Hello, I'm your host, Sydney Britt on SMM and you're watching January Jamboree, the greatest tournament for streaming platforms out there. Now let's meet our contenders. In round one, we have Peacock owned by MBC and Prime Video owned by Amazon. Then we have the green giant Hulu battling out with Showtime streaming service, Showtime and next we have Old Faithful, Netflix up against Walt Disney's Disney Plus. And lastly, we have HBO's newest service, HBO Max duking it out with Apple's Apple TV Plus. Now let's see how round one played out with our field correspondent on the streaming scene, Sadney Britt. Thanks, Sydney. Now, round one was a real nail biter with each contestant displaying their own unique strengths and features. In the first match of round one, we saw Peacock versus Prime Video. Let's take a closer look at these two contestants, shall we? First up, Peacock. This streaming service owned by MBC Universal popped up pretty recently and was the first in a slew of network owned streaming services. Now Peacock's two greatest points of advertising were the fact that it was free and that it was streaming the office, which had recently been removed off Netflix. In fact, Peacock has different collections of the office, such as superfan episodes and the best moments of Jim and Pam. In addition, Peacock has its own original content that is exclusive to Peacock, so you wouldn't catch it on MBC. Peacock also has the rest of your favorite MBC shows as well as a bunch of universal movies. Peacock's really easy to use, it has a good UI and it also has some unique features such as displaying the Rotten Tomatoes score on different movies and TV shows. Furthermore, Peacock has some live TV options and it has special channels that are specific to Peacock, such as the SNL Vault. As surprising, Peacock is of course free with ads and it has most of the favorites that MBC has to offer, but if you want to unlock everything that Peacock has to offer, it is $4.99 a month. And if you want to Peacock without ads, it's about $9.99 a month. And both of the paid options have 7-day free trials. Now let's get to know Prime Video.  When you consider the perks that come with a Prime membership, it's really not a bad price for the streaming service. If anything, the streaming service is really just a bonus added on to a Prime account. I don't feel like I know many people who get Amazon Prime just for Prime Video. In my opinion, the best part of Prime Video is that it doesn't just have the content that comes with Prime Video, it also has the option of renting and buying movies and TV shows that aren't free for free on Amazon. And Prime Video has a huge selection of movies and TV shows that you can rent or buy. It's rare that I can't find what I'm looking for if it's not being streamed for free. Plus Amazon Prime's really easy to use with a great selection of genres and collections to choose from. And it gives you a fair amount of information when you drag your cursor over a title, which I really like. And while original programming might not be the thing you think of first when you think of Prime Video, Prime has come out with some really great original programs. What comes to mind for me is the Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and the boys. In addition, videos on Prime have timeline scrubbing and the ability to change the language or turn on or off subtitles while staying on the video. But what's really unique to Prime is the X-ray feature that tells you what actor is in a scene as well as bonus trivia, which I think is super fun. And Prime features some live TV options and watch party, which means you can stream stuff with your friends. When these two platforms faced off, it was truly a sight to behold. Peacock came out swinging with the whole free thing. But Prime wasn't about to back down. Bezos, I mean Prime, hit back with the whole near endless library of content and easier browsing experience thing. And in the end, Prime KOed Peacock with the fact that you can actually buy the office on Amazon Prime and download it. So you can actually watch it anywhere you go at any time. Your power goes out. You no longer have Wi-Fi. You still have the office if you rented it on Prime. And so Prime came out victorious. In match two, Hulu faced off against Showtime. Starting with Hulu, this streaming service for me is really the king of TV. It has so many TV shows to choose from, but we'll come back to that. Now, as for pricing, Hulu has two options. For $5.99 a month, you can watch Hulu with ads. And for $11.99 a month, you can have all of Hulu with no ads at all. With a 30-day free trial period for both options. Now, Hulu's a great experience. It's got a very seamless browsing system. It's not the best one out there, but it's definitely one of the better ones. But in my opinion, it's the special features that Hulu boasts that really make it a great streaming service. One of the bigger ones being next day uploads for TV shows. So the day after a select TV show airs on cable, it'll be uploaded to Hulu. Furthermore, Hulu offers a lot of add-ons, such as channels you can add on to your subscription, like HBO or Showtime. Each with a 7-day free trial. Other add-ons are specifically unique to Hulu. You can pay an extra $9.99 a month for unlimited screens and enhanced cloud DVR, respectively. Live TV is another great point that Hulu has, as it allows you to totally unplug from cable and just use Hulu Live. And the prices for Hulu Live are great, at $64.99 a month for basic Hulu and Live TV, or $70.99 a month for Hulu without ads and Hulu Live. In regards to content, Hulu has a really large library of TV shows with a lot of genres. I'm especially impressed by their selection of anime and reality TV shows. Plus, Hulu has a lot of great original programming, like A Handmaid's Tale. Just begging to be binged. And while you're binging, you can binge with friends via teleparty. Now, Showtime. Showtime is of course the streaming service for the premium cable channel, Showtime. So the lineup of content is already really strong, with shows like Shameless on the roster. It costs $8.99 a month and comes with a 30-day free trial, which is pretty great. However, the browsing experience on Showtime is not incredible. It's actually a little bit messy. But they do have some cool selections that I thought were really creative, such as a whole section for A24 films or Tommy Lee Jones films. Showtime has some incredible original content, one of the most recent being Your Honor or The Good Lord Bird. However, because of the streaming service's website, I think it may be better to just pay for the add-on on Prime or Hulu. So in the end, Hulu won this match. Now, the third match in the first round featured two of the biggest names in streaming, Netflix and Disney+. Netflix is the OG of online streaming. And with three different types of plans ranging from $8.99 a month to $17.99 a month, it's a great option for a lot of people. Netflix boasts probably the best, most user-friendly UI, with one great point being how much information you get when you drag your cursor over a title. In addition, searching for what you're in the mood for is super easy, with the ability to not only look up genres, but unique tags such as Suspenseful. Plus Netflix has a wide array of genres like Black Stories and unique selections like What's Top in the US Today. And Netflix is famous for its original programming, being really the first online streaming platform to have shows at the Emmys and movies at the Oscars. And every few months, there's a new show or movie on Netflix that everybody just has to see. You know? Plus, Netflix has a really strong history of getting their hands on just incredible source material and things that are already being produced. Like the new show Ratchet, which is of course based on one flu over the cuckoo's nest, and Castlevania based on the video getting the same name. In addition, they got their hands on the great British Bake-Ost distributing rights and the rights to the revival of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Plus Netflix is really the only streaming platform out there that's not anime specific that's producing really high quality anime, like Devilman Crybaby, one of my favorite shows ever. And as for content, Netflix has one of the best spreads out there, touting not only renowned films and TV shows, but also a large amount of indie films and a huge collection of foreign cinema and television. And all of these you can watch with your friends via teleparty, and a strong contender to be sure. Moving on to Disney Plus, now this contestant hasn't been in the game for super long, but boy has it already made a splash and a big one at that. Disney Plus, as you may have guessed, is a streaming service owned by Disney, which is a company that owns a bunch of other companies like Pixar, Fox, National Geographic, and Star Wars and Marvel. So there are a lot of fan favorite franchises to pick from, including those that Disney already owns, like the Disney Princesses. In fact, that really is the genius business move that has made Disney Plus so successful. These are fan favorite franchises, we're talking Marvel and Star Wars, and you can't catch them anywhere else, you have to get Disney Plus to watch them. Disney's a very fairly priced platform for the huge franchises that you get with it at $6.99 a month, and Disney has a pretty great user interface and search system. One of the best features is the fact that you can look up characters and find all the films and television related to said character. As for content, Disney for a while didn't have a ton of original content, but it's starting to really build up a collection, and a lot of it is really well received, such as The Mandalorian, which is that new Star Wars show that everybody is freaking out about, you know, with Baby Yoda. In addition, Disney Plus has the major selling point of pure nostalgia.  So now you have a streaming service that shows all the movies and TV shows that people grew up with, and they can only watch it on Disney Plus. And I think it's only fair to point out that they've actually added disclaimers to some of their more controversial movies like Dumbo. And all this is available for a group watch on Disney Plus. Now both contenders are super strong, and the match was neck and neck for most of it. But in the end, it really comes down to what a viewer is looking for. And because Netflix has a bit of a wider berth and a wider reach in terms of content and what it offers, Netflix ended up winning this match. And in our final matchup, we have HBO Max versus Apple TV Plus, both relatively new to the streaming game, both with their own high notes. Now HBO Max may not sound very new to you because of HBO's streaming already on the HBO channel and HBO Go, but this is the newest HBO streaming platform. And it's accumulated everything that HBO is made up to this point, all on the one streaming service, along with a bunch of other movies and TV shows that are not HBO specific. HBO Max is a bit pricier than other services at $14.99 a month. But what you spend in cash you make up for in incredible content. As I said before, HBO Max is gathered all of the previous content made by HBO, which is a lot of high quality, premium stuff, you know. In addition, it has one of my favorite features on the platform, which is different collections, such as the Turner Classic Movies collection, which is my favorite, especially because I'm a film student, so I have to watch a lot of, you know, older films. And it helps that I just have the streaming service already, I don't have to go and pay for Battle of Algiers. And it's worth noting that some of the more controversial titles have disclaimers ahead of time, like Gone with the Wind, which actually has a seminar that you can watch about it. Furthermore, HBO Max is super easy to use. It's very comprehensive and it's very easy to find what you're looking for. It just doesn't have as many of the great features that other streaming platforms have. And once again, discussing content, HBO Max is getting a bunch of movies to actually be released on their platform at the same time that they're being released in theaters during this time of quarantine. And HBO probably has some of the most high quality content out there. It's, you know, kind of neck and neck with Showtime. Again, they were both premium channels before, but HBO Max is really doing great, especially when you add on