They think you know something, they'll come looking for you. That ad in the paper will bring us a cup. Yeah, listen, is she gonna tell you? Somebody come in. Probably the landlord. Right, open the door, open the door, open the door. Okay. Yes, I saw your ad in the morning record. Don't keep the gentleman waiting, Miss Brown. Show him right in. Come inside, please. Thank you. This gentleman has come here in regard to your ad, Mr. Muncie. Oh, splendid, splendid. That'll be all, Miss Brown. Yes, sir. Uh... Sit down, Mr.... Adams. Sit down, Mr. Adams. Muncie's the name. Joe Muncie. How do you do? Fine, fine. Mr. Adams is a new customer. You're entitled to know about the firm. Established 1933, 15 years of satisfied customers. We pick them, you'll play them without scanty. I see. And I suppose, like the dozens of other turf lovers that have been here this morning, you're interested in today's cold special. Well, yes. You couldn't have picked a better day, Mr. Adams. I can underwrite the fact that today's pig will be on the bill daily from wire to wire. Well, I... I'm afraid I don't understand. Oh, just parlance of the turf, Mr. Adams. These horses are sure winners. Well, now, how much is the cold special?  Usual tariff is 20 bar, but I'm letting you in for a saw. Oh, what's a saw? $10. Oh, well, that's certainly reasonable enough. Let me see now. Goodness, I thought I had $10. I'm afraid I haven't anything less than 100 this world. I'd be very... 100? Yes, can you change it? Well, not at the moment. I just sent my bookkeeper to the bank to make a deposit. Well, now, maybe I can go downstairs and get some change. No, no, no. Wait a minute. Wait a minute, Mr. Adams. Just sit right down there. Very well. Mr. Adams, I'm going to ask you a very direct question. Yes. Just what kind of money are you prepared to bet? Well, if I thought a horse had a real good chance, I'd be willing to wager $1,000.  You said $1,000? That's right. $1,000. Well, that doesn't... I'm going to break a rule of a lifetime, Mr. Adams.  Well, now, how much does that cost? Absolutely nothing. Well, I don't understand.  All you got to do is bet 20% for me. What do you mean? If you bet a grand, then you'll lay two yards. 200 that is. You bet that much for me.  That certainly sounds fair enough. I'll have to go to get the money, though. Well, okay. Okay. But you'll be back here at noon, and you can count on it. Well, I'll be getting a lot. Okay, Mr. Adams. Goodbye, Mr. Muncie. Goodbye, Mr. Adams. Goodbye. Sweetheart, did we just make a score? That was a sweetest... I heard everything. What's with that tone of voice? What's with letting that short ten bucks get away? Chicken feet, honey. The sucker is good for a bundle. If he comes back... He'll come back. And what's the super special you dreamed up about spitting the scratch sheet? Breakaway in a third. That's the super special. And if he blows the duke... Besides, we've got 200 going for us for nothing. Before we're through, baby, we'll have to wind up with 20, 50, maybe 100 Gs. Yeah. You got two bits? I'm hungry. Farther downtown, that same morning in the local office of the FBI, Special Agent Terrell is just entering the office of an assistant to the agent in charge. Did you want to see me, Mr. Naylor? Yes, Terrell. Say, do you ever hear of a town called Bentley? No. It's about 100 miles upstate. It must just be a wide place on the road. It's bigger than that. It's at least big enough to have a bank where a teller could get away with $28,000. The teller didn't show up this morning. He left Bentley some time after five o'clock yesterday. They think he's come here? They think it's possible, but they have no evidence yet. Is there any friends or relatives here? None that they know of. He could be back in the morning. The missing teller's name is Fred Williams. He's probably changed that by now. Yes. He'd been with the bank 12 years, one of their most trusted employees. Did he take the $28,000 all in one lump? No, the defalcations cover a period of a year. Oh. But he did take a little over 10,000 of it yesterday. Must have known the examiners would do then. Not necessarily. Anyway, do a thorough checkup on his friends and personal habits. Right. It's almost post-time. You want the glasses, Mr. Adams? Oh, yes. Thank you. Now, let me see. Which one is breakaway, Mr. Muncie? Uh, that, uh, chestnut coat with number seven on the saddlecloth. Number seven, oh, yes. Oh, he's beautiful. Yeah. He'd be even more beautiful when he put his number up there on the tote board. I don't like that. Outside post position. Mr. Downey, breakaway can stop for lunch at the head of the stretch with these pigs and still win it. Well, I'm glad you're so confident, Mr. Muncie. You know how confident I am? No. With the price up to two to one, I think you ought to press. Press? Yeah, press. Send in another thousand. This is the better of the year. I hope you're right. You're going to press that? Oh, no, no, no. I'm satisfied. We're winning $2,000 on a race is enough for me. Oh, I get it. You want to see if my merchandise is any good first, eh? There's still something like that. Mr. Adams, the last time I had a loser, they closed his schools for three days. It was also Christmas time. Ah, too late to make another bet now, even if you wanted to. When that bell rings, the windows are closed. I wish this race would start. It'd be out of there any second now. Keep your eye in that outside store. Where's Brick? He must be in a pack. Come on, breakaway. We got left. Left at the post. Oh, goodness, there goes my thousand. You breakaway. He's breaking. He's making a move. Breakway is making a move. Is that good, Mr. Muncie? Come on, breakaway. Mr. Muncie, how much do I win? Well, they ain't put the prices up yet, but you should win over $2,000. Oh, that's wonderful. Mr. Adams, let me tell you something. This is only the beginning. Oh, hello, Tarot. Just get in. Get anything that might give us a lead on that bank teller? I think so. What is it? He's probably right here in town. How do you know? I talked to a friend of his. He told me the teller had just taken a sudden interest in playing horses, which probably accounts for the series of defulcations over the past year. And since there's a race meet going on here, that's probably where he is with the last 10,000 he took. You think so? Then I guess you and I will be out at the track this afternoon. Let me see that newspaper, will you? I'm reading something. I want to look at the selections. You got eight taut sheets there now. I'm making up a consensus. We can lose without that. Where's Adam? He's due at the hotel here any minute now.  That's figured. Well, look, we made $400 yesterday. We got to put it to work, don't we? Remember that old French saying, you can't accumulate unless you speculate. Joe. Take a look at this guy's picture and paper here. Huh? Who does he look like? Hey. It's Adams. Yeah. Only his real name is Williams. What's he getting?  Skipped out in short $28,000. Hey. No wonder he has that bundle. Oh, this ain't so good. What do you mean? Well, the guy's red hot. The law picks him up. He's a cinch to tell who helped him spend that money. You're forgetting one thing, sweetheart. The law ain't got him yet, but we have. I don't get it. Today's specialist is going to cost Mr. Adams. Let me... That must be him now. Let me handle it. Okay. Thank you. Hello, Miss Brown. Well, all set for another day of fun and speculation? Yes, indeed. I certainly hope we're as fortunate as we were yesterday. Well, I cased the card and come up with nothing but winners in every race. That's right, Mr. Adams. Well, that's very reassuring. Just one thing, no, Mr. Adams. What's that? Today we bet a little different. How? Today you're laying a thousand a race for me. Okay. Here's a nice picture of you, Mr. Adams. Or should I say Mr. Williams? Oh. That's why we're betting my way. But now, look here, I can't afford to bet that kind of money for you. I have to win a lot of money myself. No, kid. See, I've got to pay the bank back that $28,000. And betting on those winners is the only way I can raise it. The bank can wait, Mr. Adams. Oh, no, no. Look, you got no choice. Oh, yes, I have. I can discontinue our relationship right now. Joey's walking out. Oh, no, he ain't. It's finally picked a winner. And now, before the FBI file on the fugitive horse player resumes, as it will in just a moment, here's that important message for homeowners