All right. Welcome, everyone, to today's Webmaster Central Office Hours Hangouts. My name is John Mueller. I am a Webmaster Trends Analyst at Google here in Switzerland. And part of what we do are these Office Hours Hangouts where webmasters and publishers can join in and ask questions around web search and their website. As always, looks like a bunch of questions were submitted. But if any of you want to get started with the first question, you're welcome to jump in now. I would like to ask a question. Yeah, it is about the geoblocking because we have a web page which has a lot of video and programs which we're only allowed to show in our country. So we have geoblocks. So if people come outside, they're actually redirected to a page where it says that they can watch this program. And also if you enter the front page, you can only see content which you're able to watch. So my question is whether we can whitelist Google Cros or that is a logo or how we can fix that. So in general, you should treat Googlebot the same as any other user from the same region. So since we mostly crawl from the US, you would need to treat Googlebot like another user from the US. That's a bit, I don't know, problematic in some cases because the other way around would be no problem. If you have a website in the US and you say I want to block users in Europe, then that would be no problem. But if you're a website in Europe and you want to block users in the US, then you would be blocking Googlebot as well. So that's not really something that you can get around there or at least according to our guidelines. What you can do for video content specifically is specify which countries the content is available for. So what you could do, theoretically, is make it so that the HTML pages are accessible by users everywhere and that the videos only play in the appropriate countries. And the video files, those are things that you can show to Googlebot even though users in the US would not be able to see it because you can specify the limitations with Marko. Yeah. OK, but it is a no-go to actually whitelist. Yeah. Yeah. OK, cool. I just wanted to make sure because that was the easiest way around, but yeah. Yeah, I think from a web spam point of view, the website team would probably not take action on that. But according to our guidelines, that would not be appropriate. Yeah, OK, thank you. Sure. All right. Any other questions before we jump into the submitted ones? Hey, John, I have a question. We have a main domain redirect. So will it affect my data in Search Console? How do you mean main domain redirect? Yeah. Say example.com slash. It is redirected to the example.com slash en. So should I have to change my main domain in the Search Console? Oh, no, that's a perfect answer. If you're redirecting to a lower level page on your domain, then you can keep the whole domain in Search Console. You can, if you want, just verify the sub-domain or sub-directory, but you don't need to. OK, so if verifying two domains, like my data will be available in both the domains? Yes, yes. OK, thanks. All right, let's jump into some of the submitted questions. As always, if. Sorry, John, hello. Yeah, OK, one more before we go. OK, thanks. So I asked the question on the master's help community. The question is about the Google Search Console. In the old version of Google Search Console, we had a great way to discover blocked resources. Now, as I understand, in the new one, we have the URL inspection tool, the Help Center. So just use this tool if you want to discover blocked resources. So when I test my site tool, I see blocked resources, but I can't find the same data in URL inspection tool in Search Console. Well, I wonder why. And also, wasn't it better to provide the information about blocked resources for all sites, not on a single URL basis? Thank you. No, that's a good request. So I think we dropped that feature because we noticed that most sites were no longer running into problems with that. Because with the shift to mobile friendliness, that was a big problem. If a resource was blocked from crawling with robots text, then sometimes we can't tell if a page is mobile friendly. But that has improved significantly across the web, so we decided to drop that feature. But it's good to hear feedback that it was actually useful. So I'll definitely pass that on to the team. OK. No, I don't have any work around at the moment to get a broader list of all of the blocked resources. OK, thanks. Sure. Hello, John. How are you? Hi. Yeah, John, I have a question regarding the Webmaster Office hours, which was streamed live on November 2018. Oh, gosh. Yeah, it was way ago, so. Yeah, so in that session, you mentioned that the discovered but not indexed thing, which will not happen because the pages are duplicate, right? Or maybe the pages have the same theme, but they are having different content. But once the Google will crawl 1,000 pages, then Google will get to know. Right now, this website has the same design, same way of content showing on the website. So I mean, in this way, you mentioned this. If we are using the script-based title and meta description automation, if we are putting the title and meta description using the scripts, right? For example, I mean, right now we have 2,000 pages right now we have on our website. And we are using script automation by putting the Google meta data, meta data, everything. We are using this script-based automation. So you mentioned that it is not a good practice. And my question is, in the Magento, when people are uploading Excel sheets, right? So that is also a kind of automation because they are updating their meta data by using the Excel. So how Google is reacting towards the Magento websites and how Google is reacting to the custom-based websites which are using the script-based automation. OK. I think those are two quite different things. So I think what you're referring to is using Google Tag Manager to edit titles and description. No, no. We are actually not using Google Tag Manager right now. We are just using