all of the content that's already been made by HBO. You know, HBO Max made Lovecraft Country, but HBO itself made Game of Thrones. Basically, when HBO Max is making something, it's pretty much guaranteed to be good. Overall, the top-notch incredible content that is offered by HBO Max is its top-selling point, and you can actually watch it all with tele-party, so you can stream with friends. Another great point. Now moving on to Apple TV Plus, it's another one pretty new to the game when compared to other services, but it's certainly marked its territory as a strong contender as a streaming service. It's only $4.99 a month, making it the cheapest service out there, and it has a 7-day free trial for you to try it out. Now, it hasn't released a ton of original content, but the original content it has released has been incredible. I loved watching their show Ted Lasso and The Morning Show, which is an Emmy and Golden Globe-nominated drama. As for the streaming platform itself, the website, it's probably the least comprehensive one out there. I actually struggled to use it. I couldn't find out how you could search things on the website, but to be fair, it works far better on the television. As for overall content, it's acquired a lot of non-Apple TV Plus-specific films and TV shows, but what it doesn't have, because it's owned by Apple, which owns iTunes, you can actually rent. So much like Prime, you have a near endless library of content for you to choose from. And yes, Apple TV Plus can be shared via teleparty. Great for quarantine. Overall both streaming services produce incredible original content, but in terms of usability and overall library of content, HBO Max won this match, meaning it's moving on to the second round. Back to you, Sydney. Thanks, Sydney. That was a very in-depth description. Let's update that bracket and now let's move on to round two with Cindy Brick on the scene in a basement somewhere. Thanks, Sydney. Round two. Four contestants left. Let's see what panned out, shall we? In the first match around two, we had Amazon's Prime Video face off against Hulu. Both contestants were very strong for their own reasons, so it was important to compare what they had in common first. In regards to price, Hulu was cheaper and also had more pricing options, so it was more flexible. And when looking at the fact that both have live TV, Hulu's live TV was a bit more complete and comprehensive. It would allow you to completely unplug from cable. And overall, Hulu's user interface and website were a lot easier and cleaner than Prime's. And with so many strong points in their corner, Hulu ended up beating Prime, moving Hulu to the final. Next we have the much anticipated match between Netflix and HBO Max. Now, both of these services are very strong and well known for their incredible content. Netflix, while they're not constantly producing Game of Thrones-level shows, they do produce a lot more original content than HBO Max does, and a lot of it is really good. Plus, Netflix has a wider array of international original shows, which is really something special. Plus, there's always some new masterpiece coming out of Netflix that everybody needs to see, the most recent being Queen's Gambit. And overall, when looking at UI, Netflix honestly has the best out there. Netflix has timeline scrubbing and the ability to turn on and off subtitles and change the language in video without having to exit out of it. And while I think in regards to having classic historically significant cinema, HBO Max takes the title, I do think that Netflix has a wider array of content. In the end, they're both amazing platforms with amazing content, but the fact that Netflix has a more diverse array of content and has better UI, well, that won Netflix this match, sending Netflix to the final. Back to you, Sydney. Thanks, Cindy. Great synopsis. Let's update that bracket and move on to the final round, which I'll be commentating on live with my colleagues Cindy Brick and Sadney Bratt. Absolutely, so let's get into it. First, we see both contestants entering the arena with very strong logos. Indeed, though I am more fond of Netflix's badum. A classic, Cindy. Oh, and right off the bat, we have Hulu coming up to Netflix touting a cheaper price and a number of add-ons including live TV. Ooh, that's super effective, really rubbing in that live TV, eh? Yep, yep, but Netflix is not about to back down. They're starting out slow with their profile customization and often looked over but charming feature. Indeed, and now Netflix is coming down hard on Hulu with their incredibly diverse and well-received original programming. Now Netflix is actually striking Hulu over the head with an Academy Award now. That's gotta hurt. I hear they're hefty. Ooh, and now they're hurling an endless amount of Emmys at them. That's gotta hurt. Ooh, but Hulu won't take that lying down. They're rising up and they're waving around massively popular TV shows with next day uploading. Certainly a strong move, but it's not deterring Netflix. One bit. Oh boy, Hulu just pointed out that they actually have the entirety of the Naruto series. Unlike Netflix, it's super effective. Hold on, it's not over yet. What's that? Oh my god. This is just whipped out the Great British Bake Off. Ooh, a brutal move. Oh, Hulu's down, struggling to get up. And Netflix, though exhausted, is winding up for the finishing move. Oh, and here it comes. Ooh, and Hulu is KO'd by Netflix's near impeccable UI. Wow, what a sight. An incredible battle, a real close call indeed. Absolutely. Thank you, Cindy, Sadney, for joining me. Now let's get back to the bracket. All right, and there you have it. Netflix has won the final and the entire tournament. So I guess this means my top recommendation for a streaming service this year is Netflix. Thank you for watching the January Jamboree. Happy New Year and stay safe, Arlington.


Welcome to Toffy TV, this is three talking points from Everton One Wolves Three. This video is sponsored by One Football. One Football is that makes it possible to keep up to date with all the latest scores, trying to finish and stats, all in the one place to download One Football app. Click the link. I can say Everton One Wolves Three, these are the three things I'm taking away from the game. First point is sepleys, Everton for them. Everton, you know, the use of them going forward and defending of them in both centres are horrendous. We had three good opportunities with sepleys today and wasted every single one of them. What has happened to Guilfee Sigurddon at Swansea is a free kick to him was almost like a penalty. It wasn't a penalty obviously, but he would always score free kicks for Swansea or get close to that.  I don't know what's gone on with him and even creating them, putting balls into the box. Don't beat the first man or we just don't seem dangerous. As for us defending them, we were undone a week ago at Millwall with three free kicks and we've been undone again today with one, you know, with the score at 1-1. We've already given the penalty away and then they get a free kick, which it's a basic ball into an area which we should be able to deal with. And Hymenes just runs off our players and has a simple edit from six or seven yards out and you're thinking, how's nobody gone with him? Why has nobody ran and made sure that he didn't get a clean edit on it? We've got to stop giving goals away every week because making the job so difficult. We're getting six goals in a week against two sides. Wolves are a good side, but they're not brilliant. Millwall last week in this today, it's just not good enough and I don't know how. You need to try different personnel. I'd look and say, I know a lot of people are looking and we'll point to Zonal, but I'm not even sure we could do man to man the way we defend. It's absolutely mad. Second point I want to talk about Theo Walcott. Where's he gone? Where's he gone? Where's the Walcott that was here a year ago and was a threat and would pick the ball and drive at defences and force them onto the back foot? Where is he?   You should be knocking a ball and going and getting the return. We should be knocking it over the top. The way Wolves did, Wolves have no problem hitting long balls, but long passes, not just long balls. Long passes over the top and they get people in behind them. We've got the likes of Gomez and Sigarton who can pick a pass. Why aren't we getting Walcott if he's in the team running in behind them? It just doesn't make sense to me. This is a lad that's got a lot of experience in the Premier League. He's got a lot of goals, but he's no threat for us whatsoever. If you're Michael Silver, that has got to be a worry. That he's in the side and he's offering very little. It's very, very disappointing. You've got a lot of dice on the radio. I'd do this and I'd spend this money by a striker. The two fellas you spent £50 million on at the moment. Samhain exactly doing it for us. Walcott's got to get some form or play a different way. Maybe we use him as a centre forward. I don't know, but he's got to do more when he's in the team because he's offering very, very little. Everyone goes more or less down the left of it with Charles and he was not even playing brilliantly himself, but if it all goes down one side, the biggest thing we had in October, November when we looked like a dangerous side was we attacked from both flanks. So we looked dangerous from either side at the moment. We don't look dangerous from either side. That's a big thing. Thirdly is the formation. Obviously we're in a poor run. I think it's four wins in 14 or something. Mark Oak Silver's got to do something to arrest the slide, otherwise he's going to find the heat turned up on him. I don't know whether you keep playing the same way no matter what. I don't know whether it's going to help or hinder him. Everton have played one up front for years and I don't like it personally. I know some people think it's great. I personally think it's rubbish. I think if you're going to play, play a 4-3-3 and play with three forwards, and I mean three forwards right up alongside each other. When we played the 3-5-2, I suppose if you want to call it that, well we didn't play 3-4-3 at Burnley. He had Bernard and Theo Wolcott right next to Calvert-Lewin almost, so they were like a genuine front three. Before and after that, we've gone back to leaving our centre forward, isolated. I don't think Geng Towson is a centre forward who can be isolated because I think it just takes away anything that he's got. I don't think any of the strikers we've got can play up front on their own and be the lone striker. I really don't. That's something I think you need to look at. Gilffy Sigarton in Miff Field as the number 10. I just don't like it. I think he's a clever footballer, Gilffy, but he's never going to run past you forward. I just think he's better, deeper. I just think we've got ourselves tied up into this formation that isn't working. I think the manager has to be brave. He has to be brave now and go, you know what? That's what I like, but these players either can't do it or won't do it or whatever, so I have to look at a different way to utilise these players. There's 13 games to go. Of course, we can't win anything. We're probably not going to go down, but we're not going to go down. So does he use this time now to try to get something in place for next season if he's given next season? Who knows? You don't know what's going to happen with us. But I think he should be using his time wisely and that is changing this up now because it isn't working, so maybe come up with a different style or a different formation, a different way of playing and give other people something to think about. Because I tell you what, I don't remember any Everton game, certainly for a while, where we would have gone away like Wolves today, be three-one up with 20 minutes left and not be under any kind of pressure, just walking through a game. And that's how easy it is to play against us at the moment. It's so easy to play against. And we have to rediscover the form of October and November when we look like a real threat because at the minute it's not working. So that's the conundrum for him. Anyway, there are my three points from today. I have it on Wolves three. If you haven't subscribed, please do so. It takes a second of you on my videos. Get over to page and check out Peds, Matt's reaction and player ratings and have a nice weekend. See you later.