and home buyers. This week, at the Equitable Life Assurance Society, somebody asked how much it was wise for the average man earning $5,000 a year to pay when he buys a home on mortgage. The answer was $12,500. Or two and a half times his yearly income. On this sound basis, a man getting $50 a week won't be over his head if he buys a six or $7,000 house. But no matter what your income is, it will pay you to investigate the Equitable Society's Assured Home Ownership Plan, which offers you five important advantages. One, the mortgage is canceled, paid off in full if owner dies. Every month, $12,000 in full if owner dies. Every dollar previously paid on principle is returned in full to the widow along with the canceled mortgage. Two, a special cash fund is built up, always ready to be used if financial emergency threaten the home. Three, this cash fund increases as the mortgage shrinks. It can be used to shorten the term of the mortgage, pay off a 20-year mortgage, for example, in as little as 14 years. It's not at interest, not at 6%, not at 5%, but at only 4%. Five, liberal allowance to cover title search, lawyers' fees, and other closing costs. No broker's commission, no bonus charges. Frankly, there is no other plan like this anywhere. The Equitable Society calls it America's finest plan for home ownership. It protects you against the two major hazards of home mortgages, death and hard times. So if you're planning to buy or build a house, or if you now own a house, get complete information on the assured home ownership plan from your Equitable Society representative. That's the Equitable Society. E-Q-U-I-T-A-B-L-E. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. And now back to the FBI file. The Fugitive Horse Player. Racing touts fall into the category of chisels. And all chisels are unscrupulous opportunists. To them, money is something to be gotten by any method, even though it be criminal, as in tonight's case from the files of your FBI. The fact that the victim of the tout called Joe Muncie was himself guilty of a crime does not lessen Muncie's guilt in striking down his victim and robbing him. Rather, it expresses the meanness of his crime. It is nearly noon now, some two hours after Joe Muncie is struck down and robbed the absconding bank teller Fred Williams, alias Fred Adams in Muncie's hotel room. The FBI's assistant to the agent-encharged nailer is sitting at his desk when Special Agent Terrell enters. I'm ready to leave for the racetrack whenever you are, Mr. Nailer. Well, since we're driving out, maybe we better get started. I gave some prints of the teller's photo but between us all we should be able to... Wait a minute. Nailer speaking. Yes? What? Are you sure? No, no, just send him in the regular way. Right. We don't have to go to the racetrack, Terrell. Why not? Just watch who comes through that door. Mr. Nailer. Come in, Mr. Williams. Well, for the love of... I'm a little surprised. Well, that's hardly the word for it, Williams. I was going to give myself up anyway after I got the money back. But getting it back is out of the question now. Does that bruise on your face have something to do with it being out of the question? Yes, sir. Then let's have your story, Williams. From the beginning. Waiter. Yes, sir? Let's have a check. Right. Come on, baby. Finish that coffee. Don't rush me. Somebody passed the law. We have to get there for the first race. I got the winner. You don't want to miss a sure thing, do you? You've been reading your own ads, relax. But, honey, I... I'm not so sure I even want to go to the track. Look, I've only got the first four races handy, can't we? We blow after the fourth. Okay? What about Adam Williams, whatever his name is?  Yeah, aren't you? Honey, Mr. Williams is hotter than the inside of a glove. Now, look, we've played our first four races. Meet us back to town, get the car, and head west. Are you sure this is the room Williams was slugged in? Yes. Use the pass key, Tarot. Right. Didn't lose any time getting out of here. Come on. Let's see what we can find. No telling where they're headed for. They'll leave a trace wherever it is. What do you mean? Muncie's got all those $100 bills Williams took from the bank. Oh. And we've already sent out lists of the serial numbers to all field officers this morning. Good. Anything in the desk over there? No, nothing. I guess we'd better... Wait a minute. What did you find? This scratch sheet in the racing form. I think we'd better go out to the track after all. Why? Muncie has handicapped four horses for the day. Well... Muncie's a horse player, Tarot. Nothing short of an earthquake could keep him from playing these four horses before he jumps town. After slugging Williams? Muncie would figure that Williams couldn't afford to go to the police. That's true. Do you suppose he'd bet with a bookmaker or went to the track? We'll just have to gamble at the track. We've missed the first race. But Muncie's got three more to go to make us four. And we'll be there before the third race. Come on. That's two winners in a row, Brownie. That's par for the course. Let's quit it. Are you kidding? Let me collect our three thousand and I'll buy our tickets for the third and we'll head for the bar. I wish we were heading west. Honey, we will be right after the fourth. I don't like it, Joe. It's paying off. You like that, don't you? Sure, but... We leave this town with a satchel for a baby. Come on, let's collect. Over here, Mr. Naylor. Well, we're in, fella. You mean you spotted Muncie? Nobody's here. How do you know? Two of those hundred dollar bills have shown up. At the betting window? Uh-huh, the fifty dollar window. I wish we had some positive way of identifying him. Williams can do that. But he's back in the city. He's on his way out here right now. I phoned the United States Attorney before we left town. The fourth race starts in twenty minutes. Williams will be here for it. I suppose Muncie's fourth selection doesn't win. He won't be going to the window for the payoff. What's he playing in the fourth race? Um, ragman. Terror. Yeah? Here's where you and I have got to root a winner home. The horses are on the way to the starting gate and Williams isn't here yet. Who's this coming now? Okay, you win. Did we make it in time, Mr. Naylor? Yes, Williams. Just in time to help us root ragman home and catch Muncie. Good. That's going to be a real pleasure. Come on. Here's a good place to watch and root. Ragman's got post position three with the jockey wearing the bright gold blouse. I think I can get really excited about this one. They all seem pretty quiet. Maybe we're going to get a start.  Come on, ragman. With him, young man. With him. Stay up there, ragman. He's moving away from them. Just confusing. Come on, ragman. Stay up there with that horse. Keep moving. I think he's going to do it. Going into the stretch and turn, ragman by three. Tutsi, the colonel, and buttons left each other. A gap of eight planes confusing. He's starting to quit. Ragman's quitting. Stay up there, Bobby. Come on. Go to the whip. Hold him up, Bobby. Come on. Come on. Hang on, ragman. Only a 16th to go, Bobby. Hit him, Bobby. Come on, new ragman. Ragman's number is up. His picture's for place. Let's go down to the $50 window.  Four bets, four winners. Honey, I take back everything I said about you. Now do me a favor. Sure, honey, what? Let's go as soon as you color. Sure, sure. We're going to be on our way in five minutes. Just let me get on this line here. Hello, Mr. Muncie. What? Adam. Williams is the name. What are you doing here? I'm here with these gentlemen. We're special agents of the FBI, Muncie. Joe. Wait a minute, miss. We want you to. Together, you make a wonderful parlay. Frederick Williams was tried and convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to a long term in the federal penitentiary. Joe Muncie and Florence Brown were jointly tried and found guilty of attempted murder and are likewise serving long terms in the penitentiary. Joe Muncie did hit four winners in a row because touts like anyone else who follow the horses have their lucky days at selecting winners. But ask any veteran of the sport and he'll tell you that you cannot possibly beat it for keeps. The bank teller, Williams, learned this the hardest way possible. The criminal way. And he learned too, a lesson many hardened criminals could have told him. A lesson your FBI continues to prove 24 hours a day that crime does not pay. Next week, another thrilling case from the files of your FBI. We'll tell you about it in just a moment. But now, let me refresh your memory on the more important features of the Equitable Society's Assured Home Ownership Plan. Remember that the mortgage interest is only 4%. Remember that if the owner dies, the widow owns the home without any mortgage at all. Yes, the Assured Home Ownership Plan is practically foreclosure proof. To get the full story, talk to the Equitable Society representative in your community. Ask him for literature that gives all details. You'll find him in your local phone book under the name, The Equitable Life Assurance Society. E-Q-U-I-T-A-B-L-E. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Next week, we will bring you another colorful story from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The homicide hideout. The incidents used in tonight's Equitable Life Assurance Society's broadcast are adapted from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, all names used are fictitious. And any similarity thereof to the names of persons living or dead is accidental. Tonight, the music was composed and conducted by Frederick Steiner. The author was Frank Ferres, and your narrator was Dean Carleton. This is your FBI is a Jerry Divine production. Now this is Carl Frank speaking for the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and the Equitable Society's representative in your community and inviting you to tune in again next week at this same time when the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States will bring you another colorful story from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The homicide hideout on this is your FBI. This is ABC, the American Broadcasting Company.


Maybe. All right, welcome, everyone, to today's Google Search Central SEO Office Hours Hangout. My name is John Mueller. I'm a search advocate on the search relations team here at Google in Switzerland. And part of what we do are these Office Hour Hangouts where people can join in and ask their questions around websites and web search.  So maybe we'll just start off with some live questions from one of you all. Hey, John. So John, my question is regarding offer schema, the price markup. So my doubt is, if I markup price and if that price is valid only for three days, and if my page is not crawled and I end up showing a wrong price on a CRP, so how do I approach that? Now, I don't think you can really fix that in the sense that you can force Google to recrawl your pages immediately when you make price changes. But you can use the usual best practices to make it possible for Google to recognize that. So in particular, the sitemap file, let us know that the page has changed, that we can pick it up. If it's an important page for you, then make sure that you link it from important pages of your site as well. So if it's something that is going on sale and you think it's an important sale, then make sure it's linked from your home page, for example, so that we can understand your perception of the importance. But there's no work around to making it so that Google automatically picks up all of the changes within your website. Cool, John. Thanks. So I would be marking that in sitemap, saying the last updated date. Yes. Cool, cool. Thanks, John. So that is another question of mine. So how important is the pixel font size? So probably one part of my page is in 14px, and the next part of my page is in around 12px. So is it going to affect my ranking? I don't think so. Usually it shouldn't. The one thing I would watch out for is mobile friendliness. So if your page can be viewed properly on a mobile device, mobile friendliness is still a factor that we look into for ranking. But otherwise, it doesn't really matter. It's more something between you and your users so that you present something that they can read, they can understand. That's easy for them to kind of process. Yeah, cool. Thanks, John. Thanks. Sure. All right, Pranit. Yeah, hi, John. Good morning. This is the first time joining your call. So I have a couple of questions. The first one being that we're trying to get an answer for this from Google blogs and getting some conflicting information. We have our pages where we have some FAQs or content that is long enough for mobile views where the user needs to scroll. And we are using read more, read less kind of buttons that expand and collapse the view. How much of the content that the user is seeing? My question is if our page loads the data at one time, so the read more is not loading anything extra, or read less is not taking anything away from it. The page, if you look at the doc on the network side, you have all the questions, all the answers. Is that going to affect what Google sees and how does it affect what Google reads on the page? That's usually completely fine. So that's not something where I would worry about it from an indexing point of view because if it's on your page when we load the page, we can index it even if it's not visible immediately. One place you might want to watch out for, since you mentioned FAQ, with structured data on your pages specifically for rich results, we want to make sure that that information is visible. So especially with FAQ markup where you have questions and answers, at least the questions that you mark up should be visible. It's fine if the answers are kind of collapsed, but at least the questions should be visible. Sure. Yeah, we do use the FAQ markup on the structured data and everything is there as well. And we do, probably the questions, we're just not sure if we need to show the answers. It goes for a bad user experience if they had to keep scrolling to get to the next one. So that's what we were trying to solve, but at the same time make sure that Google is reading our pages. Second question I have is around sitemaps. We don't have that much of crawl for it, I think. And many of our pages are crawled by Google that are not listed out of the sitemap. But when it comes to the sitemap, it only crawls about 10% of the pages that we put on the sitemap. I know that the priority is not something that Google uses anymore. Is there any other way that we can say, Google, if you're trying to crawling only 10% of our pages, these are our most important pages? To give a sense of importance within your website, you'd need to do that more with regards to internal linking, less with just purely the sitemap and more kind of making it easy for Google to recognize when we crawl your site, which of the pages you care about the most. Usually that's like we would start with your home page, depending on the website. But in many cases, we start with the home page and things that are linked from the home page we would see as being more important than things which are just like, I don't know, five or six steps distanced from the home page. Sonskin, thank you very much. Sure. All right, Rob. Yes, yes, I'm here. Is there still any kind of API access for Search Console which would give us more information on where the 404s are breaking? Because I understand it used to include that, the referring page. But our developer said he looked into it and it was closed. The access was closed nine months ago or something. Is that true? So we can't actually access the referring data anymore? I don't think you can see that, yeah. So that's something. I think it's visible in the index coverage report, but that's not connected to the API at the moment. I don't think they're referring URLs in there. I don't know if it's in the default downloads, but I mean, we don't have an API for that. So that's kind of the tricky part. I guess what I would do in cases like that is try to crawl your website with a local crawler and see what comes back as 404s and where they come from. Oh, OK. The second question is that the new site we launched a year or two ago to replace the other one that you broke. The there are some URLs still reporting in Webmaster Tools that are at least seven or eight years old and haven't been live for that long and have been for 10 previously a long time ago. Is there anything else we can do about that? Or is that perfectly normal? These can't have any external links pointing to them. There's no way you could be finding them. Externally. So is that still normal? Does Google have a memory of what you used to be and just keep trying? Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Seven, eight years sounds like a really long time, but especially if you'd like to be an anomaly. Well, I mean, especially if it's something that we saw in the past, then we'll try to re-crawl it every now and then. We'll tell you that, oh, this URL didn't work. And if you're like, well, it's not supposed to work, that's perfectly fine now. So if the site wasn't live for five or six years, we just parked it. So if we just 4.10 again for six months and see what happens, it should finally get the point. Yeah, I don't think you could guarantee that we would try those URLs because it's one of those things where we have them in our system and we know that at some point they were kind of useful. So we'll just kind of like, when we have time, we'll just retry them. It doesn't cause any problems. It's just we retry them and we show you a report and tell you, oh, we tried this and it didn't work. And you're probably like, wow. Because I was just worried about the sheer number or percentage of 404s because I was chatting to Mihai as well. And then Mihai had me worried that 30% of the URLs are 404ing. And that might start to look like it's only 70% of our site is actually fundamentally useful. No, that's perfectly fine. That's completely natural, especially for a site that has a lot of churn. So if it's like a classified site where you have classified listings that are valid for a month, then you expect those listings to drop out. And then over the years, we just collect a ton of those URLs and try them again. And if they return 404 or 410, it's like, whatever. Perfectly fine. So if on a natural kind of ongoing basis, 30% of your URLs go out of date, that would look normal. But if you had a site where everything's new and fresh, but suddenly 30% of them were broken, that might look unusual. I don't think that would even look unusual to us. It's not that we would see that as a quality signal or anything. The only time where I think 404s would start to look like something problematic for us is when the home page starts returning 404s, then that might be a situation where we go, oh, I don't know if the site is actually still up. But if parts of the site are 404, whatever, that's like a technical thing. It's like, it doesn't matter. And usually what happens is we remember those URLs, but we keep them in more of a low priority queue. And whenever we have time left, when we think, oh, we could still crawl, I don't know, 1,000 URLs from the site, we'll go and say, oh, well, how about we check these old ones just to make sure that we're not missing anything? OK. And there's no remove from index button anymore, is there? No. I mean, there is no button like remove from Google's memory. Because I mean, they're probably not in index. Anyway, it's more like, oh, we just think we try. All right. OK, thanks. Sure. Derek. Hi, John. My question is regarding the country targeting feature in Search Console. So let's say I have a website, xyz.com, where by the content on the homepage, it's actually designed for users in the US. However, I also have a subfolder, xyz.com slash UK. That's actually meant for users in the UK. So in this case, can I actually use the country targeting feature in such a way that the homepage is actually targeting users in the US? And then the subfolder slash UK is actually targeting users in the UK. And the main reason for asking this is because I'm not sure if country targeting at homepage level is going to be treated as a site-wide signal, causing country targeting at folder level to be ignored. You can definitely do that. So we'll look at the most specific part and use that. So if you have the rest of your site is for the US and you have a subdirectory for the UK or some other country, that's perfectly fine to set up like that. The important part is that it's a generic top-level domain. And then you can apply country targeting. If it's a country code top-level domain, then you wouldn't be able to do that. OK. Thank you so much. Sure. John, would you also add hreflang on those sub as a secondary signal? Does it not matter if you geotarget it in Search Console? Yeah, I mean, if there are equivalent pages and using hreflang, definitely makes sense, especially if it's the same language, different country content. All right, Stefan. That pesky mute button. Question about breadcrumb structured data. The context is we have a product detail page that does not include the product description in the URL. And so we were hoping to improve the user experience and click-through rate with breadcrumbs. So we've marked up and we've added the structured data. We've checked it in the rich result test tool. We've confirmed that at least a sample of URLs have been picked up by Google through the breadcrumb report in GSE, but still haven't seen any change in the display URL for SERPs. So I'm curious whether there are additional steps or requirements that we would need to fulfill. Not necessarily. So I think in Search Console, there is a report for breadcrumb structured data. There is. Do you see your URLs listed there? So there's two observations there. Just before this call, I went and picked one sample, which was in that report, retested it, and so forth. And so it is there. I did see actually a very large drop-off in the number of valid pages. It was hovering, and I think it's dropped nearly, let's call it, 70% in the last month, which seems odd, because I don't see an uptick in errors or valid with warnings. OK. But anyways, that's a separate topic, I think. So when it comes to structured data and rich results in general, we try to look at it on several different levels. And I don't know if that applies so much to breadcrumbs. But just to be complete, the first things are kind of from a technical point of view is a valid markup. It sounds like that's the case. You can test that with the testing tool. The second one is, does it comply with our policies, which probably for breadcrumbs is less of an issue, because I don't know, breadcrumbs or breadcrumbs, it's hard to do them in a bad way, I guess. And the last one is more of a general, usually site-wide signal that is about the quality of the site overall. Like, can we trust this website to provide something reasonable with structured data that we can show in the rich results? And usually what happens when everything from a technical point of view is set up correctly and we've had enough time to process it for indexing and it's still not shown, then that's usually a sign that our quality algorithms around the rich results, in general, are not 100% happy with your website. So I don't know if that's the case here. One way to roughly estimate if that's the case is to do a site query for your website and to see if the rich results are shown there. If the rich results are shown there but they're not shown for normal queries, then that's pretty strong signal that from a quality point of view we're not completely happy with your site or at least the structured data algorithms there. If in the site query you also don't see those rich results types, then that's more of a sign that for whatever reason we haven't gotten around to processing them completely. So that's something you might want to double check there. What I would otherwise do is if you continue to see this over a longer period of time, like you give it a couple of weeks and it still doesn't show up, I would definitely post in the help form and get input from other people there with specific queries that you're using and specific URLs that you're looking at. OK, that sounds good. One quick follow up to that is presentation. Are the links in the presentation layer important? So is there some rough requirement that you have to have a link, caret, link, caret, and so forth? No, not necessarily. Oh, yeah, maybe one thing else that's kind of usually important for rich results is we have to be able to see it on the page itself. So if these breadcrumbs are not visible at all on the page, that might be something where our algorithms are not sure if they're actually relevant for that page. They are present and visible. Can I ask you one additional question? It's related to SSR. Real quick, we're rebuilding our approach to SSR. Your step-brother system, Bing, has some pretty onerous requirements in terms of size of the document, which we're trying to fit our solution to. One of the biggest drags or biggest page bloat is related to our