GTM only for the schema-based variable creation thing. So we are just using the script-based automation for our meta data. And this way, what we are doing is we are just putting, you know, in the Excel, we do concatenation, right? So the concatenation process, we are just using the script for that on our website. So every time when we upload, for example, 50,000 more pages for our website, so we have a template. We upload that template again. Then every page has its own meta tag, all tag, and everything. So because right now, we have, you know, products we have different. We have different content. We have different fact pages on our page, different, different pages. But still, our indexing is not improving. I mean, my question, my main question is, is it because of the design? Is it because of the automation? Is it because of the script? I mean, what could be the reason? Because right now, we are doing everything. I mean, at our end, we are trying to keep unique content on our website. We are doing everything, I mean, you know, in a best way. But still, we are facing this problem in the indexing way. So we have like 28,000 pages indexed on Lyon. So that's why, yeah. OK. So I think there are a few aspects that might be confusing and being mixed up. So in general, when you say you're using a script-based approach there, it sounds like you have these scripts running on the server. It's not Java script. Yeah. It's not on the server. Sorry to interrupt you. But it's not on the server. But once we, before uploading the website live, what we do is we have the developer version of our website. What we do is we upload our data on the developer version. And then the developer, what they do is they upload that version on live server. So we are not actually creating the script-based thing on live website. So we are doing on our before version, you can say the first version of the website. Yeah. OK. So I think, in general, you wouldn't need to worry about the script part, because it sounds like I don't remember that particular hangout. So it's been quite a while. But one of the things we have talked about is using JavaScript to update titles and descriptions. And that would be something very different from what you're doing. So it sounds like you're uploading things, and then you have a script that processes them, and then you upload that to the server. And that results in normal HTML pages being uploaded to your website, which we can process completely normally. So that's very different from using JavaScript that runs in a browser to update the titles and the descriptions. So from that point of view, I think you're fine. I think the general problem that you're seeing is just that you have a lot of pages, and only a part of them are being indexed. Yeah. And that's something that can be quite normal. It can also be a sign that maybe there are some technical issues there. What I would recommend doing is posting that maybe in the Webmaster Help Forum and having some other people double-check your site and just give you some general advice. It could be that, for example, that we're just not convinced about the quality of the website. It could be that there's a technical issue that's blocking us from crawling these pages completely. But it's very hard to say just off the hand. I think, in general, the approach that you have with uploading your content with an Excel file and your server generates pages out of that, that's perfectly legitimate. That's something that a lot of sites do. Yeah, because I mean, when I check the Magento processing, when I check the R website, so we are using PHP. Magento is also on PHP. So Magento is right now moved to React.js on N2.3 version. So they have some different things. But right now, I was just confused. Like, if we are doing the automation process in Magento, then I mean, how could it harm to our website in the custom way? So that was my question. I think from the automation that you're doing with uploading the information with a sheet, that's perfectly fine. That's not an issue. And Magento is a fairly big platform in that a lot of sites use it. So if there were a general problem with Magento, I think that would be very visible. And it would be something that they would fix very quickly. Yeah, they'd do that, yeah. So I would just try to get advice from other people, specifically for your website, and see if there's something small that maybe you can change, or maybe you have to kind of find other approaches to make the website work better. OK, sure. I'll get it done on Google Webmaster Forum. Thank you. Cool. Yeah, thank you. Hi, John. All right. Do you mind if I ask a question? Sure, go for it. So I'm working with a site at the moment. They have actually posted this on the forum. So what's happening is we've got a bunch of pages that are no-indexed. They then get, the no-index gets removed, gets introduced to the site map. They then throw a load of errors in Search Console that they're in the site map, but no-indexed. If you hit the revalidate button, it just says it checks a few, and then says that there are no-indexed still. It seems to me that the revalidate button doesn't work, or because we can go through them, and there's definitely no ex-robots header or tagging the head of the page, but it still just keeps throwing this error, and we wondered if. So the pages are not no-indexed, or they are? They previously were no-indexed. It's a user-generated site. So the no-index gets removed when the content reaches a certain threshold, i.e. if it's had enough engagement. They then get put in the site map, and at that point, they error in Search Console, saying that they're no-indexed, but in the XML site map. So then there's like 2,000 of them at the moment, but you can click the revalidate button, and it just says, no, they're still no-indexed, even though they're definitely not. OK. I suspect what's happening there is that Search Console is a little bit faster than the rest of indexing, which is surprising sometimes. But what's probably happening is we're seeing that