This paper examines the importance of media literacy among senior preschoolers in Ukraine. It outlines the features of preschool media education and its relevance to the country's educational system. The authors identify challenges in implementing media education in preschools and suggest solutions. They also discuss the psychological factors involved in developing critical thinking skills at this stage of development. Finally, they outline the three-part structure of preschool media education and provide examples of successful experiments conducted in two Ukrainian cities. This article was authored by Aleksandr Iyankovych, Volodymyr Emchayka, Tesshiana V. Ivanova, and others.


All right, welcome, everyone, to today's Webmaster Central Office Hours Hangout. My name is John Mueller. I am a Webmaster Trends Analyst here at Google in Switzerland. And part of what we do are these Office Hour Hangouts, where folks can join in and ask any question around their website and the web search. And we'll try to find an answer.  But if any of you want to get started with the first question, feel free to jump on in. Hi, John. Hi. I have a few questions, very small, actually. The first question is about Altatech, Altatech for the image. So if I have a web page and I have a lot of images on the web page, if some of the images does not have the Altatech, will it affect my organic ranking of the web page, or will it only affect my image ranking? We treat the text in an Alt attribute as both a part of the page, so kind of for web search for that page, as well as more information about the image itself for image search. So if the text in your Alt attribute is something that's completely unique to the whole page, then we wouldn't have that. If you don't otherwise kind of give us that information. But usually, if it's an image on a page and the image has a little bit more context to the rest of the page, then that's just extra information. It's not something that's critical for web search. And the next question is, some of our clients, they have some tagline or slogan of their business. They put it on every pages. Usually, they put it above the footer. So that takes appear on every pages. Now, sometimes those sentence has the keyword. If we use the keyword for interlinking, is it bad? Because that text is appearing on every page. I don't think that's a problem. Like, that's a completely normal kind of website structure. So I don't see an issue with that. OK. The last question, this is also about the image. So if I have a blog post, it is about the best three five places. And I have added a feature image, which is the five place image. What should be the Alt attribute? Should it be the three best five places or just five places? The Alt attribute should be an alternate text for the image itself. So it's not like a heading on a page or anything like that. But it should be kind of describing the image itself. Thank you. Sure. I'll go next. Hi. All right. Hi. So I inherited a blog post from my company. And the template on Squarespace makes every single H1, like the site title. So there's like 500 blog posts with identical H1s. And then the site, the blog post title, are H2s. Is this something I should address with them? Because I'd have to ask them to change the template. And it takes a bit of work. So is that really bad that everyone has signed? OK. It's not terrible. So the H1 heading gives us a little bit more information to kind of understand the page better. But it's really common for sites to have kind of this setup where you have the same H1 heading on all pages. It's not the best setup. So it's something that at some point it might make sense to look into. If you're talking with them about the template anyway, then this is something that's probably worth fixing. But it's probably not going to visibly affect your site's ranking. So it's kind of like a best practice that's good to do, but not something that is critical for a site. OK. And if I put an H1 text in the body, will that help? That works, too. Yeah. That helps us, too. So it's not that there's a limit of one H1 tag per page. So if we find multiple H1 tags, we'll make do with that. And does it matter which one will kind of float to the top, the one I put in or the templated one? Not really, no. OK. All right. Thank you. Sure. All right. Any other questions before we jump into the submitted ones? OK. Let's see. I think your question is actually the first one on the list, the identical H1s. So we can skip that one. The next one is about Hreflang. We're an international brand, and we have five sites in Latin America. All have pretty similar content, and we do use Hreflang tags. We have another site in the US that serves Spanish customers. What we recently noticed is the fact that for the brand name in Peru, the Peru homepage no longer ranks, and the US Spanish version does. This only happens in Peru. And only for the brand name, for the product pages, it works fine. What could be the cause? Having users land on a different market interferes with the brand experience that we wanted to give visitors. So I think looking at the last aspect there with regards to it's like sometimes people get to the wrong page, that's something you can never completely exclude. So it's always possible that through some means, be it through search or be it through clicking on links, people will land on the wrong version of your site. So you need to have some kind of a backup on your site, especially if you strongly care about the differences between the individual regions or language versions that you have. So usually what I recommend is if you can recognize that someone is on the wrong version of your site, then show a small banner on top and say, hey, it looks like you're from this country or you're looking for this language content. We have this content here. That makes it possible for everyone to go to the optimal version of the site, but at the same time allow Googlebot to crawl your website normally because it doesn't automatically get redirected to the version that you think Googlebot would need to see. So some kind of a banner would always make sense. With regards to the wrong Spanish version showing, that's probably due to the content being seen in our systems as being identical or almost identical. What happens then is we fold the versions together for indexing. We try to use the hreflang to show the right URL in the search results, but we fold them together for indexing. And you might see some effects of that, both in Search Console and the reporting, because we report on the canonical URLs in Search Console. And you might see some times where we show the wrong URL in the search results because we couldn't work it out with the hreflang properly. But that's something where what I'd recommend doing here, especially if this is your home page and not one of the many product pages that you also have, I try to make sure that the content on these pages is significantly different so that our systems don't assume that they can fold this content together. So that's generally the direction I would head there. So on the one hand, for your question in general, make sure the pages are significantly different. And then with regards to people landing on the wrong version anyway, make sure you have some kind of a banner as a backup. I'm working on a website where less than 1% of the content can be considered erotic. However, 99% of the queries shown in Search Console are erotic queries. We wonder if our website is tagged as an erotic website because we would like to have traffic on the full website too. Or should we delete or no index our small amount of erotic content? So in general, this is something that can be a little bit confusing in regards to the queries that you see. I am assuming what is happening here is that there are just a lot of people searching for these maybe erotic keywords. And your site happens to be ranking for those keywords. So that's why a lot of people find your site there. But that doesn't mean that your site is not visible for other queries. So even if you were to remove that content completely, that would not affect how the rest of your site would rank in the search results. It's a little bit different if a significant amount of your site's content would be considered for adults. Then in cases like that, our safe search algorithms might kick in. And they might say, well, perhaps the whole website should be filtered by a safe search. And then that would be a case where kind of that erotic content that you have would be affecting the rest of your content. But if it's really a tiny amount of the content on your website, then that's not something that would generally be happening there. So from my point of view, you wouldn't need to remove that content. It just makes it sometimes weird to look at the statistics because there are lots of people searching for this small amount of content, and few people searching for the rest of your content. But removing that small amount of content wouldn't mean that you would have more people finding your site for the other queries. Everyone knows about the source-medium combinations, Google CPC, and Google Organic. But does anyone know what is Google slash web search? So this looks like a Google Analytics question, and I really don't know what I can say about Google Analytics. So I'd recommend checking in with their help forum or checking in with them on Twitter to try to get this answered. I really don't know how that would be compiled there. We think there's a serious bug in Google Discover in Sweden. I think we talked about this one last time, too. I passed this on to the Google Discover team, I think last week or the week before last, when this came up last. But I don't know what the status is there. Usually with these kind of things, we pass them on to the appropriate team, and they try to prioritize them appropriately. It's not always a case that they'll just go off and fix it completely or that they even agree that there's actually an issue here. But I can double check with the team here to see what's up with that. In the developer docs, Google says an organization logo should be a minimum size of 112 by 112 pixels. Considering the number of potential uses for the image would larger dimensions, maybe 1,000 by 1,000, be your best practice? Also, does it matter whether the image is square or rectangular? To be honest, I don't know the specifics of this kind of logo and the markup and its usage. But if we have a minimum image size, you're always welcome to provide larger image size. So from that point of view, if you think that it makes sense to have a larger image, that's totally up to you. With regards to square versus rectangle, I would double check the documentation here because there's some kinds of images where we need to have a certain image ratio and other types of images where we don't really have any guidelines on what image ratio it should be. For the cases where we don't have any guidelines on the image ratio, I would check to see how those images are actually used in search. Sometimes we use more rectangular images in search, and in that case, it probably makes sense. But if you see that we're using a square image and you provide a rectangle, then we kind of have to fill up things out or crop kind of the center part of the image. So I double check that there. Question about organization schema markup. What's the difference between an ID and the URL of an organization? And when should we use a different ID for the same organization? I don't actually know. So good question. I'll need to try to find something here. What might be useful in the meantime is to post this in the Webmaster Help Forum. I believe there's separate sections specifically for structured data and rich results and see if someone there has any input on this specifically. Are backlinks important in ranking factors? Because nowadays, 80% to 90% of websites are buying backlinks, which I think is very unethical. But these websites are also ranking on the first page. Why is that? So we do use links in our ranking algorithms. We use a ton of other factors as well. So it's not the case that links is the one thing that will make your website go up in the search results regardless of what other people do. This is something where we also see that a lot of sites do things that aren't really necessary for their website and web search.  