hydration code. So question is, for SSR, do you see, would you suggest including hydration, particularly for user experiences that have carousels? So obviously, you're going to use a viewport you'll look at and try to expand that. So would you suggest keeping hydration, for at least Googlebot's consumption, in SSR? My guess is it doesn't matter so much. As long as the server-side rendered content is essentially what the user would see, that update from there to the full version is less something that we would care about from our side. So I think the important part is that we have normal link elements on the page, and we can follow those links, and we have the full content on the page. But the JavaScript framework behind all of that is usually something that's more useful for users than for Googlebot. Sweet, thanks. Sure. Let me run through some of the submitted questions, and I'll give back to all of you who are raising hands. I'll try to extend it a little bit longer as well, so we have a bit more time to get to all of these questions. And probably won't make it through all of the submitted ones either, but we'll see how far we can go. Let's say I want to improve the content on a page. I add as much relevant content as I can for the users. Does this mean that when I add relevant text to the page, Google automatically assumes that the page is better? Does it work out like that? Is more text better in the eyes of Google? I'm trying to convince those in charge that it's not quite as simple as that. Yeah, it's definitely not quite as simple as that. From our point of view, the number of words on a page is not a quality factor and not a ranking factor. So just blindly adding more and more text to a page doesn't make it better. It's a bit like if you want to present something to a client who's walking in, you can give them like a one or two page brochure, or you can give them like a giant book of information. And in some cases, people will want a book with a lot of information. And in other cases, people want something short and sweet. And that's similar to search. If you have the information that you need for indexing, for making it so that users and Googlebot understands what this page is about, what you're trying to achieve with it, in a short version, then fine, keep a short version. You don't need to make it longer. Just blindly adding text to a page doesn't make it better. Imagine there are no index pages with the parameter on a website, and then they're the same pages indexed without parameters, which users can find only in the Google search results, not on the website. Could that cause problems in the long run? That shouldn't cause problems in the long run in the sense that we index what we find when we show it to users in the search results and they tend to go there. And we kind of have something that we can show them there, so that's essentially fine. I think it's something where it's more a matter of making it hard for you to understand what your users are doing on your own website. So in particular, if you're using analytics or any other kind of user tracking metric system, then if you have multiple sets of URLs that show essentially the same content, then it's a lot harder for you to figure out which of these pages are actually useful and which ways to users. So having fewer pages that show this content in general is a good idea. For search, it wouldn't be problematic if you have multiple versions and you just show one set to users when through the search results and one set when they click around on your site. In many cases, you'll also have another set of pages that are your kind of paid ads landing pages, which are also completely separate from the normal search pages that are visible from crawling and indexing. So that's something where it's pretty common to have this kind of setup, but of course, it just makes it harder for you to track things. It's not an issue with regards to SEO or with regards to Google. Let's say the core web vitals values of my website are quite good compared to my competitors. However, my traffic is much lower than my competitors. How important is site traffic together with core web vitals in the search results? In short, can a website with good core web vitals beat the competitor website with millions of visitors in the search results? So for core web vitals, the traffic to your site is not important as long as you kind of reach that threshold that we have data for your website. If we don't know anything about your website, then obviously we don't know that maybe it's a really fast website. And the data that we use in search is from the Chrome User Experience Report, which is aggregated from users that are kind of opted into this kind of metric system. And that's essentially what we require. And then that's kind of the baseline. Like we have data for your website. We know that users are seeing a fast website. It doesn't matter if millions of users are seeing that or just, I don't know, thousands of users are seeing it. So just kind of the pure number of visitors to your site is not a factor when it comes to core web rank, core web vitals, and generally not a factor for ranking either. The other thing that I do need to mention here is that core web vitals, the page experience, is at the moment not an active ranking signal. So we announced that for me. That's kind of one aspect. And the other thing is that relevance is still, by far, much more important. So just because your website is faster with regards to core web vitals than some competitors doesn't necessarily mean that, come may, you will jump to position number one in the search results. So we still require that relevance is something that should be kind of available on the site. It should make sense for us to show this site in the search results. Because as you can imagine, a really fast website might be one that's completely empty, but that's not very useful for users. So it's useful to keep that in mind when it comes to core web vitals. It is something that users notice. It is something that we will start using for ranking. But it's not going to change everything completely. So it's not going to destroy your site and remove it from the index if you have it wrong. It's not going to catapult you from page 10 to number one position if you get it right. I'm seeing some really strange issues with paged index without content report and search console, pages that clearly have content are showing up in the report and dropping in and out of the index. For example, the home page of a big site have seen a few other people talking about the same issue. Have you seen anything on your end? So I had to double check what this report or this category of issues actually was, which points at me not actually seeing a lot of reports about this. So that's one aspect here. That means to me that if you're seeing issues in this regard with your website, then I would go to the Webmaster Help Forum and list your explicit URLs and the issues that you're seeing, maybe some screenshots so that folks there can take a look. And the folks there can also escalate that to Googlers to review in a little bit more detail what actually is happening there. The cases where I have seen this happen from before we started showing it in Search Console are usually cases where there's some kind of issue on either the CDN that you're using or the server itself. So one example that I've seen in the past is the CDN is somehow set up that some requests go to some node that doesn't have the full content. And essentially, the node returns a 200 status code but a completely empty response. And for us, we can kind of tell that this is probably not what you want to have indexed, or at least there's nothing here for us to index. And then that's something that we would bring into a report like this. So if you're seeing this regularly, my guess is something around a CDN. Sorry, John, but great. Yeah, that was a small question. It's really bizarre. Yeah, like I'm seeing, I can see it happening for a couple of days, and then the URL will show up as normal. Everything looks fine in the Live Inspector tool. I checked the CDN. I checked our bot blocking platform that we use. Everything looks normal. So I'm really banging my head against, well, I did upload it to the Webmaster Help Forum, and I haven't heard back from anybody yet, but I did see it. I saw a couple of people on Twitter and read it talking about