these pages are no-indexed, and Search Console recognizes that they're in the site map file because that's where they are now, and then Search Console will throw an error. So basically, we're taking the old status of the no-indexed pages and seeing that they're now in a site map file and thinking, oh, you added no-indexed pages to the site map file, and we haven't actually reprocessed the individual pages since you've added them to the site map. So does the revalidate button not actually go off and re-crawl all of those pages? Revalidate. Is that in the index status, or is that the site map? No, it's like a, so you can go into Search Console, you pick the section of errors that you've got, in this case, in site map, but no-indexed, and there's just a button that says revalidate, and from what I understood, it goes off and rechecks all those pages, but it doesn't seem to do that from what I can tell. It should. It should. The idea there is that it checks a sample of the pages first. I think maybe five or 10 pages and double checks that the error is resolved, and then it'll trigger a reprocessing of the rest of the pages there. I'm not 100% certain how it would handle the situation where you have the site map file in between if it just revalidates that these URLs are in the site map file or not, or it actually re-crawls the URLs themselves. But I can double check with the team on that. All right, cool. Thank you. Cool. All right, let me run through some of the questions that were submitted, because people spent a lot of time pushing them in there, so we should get through some of those. What could be a reason that a huge listing, very popular site, not being switched to mobile-first indexing? Essentially, we have multiple classifiers that try to understand when a site is ready for mobile-first indexing. And usually what we've seen with larger sites is not so much that we'd say this is an important site. We'll switch it over quickly, but rather we'll switch it over when we think it's ready. And with larger sites, what often happens is there are multiple sections of the site that use slightly different setups. So that's something that happens quite a bit, where you have maybe multiple CMSs involved, or multiple backends and frontends involved within the same domain. And it can happen that maybe some of those systems are not ready for mobile-first indexing, according to our classifiers and others are. And in a case like that, we'll hold off and wait a little bit to make sure that everything is really ready. Also, with really large sites, what we've started doing is shifting a handful of URLs over to mobile-first indexing, maybe 1%, maybe a few percent, and seeing how the site generally performs. Are they seeing that indexing is working well with mobile-first indexing for that site? And if so, we'll ramp that up slightly. So all of those things are aspects that you might be seeing there with mobile-first indexing. I wouldn't see it as a sign that anything is broken or wrong if your site is not switched to mobile-first indexing yet. It might just be that our classifiers are still a bit cautious and try to stay on the safe side. The meta tags, keywords, and news keywords aren't used anymore, I believe. However, I see a lot of publishers are still using it. Is it just redundant? Should we use them, essentially? We don't use them at all for search, so you don't need to do use them. But at the same time, they also don't cause any problems. I've used the keywords, meta tags for my own sites just as a way to help me kind of focus on a specific topic so that I know what I want to write about on a specific page. And that's more for myself and not something that search engines would really care about. So maybe others are doing that, too. But again, this is something that essentially is not something that you'd need to fix or change. We ignore them if you want to provide them. If your systems provide them automatically, no problem. I recently uncovered a big canonicalization issue on a large-scale site where many pages were incorrectly being canonicalized to other pages with non-equivalent content. Google was simply ignoring the rel canonical, which makes sense. Now I'm surfacing more examples across the site of Google ignoring rel canonical, also where it makes sense. This got me wondering that if Google sees the wrong canonical tags on a site often, if it then starts to not trust the user-selected canonical URLs across the whole site, and if it does lose trust, then maybe Google systems think it's better to select canonical URLs across the site on its own versus using the canonical tag. Do you know if that's the case? So it's theoretically possible that we ignore the canonical tag across the whole site, but I think that would be extremely rare, because that would generally be something that our engineers would have to do pretty much manually. What usually happens is with the rel canonical tag is that we do this on a per-page basis. And on a per-page basis, we use a number of factors that come into canonicalization, including the rel canonical, including information about the URL, about the content, about other URLs that have the same content, and we try to pick a canonical based on all of those factors. And the rel canonical alone isn't enough of a signal for us to say we will always be able to trust it. If we see other signals that come into play, then we might ignore the rel canonical on a page like this. And that's something that happens on a per-page basis, so not something where, at least as far as I know, we would do this on a per-site basis and say, well, the canonical links on this website overall are wrong, therefore we'll ignore them completely. It's more that on a per-page basis, we'll try to pick the canonical URLs that we think make sense. I have a lot of excluded pages in my search console. My valid pages are about 1-tenth the number of the excluded pages. And it's a big site with 170,000 valid pages. I'm wondering if excluded pages count towards our crawl budget. Once Google decides a page