So just because you're seeing people doing something that looks kind of weird doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually profiting from that in the sense that there are lots of reasons why sites can rank in the search results, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with anything sneaky that they're doing. So we get this question around links. We get this question around keyword stuffing, around hidden text. All of these aspects come up regularly. And in pretty much all of the cases that I've looked into, where we work together with the web spam team and the search quality team to double check why these sites are ranking, it is pretty much always because of other things. And that's on the one hand that can be kind of frustrating if you're seeing people doing crazy stuff and you're doing normal things and not showing up in the search results. On the other hand, that's also useful because our systems are used to people making mistakes, and they try to do the right thing regardless. So if you went off and bought links in the past because someone told you to do it and you didn't realize that was a kind of a useless thing to do, then it's not going to be that we're going to remove your website completely from web search. It might still appear in the normal search results based on the other things that you're doing really well. If your e-commerce site's organic traffic and keywords have dropped by more than 90% after a Google algorithm update, what optimization would you do? That's really hard to say. So that's something where I don't have any specific guidelines on what exactly you would need to do. Because there are lots of reasons why site might drop in search results. It might be due to something we changed in our algorithms. It might also be due to something technical on the website itself. So this is something where if you're really not sure which direction to go, I would go to the Webmaster Help forums and try to get some help from other people who've run into similar situations who can give you some tips on what to double check. Sometimes there are simple technical things you can do. Sometimes it takes kind of a rethinking of the website in general, which takes a long time and is really not that easy to do. Question about pagination. Is it bad for SEO or seen as duplicate content to have the same copy and image on the top of every page in a paginated series? For example, two examples here. In this instance, the URL parameters for page have been set in Search Console to paginate and let Googlebot decide. Finally, should the H1s and page titles also be different for paginated pages to reflect the page number? So headings and page titles kind of help us with paginated series to understand that these series belong together. So if they're the same or if you have something like a number in the headings and titles, then that helps us a little bit. We can also generally figure this out through the links on the page where we see, well, this one has a link to the next page and it has a link to the previous page, then maybe that's a part of a series that we can hold together. With regards to duplicate content, with regards to the header on a page, the general layout of a page like this, that's something you generally don't need to worry about. So we would recognize this as duplicate content, but it's not that we would demote the website. Because of that, it's more that we recognize there are some blocks of text on this page that are the same as other pages on your website. So if anyone is looking specifically for something within that block of text, then that's something where we try to find the most appropriate version of that piece of content on your website. But it's not the case that we would say, well, this piece of text is duplicated multiple times, so we will treat this website as being bad. So from that point of view, usually this kind of pagination where you have blocks of text or images that are shared across different versions, that's perfectly fine. I wonder whether Google algorithms transfer authority if there are more than four redirects to one page. Once we set it to HTTPS, it was a huge fall in search traffic, so I found that there are many redirects from all domains and redirects to HTTPS might be the fifth or the sixth one. I also found only one answer to this. Google uses the first four redirects for SEO. So this is kind of a tricky thing in the sense that on the one hand, you're correct. We follow a limited number of redirects. However, we follow a limited number of redirects during the crawl of one page. So if we want to access one URL, then we will try to follow those redirects until we get to the final state. And during one crawl cycle, we'll follow, I believe, up to five redirects before we say, OK, we couldn't reach the final page. It seems to be redirecting a bunch of times. We will check again maybe tomorrow. And then we'll start again tomorrow from that final state that we reached to kind of see how many redirects we can follow from there. So it's not the case that a website would be demoted because it has a lot of redirects. It's just that if we see a lot of redirects during the crawling of URLs that we try to crawl, then it might be that it takes a little bit longer for us to actually reach the content. So it's always a good practice to redirect as quickly as possible to the final state. Then you don't have to worry about this. It also makes it faster for users. But once we figured out what the final URL should be by following all of these redirects, we'll generally focus on that one anyway. So the next time we try to crawl something from your website, instead of starting at the beginning of all of these redirects, we'll start at the end and say, well, the last time the content was here, maybe this is where the content will be and we'll try to crawl from that specific place. So with that in mind, if you're shifting from HTTP to HTTPS and you have some old domains and you have a redirect from dub dub dub to non dub dub dub and all of these could theoretically be lined up, it's not the case that your website will rank worse because of that because we'll follow all of these redirects. We'll remember that final URL and we'll focus on that final URL for the future rather than trying to follow all of these redirects all the time. So it's kind of like a one time thing where everything is a little bit slow until we follow the redirect. But the next day or the next time we crawl, we'll start where we actually find content. How do you see SEO change in the next five years? Oh my gosh, I have no idea. It feels like sometimes very little changes from time to time, but sometimes there are bigger changes as well. I don't know. I could probably spend an hour discussing various ways that SEO might change. I think in general, SEO is not going to go away. So don't worry about that. URLs are going to continue to matter, having the proper technical setup on a website that continues to be very important. And on the other hand, things that will always change as well is the user expectations. And when the user expectations change, then it's a matter of also making sure that your website remains relevant for the new user's expectations. But from a technical point of view, I think there are a lot of things that essentially will continue to work because it's a good basis. There's much debate around Google's interpretation of schema and thus the inclusion of rich snippets into results. We spend significant time adding schema markup to a site with little to no results. How does one try and influence this process a little better so that we can best serve our customer needs in the search results? The industry, these specific search terms has seen mass removal of snippets for many terms they historically existed for. I have no idea which industry you're talking about, so that's really hard to say. In general, there are a few things that we do care about with regards to rich results in general. On the one hand, we want to provide something in the search results that gives the user a little bit of a preview of what they would see when they go to a page so that they can easier understand which pages are relevant for them. So if you're doing a search for something and the rich result that we show is something that provides value to the user and makes it so that they understand why your page is the best one that they should go and visit, then that's something we'd like to show. On the other hand, if the rich results that you're providing just add extra bling to a search result, kind of like click here, click here, rather than actually giving the user more information about why this specific page is more important, then that's something we probably wouldn't want to show. So that's kind of the general idea there. And that's something that can evolve over time, because we will have newer rich results types in the search results over time. And people will see these and say, oh, well, I can highlight the value of my content there better. And that's kind of a good use. And there will also be people that say, well, I can take advantage of this extra room in the search results by drawing more attention to my site without actually giving more information about why this page is more useful. And people will try to kind of do sneaky stuff along those lines. And that's something that I think will continue to evolve in that people will try new things out. We will launch new features in the search results. We'll see where it makes sense and where it just adds extra clutter in the search results. And these kind of things will continue to change. So that's something where we do spend a lot of time discussing the policies around this. We try to make the policies around rich results as transparent as possible, because it's not kind of our idea to make it hard to appear well in search. But rather, we want to give you some information about where we think it makes sense to add extra value so that users understand why your page is the one that they should be going to. What is quality content in Google's eyes? If two people are writing on the same content, it's possible that they have a different opinion on the same thing. Then how does Google decide which one is better? Because I'm seeing that Google is sharing reviews and locality, but some people buy things and the other people don't. I'm not really sure where this question goes. With regards to quality content in general, this is something where you, as the site owner, probably know a lot more about what is actually quality content for your specific kind of site. So that's something where I wouldn't worry too much about what Google thinks about quality content, but rather you need to show that you really have something that's unique and compelling and of high quality. So instead of trying to work back how Google's algorithms might be working, I