the same thing. So I'm wondering if it might be a similar bug that we saw back in October. Now, if you can link to the forum thread here in the chat, I can couple it out afterwards and take a look. That'd be great. Yeah, the ones I've seen are sometimes really annoying to figure out, especially if it's a sporadic CDN thing where you, when you test it, you don't really see it. But when Google IPs test it, then sometimes we see it. Sometimes we don't. And I can't always pinpoint exactly what is happening there, but usually when I look at the logs, I can see, oh, this file size is 10 kilobytes, 10 kilobytes, and then zero, and then 10 kilobytes again. Then usually that kind of helps to pinpoint some of the times when it happens. But it's really tricky to, I don't know, figure out, especially afterwards, when you see it in the report, by then it's already kind of passed. Yeah, yeah. OK. Yeah, I'll post a link to the thread here. Thank you. Cool. I've got a question about Hreflang and the wrong version being picked up. I work for an international news website. And among our editions, we have three Spanish versions on different subdomains. These target Spanish speakers, Spanish speakers in Latin America, and Spanish speakers in the US, respectively. All have Hreflang set up across potentially duplicate pages, while the es.domain.com has Hreflang for ES and ESES. So two versions. The other one, Latin America, gets picked up and ranked for Spain. I'm seeing it particularly in news carousels with articles, but it also happens with featured snippets. Is there something else I can do to ensure the correct version is ranked in the correct country? So I think the absolute short answer is no, you cannot guarantee that we will always show the right version in the right country. So that's kind of, I think, awkward truth. But I think it's something that you have to assume will be the case that there are situations where we don't get it right. And if you can recognize that a user is coming to the wrong version of your site, then I would show a banner and try to catch that on your site as well. This is also useful for all of those cases where people find other ways to get to your website, be it through social media or just following old links on across the web, kind of making it to your site, and then they end up on the wrong version. With a banner on your site, you don't cause any issue for indexing, and users can find the right version. In general, for this kind of setup that you have there, if you have a general Spanish and a Spanish for Spain version in your HF Lang setup for Latin America, you would need to add tags for all of the countries that you're targeting on that page. So if you're targeting, I don't know, five or six countries in Latin America for Spanish, you need to add those versions in the HF Lang set there too. And it's fine to have them all land on the same page, but they all need to be there because without the HF Lang connection there, we will assume that this is just a separate page in Spanish that we can also show. And then we don't know that this is actually part of that cluster of pages that you have, where you have one version for Spain, one version for all of the Spanish-speaking countries that are not mentioned. But rather, with all of those country links in there as well, we can understand that, oh, this one is actually the right one to show for individual countries. It doesn't guarantee that we'll always get it right. And in particular, with indexing, kind of like the timing of indexing can throw things off. With news content, sometimes we index one version a little bit faster than the other versions. If we don't have it indexed yet or processed properly for HF Lang, it can happen that we show the wrong version there as well. So that's kind of the aspect to keep in mind there. One approach could be to say that you swap the HF Lang around a little bit as well, that you say maybe for Latin America, you have a lot of countries for Latin America in Spanish, that you treat that one as a default Spanish version, and you have the Spanish for Spain version instead. Then you just have one country version and then kind of the default version for Spain, for Spanish. And then you'd have fewer sets of HF Lang links to maintain. But it kind of depends on the way that you have your website set up. I believe that when I run a test with Lighthouse in Chrome for a page, this test will use my connection. Therefore, the location of the test is my exact location. But when I use PageSpeed Insights, the test will run on a server close to me. In this case, I'm in Brazil. Am I right? Would this information would be nice to have in the tests? So I don't actually know where PageSpeed Insights comes from, or I mean, where the server accesses your site from. But in general, all of these lab tests are predictions of what users might see. It's not meant in a way to mirror exactly what users see, but rather to roughly predict what a user might see. And for that, the location is usually less critical. So the bandwidth or the time to connect from some other part of the world to your server, again, is something that usually plays a much smaller role with regards to the Core Web Vitals than other factors, like how you have your site laid out, how you provide images on a page, how large the files are, all of those things. So the location specifically for PageSpeed Insights is less of an issue there. When it comes to search, what we use is the field data, which is based on what users actually see. And for that, we use, obviously, what users see, so their location, their connections, their devices. And that's usually something that mirrors a lot closer what your normal audience would see, so you don't really have to worry about where those lab tests are coming from as well. When our post ranks for long tail keywords with less traffic volume, it's said it should also start to get ranked for shorter keywords. How can I make that happen? So yeah, I think everyone wants this as kind of a quick way to rank for more higher volume queries. And I think the short answer is there is no magic solution. There is no meta tag where you can say, I want to rank for both long tail and short tail queries. But rather, we have to understand that your page over time is actually a relevant and useful result for people who are searching for these things. So that's something where all of the usual SEO advice applies. There is no simple trick to say, I want to go from long tail traffic to short tail traffic. There is no setting that you can do that. My pages, including the home page, now have a date in the search results, just like blog posts. So why is that? And how can those dates be removed? The website itself is built on WordPress. So essentially, the short answer is we found a date, and we started to associate it with your pages. And we think it's sometimes useful to show to people in the search results. And that's essentially why we're showing that as a part of the snippet of the page. There is no simple approach to not showing any date at all. So there is no meta tag that you can use to say, don't show any date in the snippet. The one thing you can do is, of course, remove mentions of a date on your pages. And then if we don't have a mention of a date on a page, then that makes it less likely that we show a date. But if these are blog posts and the blog posts have data associated with them, then obviously you'll have those dates somewhere. In general, this is less of an issue because if this date is based on the blog posts that you have on your page, then that's kind of a relevant date, and it kind of makes sense there. If we're showing a wrong date for your pages, for individual pages, there's a Help Center article that we have that goes into how we pick a date. And in particular, that covers the structured data that you can use on your pages to specify a date in a machine-readable way. And with that structured data, if we can confirm it on the page and see that actually this date is also on the page and in the structured data, then it'll be much more likely that we actually use that specific date for your pages. The date itself is not a ranking factor, so it's not that you need to push something in there or that you need to kind of make it look like the date has changed. It's essentially just a part of the snippet that helps inform the users of when this page has changed. And