should be excluded from the index, does it still crawl the page periodically? Should I be concerned that the high ratio of valid to excluded pages is eating up our crawl budget? That's a good question and a complicated one, I think, in the sense that, yes, the excluded pages are counted in the crawl budget in the sense that when we try to crawl them and we end up not including them in the index, then we've tried to crawl them and they count as an attempted crawl and essentially count in that bucket of crawl budget. However, what usually happens is when we exclude a page for any particular reason, that could be because maybe it has a no index tag on it. It could be maybe we have a duplicate URL and we've picked a different canonical. Then what generally happens there is we crawl these pages a lot less frequently. So while you might have a lot of pages that are excluded and we might be recrawling them from time to time, we'll be recrawling them a lot less frequently compared to the URLs that we think are important for your website. So on the one hand, they do count in the crawl budget. On the other hand, the effect within your site's crawl budget is generally minimal. Also, when we have a number of URLs that we want to crawl for a website and we also include a number of maybe excluded URLs or URLs that we're not sure about, and we run into a situation where we're limited by your site with regards to crawl budget, then we will try to prioritize the URLs that we think are more important over the ones that are less important. So let's say in an extreme case, we can crawl 1,000 URLs a day from your website and we know about 900 URLs that are good and about maybe 10,000 URLs that are from this excluded bucket. We'll try to get those 900 good URLs in first and then the rest that we kind of have available there we'll pick from the excluded bucket just to make sure that we're not missing anything, that pages from the excluded bucket did not end up suddenly becoming includeable and that maybe a no index is gone now and we can pick that up again. So yes, they're included in the crawl budget, but generally it's not something that you need to worry about there. OK, two really big questions. Let's see, I am working for a travel agency. We have our main platform and some that revolve around the main one. The revolving ones are all linked to the main one, but they're not linked between each other and all have a different domain. The revolving ones spoke about the same thing, but ranks with different keywords and content. So the subjects in these are identical. It's all about travel. The content is different, but there can be similarities. My websites are all divided into continents and we're speaking about a lot of countries and cities in those. So it can look the same. We're talking about the same cities and locations in each of those, but worded differently, like if it was a different opinion on an identical subject. Let's see, so maybe before I get into the questions, this sounds a lot like something that you might want to watch out for in that you're creating a ton of content that can look a lot like doorway pages in that you're just kind of switching different keywords across all of these pages here. So that's something where I would tend to be pretty cautious about just running a system like this with so many different domains and sites that essentially cover the same content. A lot of times what you'll find is that if you have fewer pages or fewer sites, you can perform a lot better in search because we can see that these are really important pages versus you're kind of diluting things across a lot of pages. So let's look at the questions. My issue is that I'm using a premade theme and I wanted to know if those would have an impact on the ranking of my websites, not necessarily. So whether or not you use a premade theme or a custom theme that's essentially up to you from a user's point of view, that might be something that users recognize and maybe that's something where users will say, well, I don't know if I can trust this website if they're just using a theme that kind of came with WordPress by default. But that's essentially up to you. Let's see, the second question, this is also about having multiple websites. Would applying a no follow rule suffice? So I think it's basically between the different websites or should I do some kind of Jedi mind trick, like transforming those links into spans and using JavaScript to redirect to my domain. So I think in general, the links between these sites and pages is less of a problem than just the plain existence of so many variations. So I wouldn't worry about trying to hide any of the links between those sites. I would instead try to find ways to combine a lot of these sites and pages so that you don't have to have that many separate ones. Usually having fewer sites means you, you can make those a lot stronger, you can concentrate your energy on those sites. A question about JavaScript, if I can see my text in Google's mobile friendly text, can I ensure that Google doesn't have a problem with reading and indexing my content and my pages? For the most part, yes, that's correct. There can be sub-doll issues with regards to JavaScript, but in general, the mobile friendly test is something that uses the new chromium setup that we use for Googlebot. So if it works in the mobile friendly test, it should work for indexing as well. One of the things to watch out for here is that the mobile friendly test, as far as I know, doesn't follow the robot's text rules. So that's something where you might want to use the inspect URL tool in Search Console to make sure that actually your JavaScript files and your server responses and all of that are working well from that point of view. I changed normal images to Instagram embeds on one of my articles and saw a decrease in rankings, clicks, et cetera, for image search. It was a 43% decrease in image search clicks overnight on a very reliable article. Can you talk a bit about the difference between normal images versus Instagram