would recommend trying to figure out what your users are actually thinking and doing things like user studies, inviting a bunch of people to your office or virtually to show them something new that you're providing on your website and ask them really hard questions where sometimes the answer might be, we don't like your website or we're confused by your website or we don't like the color of your logo or something. But this is the hard feedback that's really important to get. And a lot of times, these are things that you might not agree with, but if all of your users are saying this, then maybe that's something that you need to consider as well. This is something we do all the time as well. We do A-B tests in the search results all the time to see how can we make sure that we continue to provide relevant results even when users' needs and expectations continue to change over time. We do user studies in Search Console as well where we try new features out and try to kind of see which ways users are either confused by these new features or which way they can work better with these new features. These are things you always need to do, and you should focus on your users rather than on how Google's algorithms might currently be trying to figure out what is high quality content. One of the other reasons why you shouldn't be focusing on how Google's algorithms figure this out is that Google's algorithms will also continue to evolve and will also continue to focus on the users and see what they need. And if you're just focusing on Google's algorithms, you're always a step behind. So try to focus on your users and figure out what their needs are and what you can do to provide something that is really unique and compelling and different from everyone else in that area that you're active in. A few questions around breadcrumb markup. I noticed Google will drop the final page from the breadcrumb trail displayed in the search results. I think we do. Does Google drop the final page from a breadcrumb trail? If the page title is not included in the breadcrumb list, that's visible to users on a page. Even if the page title is included in schema markup, will an excessive character length cause Google to drop the final page title in a breadcrumb trail in the search results? I think we looked at this last time, actually, or maybe in one of the other hangouts. But in general, I'm not sure if we do this by policy or if it's just kind of the way our algorithms are set up at the moment. But if the last breadcrumb trail is actually a page that is being linked to, like the page that's shown in search results, it doesn't really make sense to show that twice. So that's something where I think kind of just from a usability point of view, dropping the last item, if that's the page that it's actually on, is kind of reasonable. It's not so much a matter of the character length there. But depending on the type of search results, obviously, there is limited space available. So it might happen that we have to cut things off at the end or cut things out in the middle. And you'll see those kind of dot, dot, dots in the breadcrumb trail along the way there. But that's something that I think is just mostly focused on usability. So it's not that your website will rank better or worse if you include your last page in the breadcrumb trail as well. We have a separate m.site. Ooh, oops. Now I lost the question just a second. Too many windows. We have a separate m.site. After mobile-first indexing, do we need to make any change on our canonical tags, structured data, or a site map? Currently, we're using the desktop URLs. Everywhere in m.urls are used in alternative tags. If you have the m.site set up properly with the kind of link rel alternate to the mobile version and link rel canonical to the desktop version, that's perfectly fine, also with mobile-first indexing. We recommend with mobile-first indexing or in general to try to have just one version of a site. It's not that we would not support m.sites in the future anymore. It's more that things are just a lot easier if you just have one URL rather than two URLs for the same piece of content. So that's kind of the direction I would head if you're looking at a revamp of your website at some point, then try to go towards responsive design or dynamic serving, where you have just a single URL for your pieces of content. On my price comparison domain, the error submitted URL seems to be a soft 404, continuously increases, possible reasons that I think they have been no index since a very long time, or we changed a meta-robots index to no index frequently. My question is, how to take out this URL from such issues and get them indexed? Yes, if you have a URL that has a no index on it, then we might treat it as a soft 404 URL. That's kind of equivalent in that sense in regards to how it would be shown in Search. So that's generally not something that you'd need to kind of work around. With regards to making these pages indexable again, that's something where essentially you need to let us know that these pages have changed so that we can recrawl them. And once we see that there is actually content on these pages and that there's not a no index blocking indexing, then we will try to index that page normally again. So that's something where you can do the usual things, which could be like submitting a sitemap file with the last modification date of the time when you changed it from no index to index. And then we can go out and double check those URLs again and see that there's actually content there. But if there is no content on those pages, if it's like an empty search results page, if it's a page that has a no index metatag on it, then it can happen that we flagged that as a soft 404. And that's kind of correct in a case like that. Can adding dofollow hreflinks increase the time to download a page in a crawl status report? Not really sure how that would be connected. From February 16, our crawl stats is showing a heavy drop in crawling due to an increase in time to download a page. Coincidentally, from the same day we're seeing soft 404 errors that has increased from 3,000 to 20,000 pages. Crawled currently not index has also doubled. Number of valid pages has dropped from 292,000 to 205,000. One change that we made on our site on the 6th of February was we made our brand filter crawlable on around 1,000 index follow pages. On a few pages, it's added more than 500 crawlable links. Should we revert this action? So I think, in general, this change shouldn't be affecting the time to download a page significantly, other than the fact that if you're adding content to a page, which could be links, which could be just text, could be images that you're linking to, anytime you're adding additional content on a page, then obviously we need to download that content in order to index that page. So if you're adding a significant amount of content, then that could be affecting the time to download a page. But if you're just adding, I don't know, a small amount or a relatively small amount compared to the rest of the page, generally, that wouldn't be affecting that. However, what it sounds like is happening is you're not just adding content to these pages, but you're actually allowing indexing of a significant amount more content that's being dynamically generated on your website. And my guess is what is happening there is that your server is just spending a lot more time to generate the content on these pages. And that's the time that we see with regards to downloading individual pages on your site. So it's not so much the amount or the content itself, but rather the time that it takes for your server to generate that content, which you're probably seeing there. And is that good or bad? I don't know. It's hard to say. Sometimes if the content that you're providing like this is critical for your website, if the internal links there are critical for your website, then maybe you need to bite the bullet and say, well, my server is a bit slow. And that's just the way it is. And that might be OK. It might also be that this time is increasing significantly more than it was before. And that could result in us, for example, crawling less of your website. And that might be the kind of thing where you'd want to look into either speeding things up on your server or finding a way to streamline things in general with regards to how you serve content. So the common approach here would be to use more caching so that your server doesn't have to calculate all of these links and look them up from a database again, but rather it can pull them out of a cache fairly quickly so that these pages can be created a little bit faster. The other thing, I guess, worth looking at here is depending on the type of the website that you have and the setup that you have, if you're allowing filter pages to be completely crawled, that can easily result in a giant mass of URLs that your website is suddenly providing that we think we need to go off and crawl. And depending on the type of your website, maybe those pages aren't of the highest quality possible. So if they're just combinations of existing things that you're providing again, and suddenly you just have 100 times the URLs as before, then you're adding a lot of overhead for something that brings you very little value. So that's something you might want to reconsider there as well, or at least look into the details of what exactly you're suddenly creating. How accurate is the crawl stats report? In our case, Search Console is showing time to download a page increased, and the pages downloaded per day also reduced, but our logs are showing that crawling dropped when we made some changes. So these reports are accurate. They are based on what we pull out of our crawling logs. But one tricky thing here is that these crawl stats include URLs that are also fetched from other services at Google that use the same infrastructure as Googlebot for crawling. So for example, I believe the Google Ads landing page checks are done with the same infrastructure. The product search crawling is done with the same infrastructure. And that means that when you look at those stats overall, it's not that you can just add up the Googlebot requests from your server logs and get the same number. You might need to add the other crawling that we do for that number as well. Our structured data on our mobile site has slightly more attributes information than our mobile site. Is that OK? Which version will Google pick? Currently, we're on desktop-first indexing. So I'm guessing the desktop site has slightly more than the mobile site. So when it comes to mobile-first indexing, we will only use the mobile version of the content that we get. So if your mobile site has less structured data than your desktop site, then we will use only your mobile site, and we will not use anything from your desktop site. We still crawl your desktop site occasionally. Usually, that's something like 20%, 80% split. So 20% maybe desktop, 80% mobile. But we crawl the desktop site primarily to make sure that we're not missing any new pages. And we focus for indexing. We focus purely on the mobile version. So if your mobile site has less content, less structured data, fewer images, lower quality images, anything like that, then with mobile-first indexing, we will focus on that. And we will not know about the things that are only on your desktop site. Mobile search results, Google is showing product images with each website ranking in traditional blue listings. Is there any SEO we can do so that Google can show our product images too? Do we need any HQ images for that or alt tags? So