sometimes they like to see that a page has been stable for longer. Sometimes they like to see that a page has been freshly updated, it really kind of depends there. Why does Google add to my website title the name of my brand before the defined title? So I have my title set like this, red shoes dash my domain name, but Google rewrites the title to my domain name and then red shoes. With and without JavaScript, the source code looks good, but Google still rewrites the title. There's also no quick fix for this. Essentially, we sometimes rewrite titles to try to make them a little bit easier to understand for users. And sometimes that results in this weird swapping of the page title and the site title, because we try to recognize those separately. And that can sometimes happen. In general, that's not something that causes any problem. However, if you're running across situations where this kind of swapping or, in general, the rewriting of your title causes problems in that it's not understandable at all, then I would go to the Webmaster Help forums and present your case there. Show some screenshots of some queries and the pages that you have on your site and see if there's something that others have that might give you some tips on what you can do to improve. In general, when we rewrite titles completely, so I think this is less your question, but when we rewrite titles completely, it's because our system think that the title that's specified is really kind of an awkward or weird one that doesn't reflect well what the page is about. And that might not make it so interesting for users to actually click on and look at the page. So in particular, things like just a collection of keywords or a lot of stuff text when you just put keyword stuffing into the title or you just try to include as much as possible in the title that's not really relevant to the page, then that's something where algorithms might say, oh, this title is really weird. We need to figure out how we can make this better so that users actually want to go there. So that's something where sometimes the folks in the forum can point you at that. With regards to the length of the title, that's totally up to you. Sometimes a longer title is useful for our system. Sometimes a shorter title is useful for our systems. It kind of depends on what you want to show to people in the search results. Oh, and maybe one other thing with regards to posting in the forum, specifically queries where you're seeing weird things happen, if you can find queries that are as general as possible, that makes it a lot easier for us to treat them appropriately. So in particular, if you're searching for this really long, convoluted phrase where anyone who looks at that query can say, well, you're probably the only person in the world who would search like that, then that's something where our algorithms or our engineers might look at that and say, well, we don't really have time to fix this one query because there may be five queries like this, which happen every month. And we can spend a lot of time trying to figure out a solution to this, but it's not really an effective use of our time. Whereas if you can come to us with a query that is really more or less generic where you can look at it and see, well, there are probably thousands or millions of people searching like this every day, then our engineers are much more likely to take that and say, OK, we really need to figure out a solution here. Lots of people are seeing these terrible search results. We need to find a way to make that work a little bit better. And we'll take that and try to improve our algorithms over time. So we wouldn't go in there and say, we'll manually tweak the title that we show here, but rather we'll improve the algorithms that we use to create titles in general and use this one situation as a kind of a test case. Recently, in my Core Web Vitals feature in Search Console, there are big fluctuations before the 17th of February, which green URLs go down to zero in favor of yellow URLs. And then one month later, the situation reverses. Why does that behavior in Search Console report if I didn't do anything in the performance? It's hard to say without having a little bit more information like which site you're talking about in particular. And it feels like something where also maybe folks in the forum might be able to jump in and provide some help there. But I think what sometimes happens with these reports is that if a metric is right on the edge between green and yellow, then if for a certain period of time the measurements tend to be right below the edge, then everything will swap over to yellow. And it'll look like, oh, green is completely gone. Yellow is completely here. And when those metrics go up a little bit more, back consider green, then it'll kind of swap back. And those small changes, they can always happen when you make measurements. And to me, this kind of fluctuation back and forth points more towards like, well, the measurement is kind of on the edge. And the best way to improve this is to kind of try to provide a bigger in the right direction so that it's less like just between those two versions, but rather clearly on the green side. So that might be an approach that you could take there is try to figure out like, why is it almost yellow and not purely green and see if there's something that you can push to make it so that it's really kind of strong green. The tricky part, of course, is you don't see any more fine grained information between that. You just see bad, middle, and then good. So it's harder to tell, am I barely in the green or am I completely in the green? Especially with the field data, with the Chrome user experience report data, you see a little bit more the exact numbers that users saw on aggregate. And with the lab tests, of course, you have a lot more fine grained information on what exactly might be causing this or what the numbers actually look like when you do kind of this artificial prediction of what users would see. So many questions. OK, maybe I'll just switch over to more questions from you all here. And I also have a bit more time afterwards so we can hang around a little bit longer after the recording. Should even more questions pop up? I'm just going down the order as I see the folks have raised their hands in the Hangout, which is a really useful feature now. Now that I think about it, Amos. Yeah, hi, John. I have a question about the find results on feature that we've been seeing mostly in the European markets. So I couldn't find any documentation on how to optimize for find results on. Is there anything available? I'm not aware of anything specific there. My understanding is that something that is mostly algorithmic in that we try to recognize which sites show there and we kind of show that automatically. But I don't think there is any structured data or anything specific that you can do to kind of like force that or encourage that. Yes, because I can see it's kind of mostly for listing sites. So it's a bit inconsistent. And some sites in our group are appearing and some aren't. So it's hard to understand whether we need to do anything or not. In addition, in Google Search Console, there's no way to also filter for clicks coming through that. Is that something that's going to come? I'm not aware of anything coming there with regards to Search Console. My feeling is it's also something which is rare enough that probably a Search Console team wouldn't make a special report or kind of an attribute for that. And just the final question, is it going to be launched in other markets? So it's only in Europe we can see at the moment? I have no idea. No idea. It might also be that it's something that's more experimental where we're just trying things out and seeing how that works out. But it's really hard to say. Yeah. Thanks. Not a lot of good answers there. Oh, well. OK. Bilal, I think, if I got your name right. Yeah, John. So I have a situation where I can see 84 valid pages in the Search Console. When I check it through site column, it just pops up four URLs.  