embeds from Google's perspective? So I thought that was an interesting question and I created a test page to see how this actually works because it really depends a lot on how Instagram sets this up because you're essentially just taking code from Instagram and putting it on your website. And depending on how they set up that code on their end, it can have an effect on your website. So in general, what kind of the bigger picture change is you're going from a situation where the images are embedded in the HTML directly on your website, where they're really easy for us to discover and really easy for us to crawl an index to a situation where we have to process some JavaScript and do some fancy processing to get to those images. So that means it's a lot more work for us to actually get to those images. We can recognize those images and we can crawl those images using the mobile friendly test shows those embeds as well. So it kind of looks okay. However, what I noticed is specifically with the way that Instagram embeds these images, they use an iframe to embed kind of the posts from Instagram, which kind of makes sense. But with an iframe, you're basically adding another layer of interaction between your page and the images. So it goes from your page to this iframe and then from the iframe content to your images. So that makes it a little bit harder for us to pick up those images. But what really kind of breaks the story for us is that within the content that is embedded from Instagram, within the iframe, they use a no image index robots meta tag. And this meta tag tells us that you don't want those images indexed together with the page itself. So if we just look at that iframe content, we can recognize that there's an image there. We can crawl that image. But with that meta tag, you're basically telling us that you don't want this image indexed together with that landing page. So essentially, by switching from a direct embed of an image on your website to using Instagram embeds, you're kind of telling us that you don't want these images indexed for your website. And with that, I think it would be normal to see a significant drop in image search traffic to those pages because you're essentially telling us you don't want these pages to be indexed like that. So from my point of view, it essentially kind of comes back to you and kind of your preferences there. I can understand that sometimes it makes sense to embed Instagram posts directly or social media posts in general because you get a lot of added value from just kind of the whole everything around that with regards to comments and maybe the likes and the shares and all of that information that is available within the embed. On the other hand, it makes it a lot harder for us to actually index those images. So that's something that you almost need to balance on your side. Do you need to have all of this extra detail around the images? Or do you really need to make sure that those images are well indexed for your website? And depending on the website, you might have preferences one way or the other. If you want to have both kind of the Instagram embed and to have your page ranking for those images, then that will probably be tricky and might involve weird situations like having to put it in there twice. Since a few months, we're seeing a new strategy where big news websites lease a whole subfolder or subdomain to a media company. I think we've looked at this a few times here as well. So the question is, this is Bami, and I don't like it. And does a search team know about this? We do talk about this with the search quality team from time to time. And we do try to find examples where we think that things are kind of worse for users and maybe also situations where we think that things are actually pretty good for users. In general, I think these kind of changes happen from time to time in that people will find something that works really well for them. And it happens to work really well in search. And then suddenly, everyone does it. And then at some point, it becomes so, I don't know, kind of problematic in the sense that it results in a lot more low quality content. And then the websites themselves get seen as low quality content and things kind of settle down into a more reasonable place. I haven't looked at this situation for a while now, but I feel it's something where things will be settling down into a more reasonable place. And in general, when it comes to changes like these, we try to avoid going down the route of manually kind of adjusting the rankings of individual websites because of these issues, specifically when it comes to kind of topics where it's more about quality rather than pure spam, then we wouldn't have the web spam team go in there and say, like, we need to manually adjust the ranking of these websites. But rather, what we would try to do is algorithmically try to recognize the situation overall and kind of work out where the high quality the useful content is within setups like this and to promote that appropriately in the search results and to find places where our algorithms can automatically recognize that this is not so useful for users overall and to make those less visible in the search results. And sometimes this takes a little bit of time. If a site has a fairly large volume of internal links which generate 301 redirects to reach the final destination pages, will this impact crawl budget? I see Google regularly visiting the 301 redirect URLs and I'm assuming that placing the correct links to the destination pages would be better utilization of crawler resources and would speed up page load time significantly for users. This is a fairly large e-commerce site where these kind of links are regularly and repeatedly available 10,000 plus times. In general, if we recognize that a page just bounces from one URL to another in the sense that we find a link to one URL and it redirects directly to the next one, then that's something that wouldn't negatively affect the crawl budget in the sense that it's like we can process it