there's product structure data that you can do. And there's some requirements around the product structure data that you can use. So I would double check that. There's also, I believe, the Merchant Center, which is kind of like a console that you can use to control the crawling and indexing and kind of like how product search results are put together. And I don't know the details there, but I believe at the moment, anyone can access the Merchant Center even if you're not running product ads. So those are kind of the two places I will double check. I check my page with the W3C validator and it showed me 300 errors. Can it slow down the time to download a page? No. This does not affect time to download a page. Time to download a page is purely the time that it takes from Googlebot asking your server for a URL to your server, having provided that full content to Googlebot. What is on that page is totally irrelevant, other than that if you have a lot of text, then maybe it'll take a long time to transfer. But HTML errors are totally irrelevant for that. In general, the W3 validation is something that we do not use when it comes to search. So you don't need to worry if your pages kind of meet the validation bar or not. However, using the validator is a great way to double check that you're not doing anything broken on your site. So in particular, for other kinds of devices, for people who need accessibility features, the W3 validator is a great way to kind of get a confirmation that the markup that you're providing is pretty reasonable and is something that most kind of consumers of markup will be able to understand well. So I definitely recommend checking out the validator tool and trying it on your pages and seeing what the results are and then trying to improve things so that you're a little bit more in line with really valid HTML, because that just generally makes things a lot easier when it comes to displaying your pages, when it comes to understanding the content on your pages for things like screen readers. All of that makes it a lot easier if you have reasonable HTML. I'm currently working on a site that wants to make use of Google Jobs that's coming to the Netherlands. I'm curious if there's a way to check if the job is already indexed so I can skip the update delete request to keep queries as low as possible. I don't think there's any automated way to check if a job is already indexed. So I continue using kind of the indexing API for this and using kind of the update delete request to update those as needed. I know when we're migrating a website from one domain to another, we should use 0.1 redirects from the old domain to the new domain. Does the redirection have to be in place forever to pass link juice, or does it just need to be in place until Google picks it up once and then we can stop paying for the old domain order to redirect from the old one to the new one? So 301 is a permanent redirect. And kind of how the name says, it's a good idea to have that permanently in place if you care about that. So from our point of view, our guidance is generally that this redirect should be in place for a significant amount of time so that we can really be sure that it's there. From a practical point of view, I like to recommend at least one year of having this redirect in place. Personally, I would try to keep that in place longer, as long as you can. Sometimes there are technical reasons why it's not possible to keep that redirect in place for a longer time. But I would try to keep it in place as long as possible. Definitely as long as you continue to see users or search engines kind of go to the old URLs and get redirected to the new one. So you can double-check your logs on that. Sometimes people link to your old site and you forgot to update those links. But that's something where I try to keep it in place for as long as possible, and definitely at least one year. With regards to stop paying for the old domain, I would be really cautious with that. Because Babermas love to pick up old, expired domains, and they put all kinds of crazy stuff on it. And if the old domain is, for example, your old brand name, then suddenly your old brand name could be used to promote some really crazy spam on the web. And sometimes that's not really nice to see. And especially if you've let that domain expire, then you can't do anything about it. It's not that you can go to Google and say, well, this used to be my website. Therefore, I demand nobody else is able to rank in the search results for that. That's not possible, because if you don't control that domain, then anyone can host something there. And sometimes that's reasonable content, and sometimes that's stuff you don't want to be associated with. So personally, I try to keep those old domains as long as you can. And if you're keeping those domains, then maybe also keep those redirects in place as long as you can. We did a crawl with Screaming Frog and realized it seems I've identified pages with hentry microdata as article markup, while in Google's structured data testing tool, it only recognizes hentry. I wonder, should I continue to put extra article markup in addition to hentry, or hentry will be enough? I would recommend using the rich results test for this and double checking the markup that is actually required for the article markup in our developer documentation. So the structured data testing tool tries to pull out all kinds of structured data on a page, which includes things that might not be used at the moment. So I really focus on the rich results test, which focuses more on the rich types that are actually shown in search, and double checking that with the documentation that we have. Wow, OK. Still a bunch of stuff, but we're kind of running low on time. So maybe I'll just open things up to any of you if there are any questions here. John, I have a quick one. OK. So if you hang out to go, I asked you about a very big, large website that's most of their, it's an e-commerce website, and they have like 1,000 categories, and all of them are placed in the main menu. And you mentioned it shouldn't be a problem for you from a technical point of view. You should be able to see those links and crawl them. And one thing I didn't address was whether is that a good practice? Because if you have all of those 1,000 categories in the main menu, then probably Google kind of sees them as being at the same level of importance, sort of. So obviously, there are certain categories with subcategories, and the parent categories are targeting more broader keywords. The subcategories are targeting more niche keywords, as is usually the case with e-commerce websites. So having this kind of very flat architecture, can that become a problem in terms of rankings? Because Google pushes out its ranking signals kind of equally instead of using a hierarchy in that sense. So can that be a factor? Having a clear hierarchy helps us a little bit. But it's not so in most cases, it's not going to be something that has a strong ranking effect in that regard. So what I imagine will probably be trickier with the case of a really flat hierarchy is that we won't know which pages belong together in that when we try to show site links, for example, in the search results where we try to say, well, this is the main page, and these are the pages that are kind of subpages from this page, that will be a lot harder to do if there's a really flat hierarchy because we don't really know what the structure is. And that's something where if these are all categories and subcategories altogether, maybe it doesn't make a big difference. Maybe we're still showing some useful site links there. That's something you can double check. Where I have seen it cause a little bit more confusion is if you have a paginated set and you link to all of those pages from the start. So that's kind of a similar situation in that you have a flat hierarchy rather than kind of this paginated set that kind of goes down. And that's something where I have seen us do weird things like show page five of a paginated set for kind of a generic keyword because we think, well, all of these are kind of equal. And page five seems to be the best one there. And as a webmaster, that seems kind of weird. Like why does it start with page five rather than page one? So that's something where I think from purely from a ranking point of view, you probably won't see a big effect. But from understanding the connections between the pages, things like site links, the pages that are shown in the search results, that might be something where you would see some kind of fallout. Just from telling Google, all of these pages are equivalent. And then we say, oh, well, all of these pages are equivalent. So we'll just pick whichever ones we like. Whereas if you give us a clear structure, then it's like, oh, well, this is the most important. This is like the second kind of most important. Then we can focus more on that. So I was just asking about rankings because of kind of how internal linking works, especially since subcategories targeting very niche topics, it's much easier to rank wealth for those because there's a lot less competition and harder to rank to the parent categories because there's more competition. So from an internal linking point of view, wouldn't it make more sense to only have those parent categories in the menu and not have the subcategories as well simply because there'd be more focus on ranking emails going to. Yeah, I think that makes sense. That's something where sometimes that also shows up, I think in the forums or on Twitter, I've seen that where people say Google is ranking the wrong page for my keywords. I have this higher level category page, and Google is ranking this low level product or kind of subcategory page. And sometimes that also comes from us just not having a clear hierarchy of understanding. This is really the broader term, and this is the more niche term. And they're kind of above and below each other. So I'm guessing it shouldn't be very flat. It shouldn't be very, obviously very deep either because you don't want to get 10 pages deep to find something. Probably it should be best to be somewhere in between. Yeah, I think that's the part where everyone struggles is like, what does it mean? Like a balanced hierarchy? Like does it have to be square? Or I don't have any explicit shape with what it should be in, but it shouldn't be completely deep. It shouldn't be completely flat. It should be somewhere in between. I'm guessing would it be a good way to kind of go about this instead of moving from that very, very flat architecture to something more drastic? I mean cut out all of the subcategories, maybe move category by category. Like just remove the subcategories from this one. Let's see how it goes. Yeah, OK. Yeah, I think that's in general, that's always a good idea because you're testing things step by step and you see what the effects are. And if at some point you're like, well, it makes absolutely no difference, then you might as well save yourself the effort from doing that for the whole thing. So kind of going step by step and seeing is it actually doing what I expected to do, that's generally what I'd recommend. Cool, thanks. Cool, OK. So let me pause the recording here. I'll stay on for a little bit longer if any of you want to hang out a little bit off the record. If you have any questions that you didn't want to ask live. But thank you all for joining in. And thanks for watching the recording, if you're watching the recording. And I wish you all a great weekend. And stay safe, wash your hands, of course. And see you next time. Bye, everyone.