So I'm just trying to understand what could go wrong. So continuously checking all the parameters and basic things like crawl stats, robot, site map, et cetera. Is that something you can help or advice? Yeah. It feels like something which might be a matter more for the forum to look at there. But I mean, the general situation what can always happen is that we have multiple data centers. And what you see in the search results might not be completely reflected on what you see in Search Console. Because Search Console kind of tries to pick the overall view of your website. And it might be that in a lot of data centers, these pages are not indexed at the moment. So Search Console might say, oh, but I see them indexed. But you, when you try them out, you don't actually see them. So that's something that sometimes just settles down over time. That might be something that is happening there. Of course, if you're seeing very few pages indexed for your website, it might also just be a sign that our systems are not really sure of what they should be indexing from the website. And usually, especially with regards to smaller websites, it's something where we try to index as much as possible. So if you're just seeing four pages out of, say, I don't know, 20 pages indexed, then that, to me, suggests either a critical technical issue or a critical quality issue where our systems are really like they're trying to get these things indexed. But either for technical reasons, which you would see in Search Console, or for quality reasons, we're not able to actually index them. Quality issues you probably wouldn't see in Search Console. You'd kind of have to deduce them based on things technically being indexable. But our system's saying, well, actually we don't want to have this indexed. So another question related to e-commerce website. It is actually public for the last two months. And the situation is going on where, if I check the website through site colon, sometimes it pops up one page. Sometimes it pops four pages. And things like are continuously uncertain. And I'm just trying to understand is something what should I do in that case? Because I've checked the basic things are correct as well. But yesterday, there was two pages that were indexed. I checked through site colon. And today, it was just one page. So not sure what is going on. Yeah, it feels very similar to the previous case. And yeah, I think if you're really sure that there are not technical issues involved, then I would try to figure out if there's something from a quality side that you can do to significantly make steps forward there. The other thing, of course, is in particular with new websites, we need to have some understanding of the context of the website within the rest of the web. And if we just know that this website exists, I've not necessarily signed it. We'll go off and actually index it as much as possible. But rather, we need to have a confirmation that this is actually something really useful and worthwhile to show. So that's something that you could also work on, especially with a new website. So similar to a new business, when you open up a new business, you don't just open up a new business, but rather you go to places where people are. You do advertising. You do other things to make it known to people so that they start coming to you. And then over time, you grow your client base and people who are regular and keep coming back who recommend your business to other people. So that's the same kind of thing that you would need to do with an e-commerce site or any other site that you open up. You need to build up that first critical mass first and then really have something fantastic so that when they go away, they say, well, I need to recommend this to my friends. And that's not or usually less a technical factor, so less something where you just need to get some technical meta tags, right, and submitting things in the right way. But you really need to have your best foot forward. All right. So with this website, the last cached page is of December 11. So luckily, the home page gets available today. But if I check the cached variant, it is still off December 11. So I'm just trying to figure it out. We'll obviously discuss later. I can send you the link. But yeah, thanks for your insight. Yeah, I would definitely go to the health forum for something like that because that's something that folks there can take a look at various things and give you a little bit of advice. Sometimes it's also, I don't know, the hard to take advice of like, oh, your website really looks out of date or something like that, where you sometimes need a little bit of a nudge to go past from like, oh, this is my baby. Everything is perfect. And to understand like, oh, actually, I need to improve some things. But that's always useful, I think, to hear sometimes. Thanks. All right, Robin. Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, great. I wasn't sure my mic was active. So I would like to follow up a little bit on the page title answer that you gave before. You indicated that the length is not really a matter because, I mean, the conventional wisdom has been for many years that you want to have a title tag. That is as, that is limited as a room within like the Google presentation. So it doesn't end with a dot, dot, dot. Because we are also building some product new coding for our product detail pages. And so we're setting it up as a product designation and then the product category because the product designation itself doesn't say a lot of the product. But if you combine the two, you will get a good sense of what the product is and more specifically what it's named. And in some cases, our products are bundled together, which means that there are several product descriptions in a row, so to speak, which will extend the title to a lot more than 72 characters or something like that. So it will be forward and be allowed pixel width in the SERP. But as long, if I understand you correct, as long as we also have the same content on the page well represented as in the title tag, this is not really a problem. Now, I mean, it's definitely not a problem in the sense that your pages will rank worse. In a case like this, for the title tag, it's less a matter of what we also find within the text body of a page because the title can be different in regards to it. It doesn't have to be the same as the heading, for example, on a page. For the, I guess, the aspect here is that we do use the title tag in our rankings as well. So having the relevant information in the title makes sense. At the same time, the title is also something that we show to users. And sometimes you might choose to have a title that is very, I don't know, where you found that it's very useful for users, or where you found that users respond to it very well. And that's something where if you have a specific title that you want to use and find, use that. If you have a longer title that is automatically generated based on the product that is shown, then sometimes that title is just a bit longer. And dot, dot, dot at the end does not mean that we don't use the rest for ranking. It's just we can't show everything there. The other part, I think, is sometimes we show shorter titles in search. And sometimes we show longer titles. I think sometimes we even show two line, three line titles. Not 100% sure if that's always the case. But it's definitely not the case that you need to target exactly 72 characters. And then that's the perfect title. It's kind of this mix of you need to provide information for us so that we can rank your pages properly. You ideally provide that in a way that is encouraging for the user, that they understand what the page is about, and that it's interesting for them to click on it. Because that's kind of the way that you get traffic from search. And at the same time, if you have a very large website, you need to do that in some way that you can automate for the pages that you can't manually create titles for. So if it's an e-commerce site, you can't realistically create a title for every million products that you might have. So you kind of have this mix of some things you create manually to really find target specific title. Other things you just leave automated in a way that works optimal, but at the same time saves you time. Yeah, that is what I thought. But yeah, thank you very much. Cool. OK, let me take a break here and pause the recording. I'll stick around a little bit longer. If any of you have more questions and comments, we can definitely do that. And yeah, cool. OK, let me pause. And thank you all for joining. Thanks for watching so far. Thanks for all of the questions that were submitted. Always cool to see what it all is happening. All right.