right away. It can mean that we spend a little bit more time on a per URL basis to crawl this website and that can in turn still affect the crawl budget. So in particular, if we recognize that we need so many seconds to actually get to the content, then we'll try to limit the number of simultaneous requests to that website just to avoid causing any issues and if each request takes longer then that in turn does mean that we are not able to crawl that much. So theoretically, that could play a role. In practice, it seems pretty rare and especially if you're talking about something like 10,000 pages, then for most websites being able to crawl 10,000 pages, especially if it's a fairly large e-commerce site, that's not something that would cause any issues there. So I think you probably see a small, incremental change with regards to our crawling if you were to link directly to the target pages but you probably wouldn't see anything significant when you're talking about 10,000 pages. If you're talking about all pages within the e-commerce site, so maybe you're always linking to a tagged URL and from that tagged URL you're redirecting back to a clean URL and you have that millions of times across the whole website, then that is something where I'd say you probably would see significant change in how much content we can crawl from that website by fixing that setup. But if you're talking about 10,000 pages within an e-commerce site that has millions of pages, then that seems fairly insignificant overall. To increase the EAT of a medical page, should I use article schema, for example, or for example, web page or medical web page as a latter two has an option for reviewed by property? Or maybe Google can find that the article was reviewed from the context if I provide such details and schema property reviewed by is not necessary. I think that's kind of up to you. We do try to recognize kind of these additional details about information about the author, information about the reviewers, about the website overall through a number of ways, partially through the content directly. So kind of similar to how users would see it. If they go to the page and they see kind of information about who has reviewed this content or who has provided it, that's really useful. If it's just like hidden away in structured data, then that's not very useful for users because users tend not to use view source when looking at a page to determine whether or not they should trust it. So I would try to find an approach that works well primarily for users and focus on that. With regards to article or web page, that's something where I'm not exactly sure what the difference there would be. It seems that from a semantic point of view, they're slightly different. There's a bit of an overlap there, though. So depending on the page that you have, I would try to pick the appropriate one there. So if you have an article, then maybe the article schema is the right one. If you have something more like a tool or a lookup or a forum or something, then maybe article is not the right approach there. Google has a penchant for adding branding to title tags and search results where there are none written on the site. For example HubSpot has a guide to cryptocurrency without the brand name in the title and Google added HubSpot to the headline in the search results. Is this purely aesthetic or is there possibly more to it? For example, a signal that Google likes to see sites add branding to titles themselves. So for the most part, we do this automatically because we find that it helps users to better understand the context of the individual pages that we show in the search results. And a lot of times I think we do a fairly good job of that. Sometimes we pick the wrong ones and for those that we pick wrong, it's useful to get feedback on that. So if you see something weird happening with the title tags, then feel free to let us know about that. But it's not something where I would say you have any kind of a ranking advantage if you add the kind of a site title to your title tags or any other kind of advantage there. It's essentially purely something that we end up doing for users. Sometimes we also rewrite the titles. Sometimes we have to shorten them if they're on a mobile device, for example. The same thing happens with the descriptions. Sometimes we adjust them subtly based on the query that was made. So all of these things are aspects that we try to do to make it easier for users to understand how your page is relevant for them in their specific situation. And it's not a sign that you have to copy that and do the same thing on your pages directly. I have a question about Google Analytics. For one of my clients under GA organic keywords, I see something like NP- or NP-user slash register. What could possibly be that I'm doing wrong in terms of tracking? I don't know anything about Google Analytics, so I can't really help you with that. My guess is maybe you're providing URLs to track on your own, but I really don't know how those things end up in Google Analytics. We have a website with 50 million monthly page views, and when people search for our brand directly, they don't see site links nor the site link search box below our homepage result. Search Console detects the site links, search box marked up correctly, so it just won't show up in the search results. Does this mean that Google considers our site to be low quality? 