everyone in front of Lacroix from Bloomberg. And we have the next 45 minutes to talk about that pandemic and of course what comes next. Now we'd love all participants to join the conversation on social media using the hashtag Davos agenda. Also please submit eight questions you may have for the panelists via the Slido QR code on the screen. It's popping up shortly. And of course participants can open their camera pointed at QR code. This is the beauty of 2022. We know how QR codes work. And then you can follow the event or the link to the Slido event. You should select COVID-19 what's next. So you select that room. There you go. It's on your screen. You select that room and then enter any questions that you may have for the panelists. And it will be my pleasure to ask them. Now I'm delighted to be joined by Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the United States. Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna. And Lise Wildersmith, Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. And Richard Hatchett, Chief Executive Officer, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations, CEPI. Now, Dr. Fauci, let me start off with you. We have many questions to get through. Is 2022 actually the year that we go from pandemic to endemic? And does it on speed up the process, given its ability to spread and offer immunity through infection? Well, the answer is we do not know that. And I think we have to be openly honest about that. And when the word endemic is used in different contexts, when I talk about the pandemic, I put it into five phases. The truly pandemic phase, where the whole world is really very negatively impacted as we are right now. Then there's the deceleration of the pandemic. Then there's control. There's elimination and eradication. I think if you look at the history of infectious diseases, we've only eradicated one infectious disease in man and that's smallpox. That's not going to happen with this virus. Then there's elimination. Elimination means when you get rid of it in your own country, but it's somewhere not in your country, but it's there. For example, polio has been eliminated in the United States in many developing nations. So what's the next one up the ladder is control. Control means you have it present, but it is present at a level that does not disrupt society. And I think that's what most people feel when they talk about endemicity, where it is integrated into the broad range of infectious diseases that we experience. For example, the cold weather, upper respiratory infections, the para-influences, the respiratory syncytial viruses, the rhinovirus, the anoviruses. You want to get it at a level that doesn't disrupt society. That's the answer to your first question. That's my definition of what endemicity would mean, a non-disruptive presence without elimination. When you talk about whether or not Omicron, because it's a highly transmissible, but apparently not as pathogenic, for example, as Delta, I would hope that that's the case. But that would only be the case if we don't get another variant that eludes the immune response to the prior variant. For example, we were fortunate that Omicron, although it is highly transmissible, nonetheless is not as pathogenic. But the sheer volume of people who are getting infected overrides that rather less level of pathogenicity. So I really do think, Francine, that it is an open question as to whether or not Omicron is going to be the live virus vaccination that everyone is hoping for, because you have such a great deal of variability with new variants emerging. Thank you, Dr. Fauci. Anlise, what do you think, actually, Omicron means for new variants? And are we focused too much on calling it an endemic? It makes things easier, and people see it at the end of a difficult tunnel. It is indeed too early to call it endemic, and I totally agree with Dr. Fauci. What people want to hear is, when can we resume our normal activities? And Omicron will not be the last variant. Clearly, with such high viral circulation, as we are seeing now, there's a high probability that we will have another variant coming up. The question is, where and when? And will it be more dangerous or less dangerous than the current variant of concerns? Where and when? I do think, if you have high viral circulation, that drives the risk of emergence. You've seen that for alpha, that emerged in the UK. We've seen that for delta in India. Maybe less so for Omicron. Will it be more dangerous? Of course, we all hope it won't. And based on the evolutionary advantage to a virus, it is more likely it will attenuate. That means it will further be associated with less severe disease, just based on the mere fact that a virus has an advantage. If you have high transmissibility, but you don't also kill your hosts at the same time. So we're all hoping for the best case scenario that the next one will be even further attenuated. That said, I think the world needs to be prepared, also for the worst case scenario. And the worst case scenario would be that indeed there could be another viral recombination that would combine maybe the capacity to have high transmissibility and high mortality. That's the worst case. And I still think it is not so likely, but we have to consider all case scenarios. Thank you so much, Anlisa. Stefan, where do you think we're on the pandemic? Oh, you have to unmute. Sorry, thank you. Good morning, all good afternoon. Well, I don't think I have anything to add to those two infectious disease experts. What I can tell you is from the vaccine maker standpoint, what we are first very happy is that we've such a change with Omicron and Valentina Comicron that the vaccines are holding very well. And those are proven to be very important. What we're doing right now is to prepare for what should the vaccine be in the fall of 2022 and what should it contain. And all experts are working with public health experts like Dr. Fauci's team to figure this out because soon we're gonna have to decide what goes into a vaccine for fall of 2022. The other piece we are doing, of course, is around manufacturing capacity. You know, in 2021, we shipped 807 million doses. We are very proud that around 25% went to middle-income and low-income countries. And we're continuing to ramp up. We have a lot of capacity coming online in Q1. This quarter, we have a goal to be able to make two to three billion doses for this year. And the other piece we are working on is for 2023 is how do we make it possible from a societal standpoint that people want to be vaccinated? And we're trying to do this by preparing combinations. You know, we're working on the flu vaccine, we're working on the RSU vaccine, and our goal is to be able to have a single annual booster so that we don't have compliance issues where people don't want to get two to three shots a winter, but to get one dose where we get, you know, a booster for corona and a booster for flu and RSV to make sure that people get their vaccine. So, Stefan, how close are we to that, actually? One single, you know, shot for various protection against COVID-19, but also flu. So the RSU program is now in phase three. The flu program is in phase two and soon in phase three. I hope as soon as the second quarter of this year. So a best-case scenario will be the fall of 2023. As a best-case scenario, I don't think it will happen in every country, but we believe it's possible to happen in some countries next year. Richard, what do you see as the shape of this future endemic phase? Well, I certainly don't disagree with anything that Annalise and Tony have said, and Stefan's reporting on moving towards a combined shot is certainly encouraging. I would say that when most people talk about a disease becoming endemic, what they really mean or what they're anticipating is a disease and equilibrium with the human population. Flu is endemic, and we have annual epidemics as the virus evolves over time. And I think, I mean, if I would hazard a guess in terms of the near-term dynamics of our interactions with COVID over the next few months, Omicron will sweep the world. It may hopefully sweep out other variants, eliminate Delta, ideally. That wouldn't be completely unanticipated. And I do think that we will get to a point this year where populations around the world either have been infected or had the benefits of vaccination, and we will get closer to that equilibrium with COVID. And we're likely probably post-Omicron. Many countries will have a new variant emerging, which it can do at any moment, unpredictably. We will have a quieter period with the virus. But I think the long-term view on COVID, we have to anticipate that COVID is going to behave more like flu in terms of it will continue to circulate. It will be around people, will get sick, and there will be continual evolution of the virus. And unpredictably, the virus appears to have the capacity to become essentially pandemic at any time. I mean, Omicron has moved very, very rapidly. It's behaving exactly like an acute pandemic as Tony, I think, was describing. And the virus is going to retain that capability in the future. And that's something that, you know, I think should be quite concerning to all of us. Thank you so much. I'm getting a lot of great questions from everyone listening. So thank you for those. Dr. Fauci, this is basically a person writing and saying, what is the best case scenario? As per the daily prediction to achieve herd immunity combining the vaccine administration COVID infections? How difficult is it to actually calibrate something like that? Well, certainly the experience that we've had right now with COVID-19 and with SARS-CoV-2 is that that is going to be very difficult calculation because when you talk about herd immunity and you talk about the protection in the community where you combine those who've been vaccinated with durable protection and those who've been infected, recovered with durable protection. However, when you have a virus in which the infection causes immunity that seems to wane rather quickly. In addition, when you're dealing with a vaccine that's an extraordinarily successful and protective vaccine where the immunity also wanes there and you have then the third ingredient is a virus which as was recently described by several of the panelists myself included, which has this extraordinary capability of mutating, developing new variants and the new variants can be alluding the immune response. And we're seeing that with Omicron where Omicron fortunately is not as pathogenic inherently but when you look at its protection particularly against infection to a lesser degree against severe disease it does allude the immune response. That's a different scenario than what we see when you have a virus like measles which does not really change very much and gives you almost lifelong immunity and you have a measles vaccine which does not give you anything changing but allows you to have rather lifelong protection. That's the ideal herd immunity with dealing with a very complicated situation here that makes our classic definition of herd immunity very elusive. Thank you, Dr. Fauci. And this is another question which we touched on but basically this person is maybe turning it a little bit more political. Should we be worried about future variants? And this person writes in, sometimes it feels like big pharma company are taking advantage of the situation. Let me ask you and we'll go to Stefan on this. Like how can we bridge the divide between believers and non-believers? Because there are some inherent non-believers that no matter what you say, they give you a real problem. And one of the things that we, I believe the entire world is facing but we certainly are facing it in a very, very disconcerting way in the United States is the amount of disinformation that is accompanying what should be a problem where everyone pulls together against the common enemy which is the virus. We have disinformation that is entirely destructive to a comprehensive public health endeavor. And I'm not sure how we're going to account to that except by getting out as much correct information as we possibly can and use the social media in a positive way as opposed to in the somewhat destructive way that it is being used right now. And Liz, your thoughts also, there's a difference right between what virologists say. So looking at how worried we should be at these variants and sometimes what politicians say because they focus more on reopening the economy. Well, let me share a word of optimism. We are in a