60% of our traffic comes from organic search, and the average session time is over four minutes. So no, it doesn't mean that we think your website is low quality. Maybe just, first of all, that's something that I really wouldn't worry about specifically with regards to the site links or the site links search box. We show site links and the site links search box when we think that it makes sense for a site and for the queries that are going to the site, and it's not necessarily something that is tied to the quality of the website. Obviously, the website could still be low quality, so it's not that I'm saying your website is high quality, but just because we're not showing site links or a site links search box is not a sign that we think the website is low quality. Specifically, to the markup of the site links search box, that's something where if we were to show a search box below the listing, then we would use the markup to show the version that you prefer to have shown, but it's not the case that just because you have the markup, we would be more likely to show that box. So it's still kind of as a first step. If we were to show a site links search box, then we would use a markup. It's not that if you have the markup, then we would show the site links search box. My question is regarding multiple countries targeting for multiple products. If I have product one, which is in demand in the US and product two, which is in demand in Canada and there are other products for both countries. Oh, this is complicated. If I target product one, product three and product four in US, will it make it complex for Google to understand in which country I'm targeting my entire website? Usually this is not an issue. So in general, when it comes to geo-targeting, you can specify that in multiple ways, but it needs to be a clear section of the website. So for example, you can say your whole site is targeting one specific country, or you can say I have multiple sub-domains or multiple sub-directories, and if you list those separately in search console, you can specify the geo-targeting for those parts individually. What you can't do is specify geo-targeting for individual pages within your website. So kind of with that out of the way that kind of means if you have a shop with multiple products on it, then you would use geo-targeting to specify the primary geo-targeting of the website overall, or you can use geo-targeting to say I don't want to have any geo-targeting for my website, I just want to rank normally. And probably that would be the right approach here in that you're essentially a global website and some products are more popular in individual countries and that's perfectly fine. We will try to rank them appropriately but there's nothing special that you need to do there. So there's no special markup that you need to put on these pages to say this product is specifically for the US and the other product is specifically for Canada and maybe the third product is global. We'll treat all of these products as being global and still try to rank them appropriately within the individual countries. And a Google My Business listing question which I don't really have any insight on. In a recent webmasters meetup it was said that the CCTLD is still a strong ranking factor. So it doesn't mean that a .com website with a separate folder is not a correct practice. No. Essentially when it comes to geo-targeting we use two main factors or two main ways to try to figure out the country. On the one hand if you're using a country code top-level domain then that's a pretty clear sign that you want to target that country. On the other hand if you use a generic top-level domain then you can specify that in Search Console and both of these ways are equivalent. So if you have a generic top-level domain you can specify the geo-targeting for the whole website. You can verify just the subsection of that site and set the geo-targeting for just that subsection in Search Console and all of that is essentially equivalent. In practice that means you can use the kind of the setup that you think works best for your website but there might be some maybe market-specific approaches that you want to look at as well in the sense that from an SEO point of view like you can do all of these things but from a practical point of view maybe users in one country really prefer to see their own top-level domain in the search results and they're really kind of cautious about the more generic ones and then that's something where it's more a matter of marketing which setup that you use. Sometimes it's also a matter of policy in that maybe if you're for example if you're targeting users in China maybe there are some policy reasons where you'd have to say well I need to use a Chinese top-level domain because that's kind of what's required there. I don't know if that's the case but I could imagine there are situations that end up like that. John. Can I just follow up on that question? Okay. So I'm in current search console I haven't looked but so can you set up forward slash US and target US and then forward slash UK and target UK can you do all that in the new search console? I think geotargeting is not yet in the new search console so not so you'd have to do that in the old one but you can yeah you can kind of make some match but the thing that you can't do is if you use domain verification then that's only in the new search console but if you have the subfolder verified then that would be available in both of them. Okay. Yeah hi John. Hi. So John actually this was my question regarding geolocation so a little different a little conclusion was like best coffee shop in New York one website is in New York or in USA which is targeting US and one website is in India which is set up country target in India then how geolocation works basically like somebody searching from India will see India site first. Possibly. Possibly. So what happens with geotargeting is when we recognize that a user is in one country and they're looking for something that seems to be specific to their country then we will use geotargeting to promote the local sites so there are a lot of situations where if you search you're basically trying to search globally if you're searching for an instruction manual on one product then you don't really care which country that that's from and then geotargeting is not really a primary factor on the other hand if it looks like you're searching for something to buy then maybe geotargeting should be a stronger factor so that's something where if you're doing some query that is kind of artificial like best coffee shop in New York while located in India then I could imagine that our