different space than we were two years ago. Two years ago, we had a population of 7.7 billion people with zero immunity to this virus. Now more than 50% of the world's population has received two doses. And this is further strengthened with now the rapid also immunity being built up by natural infection. So in a different space and we now need to rethink and reevaluate some of our strategies. Stefan, your take. First of all, there has been quite a lot of questions on pharmaceutical companies. Also, how do you encourage vaccination, right? Is there a way that companies such as Moderna need to communicate differently or put up data differently that encourages people to get vaccinated? Yeah, so the vaccination question is of course a very complicated one. I mean, many public experts and governments have tried really hard for now two years to get people to believe in the vaccines. And of course, there's always a better job that we can all do starting from the companies in terms of explaining the science, explaining the side effects, explaining the long-term benefits and the risk reward of getting a vaccine versus not getting a vaccine. I think a lot has been done but clearly more can be done. But as Tony said, what he said is all the misinformation that we are seeing every day online, sometimes on TV, about the vaccine and what they do and what they don't do is really sad in today's world. Stefan, can I ask you something specifically about some of these vaccines? And this person is also writing in, look, does a vaccine designed for Alpha or Delta also works well enough against Omicron? And how much faster have you been able to adapt some of these vaccines for every new variant? Sure, so the vaccines that are currently available, we have been for the original strain. They have not been adapted that I'm aware of to the Alpha or to the Beta strain, at least ours has not. As we've seen and shared the data very quickly when we had it and we had a strong partnership with Dr. Fauci's team on the data generation in the fall around Thanksgiving when Omicron appeared, what was seen is we saw an important drop of neutralizing antibody after two dose of the vaccine but what we saw thankfully is after a third dose there was very strong protection which is why you saw around the world all the public health experts and governments urging people that have not been boosted to get a third dose to protect them especially people at a high risk. What we are doing and we started this the Wednesday before Thanksgiving the day we saw a sequence is developing an Omicron specific vaccine. The vaccine is being finished to be made, it should be in the clinic in the coming weeks and we're hoping in the March timeframe we should be able to have data to share with regulators to figure out the next step forward. And that's always been a great partnership between public health experts, the regulators and vaccine makers to figure out what's the best path. As Tony said, for two years we've all worked literally seven days a week together to figure out how to fight this common enemy of the virus. The enemy is not another company or another group. The enemy has only been the virus and we still have ours. Richard, a better, more broadly protective vaccine that would be effective against all future variants of course is what everyone's hoping for. How far away do you think we are from that goal and what more is needed to make that vision a reality? Well, I mean, I think the first thing that's needed to make the vision a reality is investment in the research and development and Dr. Fauci and his team at NIA have already begun to make investments. We've already begun to make investments. There's some private sector partners that are pursuing it. There's a lot of science that we still need to sort through to figure out how to capture the benefits that we have seen. And I'll talk about that in a minute in a specific vaccine. There was a really important proof of concept, biological proof of concept observation that was reported from Singapore. Linfa Wang is a scientist very prominent in the coronavirus research community. Actually administered an mRNA vaccine to persons who had actually survived SARS-1 back in 2003 and 2004, they'd been infected with SARS. He administered a mRNA vaccine to them, the Pfizer vaccine, and then looked at their antibodies and they produced neutralizing antibodies, not only against SARS-1, against SARS-2, against MERS, and against a number of other known animal coronaviruses. So that proves that the human immune response can generate neutralizing antibodies against coronaviruses broadly. How we capture that, put that into a vaccine is something that we're looking at in a variety of different ways, a variety of different clinical approaches. I would say that that would be the Holy Grail because we really don't want to be in a position where we are chasing the new variants that are going to come when they will and unexpectedly and potentially with quite, even if they're milder, as Omicron is, the capability potentially to overwhelm healthcare systems. And so I think that needs to be, even as we support the vaccines that we've got, which is Tony says, are very, very good vaccines. They have done a great job, particularly in preventing severe disease and death. But we don't want to be in a position where we're having to vaccinate everybody in the world every three or six months or even annually, ideally. Yeah, and this is something, the reports that also, if you do too many boosters, I'm not a virologist. Everybody thinks they're virologists. Very few people are virologists, but there have been reports that actually if you boost too much, then it's counterproductive to the immune system. Where are we on that? Well, I mean, I think it's fine maybe. I'm not aware of any data that strongly suggests that the administration of the third dose is a fourth dose, and in any case, we can see immune response. What we're seeing is a very robust response with the administration of the booster doses. Tony or Stefan or Emily said that. If you have anything to add to that. You're absolutely correct, Richard. There really is no evidence that if you boost. I mean, obviously if you just overwhelm the immune system by just giving a person an antigen all the time, you get a hyperactivity of immunity, but giving boosters at different times, there's no evidence that that's going to hinder it. One of the things that we've got to be careful of, and I really want to underscore what Richard said, we really don't want to get into the whack-a-mole approach towards every new variant where it comes up and you all of a sudden have to make a new booster against a particular variant. It gets up because you'll be chasing it forever. So that's the reason why one of the things we are really all pushing for is what Richard just mentioned, of finding out what the mechanisms are that induces a response to a commonality among all of the different real and potential variants that we're seeing and that can occur. And that's something that I think is a very, very important scientific goal to be able to do that. Once we get there, whether or not you have to intermittently boost someone with that, you use the word universal. I think before we talk about a universal coronavirus, we want to get a universal SARS-CoV-2 virus. Let's take it one step at a time. Otherwise, I think we're really going to be jumping ahead of ourselves, but we really need to also point out to people that when you have a virus that has such a high degree of transmissibility, a very, very good vaccine may not necessarily prevent initial infection and may allow it to be very mild. But what you really wanted to do is to prevent you from getting significant systemic disease. That would be a very, very successful hand SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Stefan, do you think, are you working on this better, more broadly protective vaccine to outdo them all or is it something that we already have because it has been pretty efficient in tackling the variants that we've had so far? As Richard and Tony said, I mean, we definitely, all of us want better protection for people and the broader vaccines. There's a lot of work going on in academia and around the world. We are looking and partnering with a lot of people, but unfortunately we are not there yet, but hopefully we're making progress to other direction. And Lise, what would you do differently in terms of maybe explaining some of these variants to the broader population? It's already being said. The key message remains the vaccine still really worked very well against severe disease. And what we really want, the primary objective is we want to avoid deaths and protect healthcare systems. We're still in the epidemic. Our healthcare systems are still overwhelmed. We still need to continue our public health and social measures, but as population level immunity is increasing, both through natural infection and vaccines, we will now have a stronger hybrid immunity that will protect us against new variants. So even if we have more severe new variants, this population now is different. We do now have a cellular immunity from background exposure with vaccines or infection that will protect us against more severe disease. Dr. Trouch, I'm also getting a lot of questions from the US or for the US specifically. So why is the US, this is a broad, but actually quite deep question, why is the US a first world developed rich economy struggling to contain COVID? Well, that's a very good question. And I think some of the answer to that question is already articulated by our panel members. One of the most important thing is that we have, somewhat, and I think it'd be perfectly honest, somewhat of a fraction and just disparate,


Hi everyone, Joe for jazpiececasebreaks.com coming at you with 2019-2020 Chronicles basketball little blaster break right here Blaster break number 11 Big thanks all of these folks for getting into it. There are the teams right here and a chance to win four Four mixer spots at the very end. We got to do a couple more of these to knock out that basketball mixer So keep that in mind jazpiececasebreaks.com. We're gonna give away those mixer spots at the end Let's do the break first. Let's roll it randomize it Three times for each list one and a two one Two and three All right, we got Ryan down to Kevin three times for the teams one two and three We got bulls down to nuggets All right, there's the first half of the list right here There's the second half right here. Palakins for Kang, Corey with the Gris, so on and so forth It's pretty nice Kevin with the heat. All right, so let's get all this on one page Let's no trade windows in these little filler breaks Just want to get to the good stuff Good stuff who's gonna win those mixer spots. All right, so there you go. There's the final print out Then we'll re-randomize that list with a new dice roll in just a bit there's the Zion There's a Tyler hero and that's a Matisse Tybal autograph. That's pretty nice That goes to Christopher P and the Sixers There you go Heat looking really good against my Lakers Zion right here. Hopefully we'll see him in the playoffs again next year or in the playoffs next year Kang with that one There's another Tyler hero Kobe white pink Trey young pink Jackson Hayes and LeBron James threads Now they'll go to the Lakers Ryan Crouch with my Lakers in this little blaster box break Kobe whites pretty nice for the Bulls Ryan Gomez another Tyler hero More LeBron James in that luminance design and Darius Garland pink Another Tyler hero Rookie card for the heat. Oh, I don't know what just happened over there. Oh God Wow, I don't know what's happening back there We've got some stooge action back there And that Yannis is actually pink parallel as well. You can see the pink the team That's pretty cool. That's exclusive to this blaster set bucks. Not bad dare.  Let's roll it. Let's randomize it nine times It's gonna be top four after nine in the basketball mixer on jazzy's case breaks calm one two three four five six seven eight and And one more right? Yeah, one more ninth and final time again and the top four after nine now big Thanks to everyone from five down to 30. I appreciate you getting in we got to do a couple more of these So there'll be more opportunities if you'd want to try again and the top four We got Sean Matic Brad Newman Robert Runkle and Robert Runkle. There you go Congrats to the top four here. Thanks everyone else for giving this a shot. We'll see you next time for the next one