systems get a little bit confused because they don't really know exactly what you're trying to do but if you're searching for the best coffee shop and you're located in one country then we'll try to bring results from that region so that's kind of I think with that specific query example that you had and the location that you had there then that's not really something that would map well to the general kind of user side of how how users use geotargeting Hey John and I so we're a site that's in the Alexa Global Top 1k and around the 1st of April we've noticed that hundreds out of the many thousands of site maps that we have have since then been reporting incorrect index data via the API so in some cases for ever since early April the index count is the same and we know for sure that that can't be the case the index count in some cases is reported as 0 or in other cases the index count just seems wildly inaccurate meanwhile the submitted count does seem accurate and so essentially we posted on the webmaster forums asking for some insights into the issue and to see if others were facing a similar problem but we weren't able to gain much ground there so just kind of wondering what you think the next steps should be for us and perhaps maybe we could escalate this issue because it seems like if there is some indexation bug or something around the API that maybe was resolved for most sites our site still seems to be affected that's unfortunately something in the API itself so that's something where at some point when we switched over to the new UI for site maps reporting I think they stopped updating that data in the API so that's probably why you're seeing some stale data for some site maps and some zero data for some sites within kind of the index encounter I need to talk with the team about kind of what the next steps there are I know they've been looking into it and trying to find a way to resolve that but I think it's been long enough that we need to at least document this state to make it clear for people who are seeing this problem that this is not something that they're doing wrong but rather we just aren't updating that data at the moment. I see is there any interim solution that we can employ perhaps submitting that site maps or doing anything else differently that could enable us to get this data because this data is pretty critical for us and not having it for a large portion of the site maps that we submit is pretty unfortunate. I don't think so I think at the moment it's not being updated at all so for the site maps where you are seeing a number there I suspect it's just the number that was there since April and for the ones where you're not seeing anything it's basically we haven't added anything there but I totally get your point I know that this is something that others are using as well so we should definitely find a way to get that data back in. I just don't have any ETA on that so I think what will probably happen is we will try to get it updated at least in the documentation so that it's clear that this data is not available and then in the next step with the API where I know the teams are working on improving some things there that will get that back in. I see and so despite some of the site map indexed counts seeming accurate and seeming like they're being updated it's the case that entirely for that site map API the index counts should be considered invalid entirely? Yeah. I would consider them invalid. Okay. No problem. Thanks for the insight. Sure. We still have a bit of time left actually we don't have much time left but I have this room for a little bit longer so we can continue a little bit longer if you like if there are any other questions that are on your side feel free to jump on in. Hey John we run the e-commerce business so we have two listing pages one listing pages will consider all the brands the other listing pages is only specific brand the specific brand page is considered as duplicate so how to eliminate that and I wanted to be indexed If we consider them to be duplicate then that's probably because of the content on those pages if they're about the same brands then I could imagine that we might run into that situation so if you need to have them indexed individually then I would make sure that the content is really significantly different if you don't need to have them indexed individually then I would pick one of those on your side and use the rel canonical to tell us which one of these versions that you want to have indexed Okay. Then one more question also is it necessary to specify the domain name in the meta title and description if there is no ranking advantage so is it necessary No it's not necessary some sites use the domain name as a brand name for the sites and putting that in the title is fine but there's no ranking advantage of using a domain name in the title or description Okay. Then one more thing also like Google reads the image all text so if suppose if I am over over an image and I display the text so is that Google reads it or We do use the the alt attribute for images we use it as a part of the page for the web page and for better understanding the image itself Okay. Thanks Wow. 20 people in here. Crazy I guess this is one advantage of the new setup more people can join in at the same time Any other questions from any of you Hey John Yeah, so this is related to the domain diversity update which was released in I think so June or July So it was not top stories part of this diversity update because what we see is most of the time the same news sources repeated two or three times within the top story carousel I don't know for sure if top stories would be included in that specifically because a lot of times when we have one boxes or kind of carousel elements there then we see those as separate parts of the organic search results page not as the same thing as the normal listings there. So it's quite possible that top stories has its own setup for determining how the diversity should be setup across the pages that we show there Yeah, because it's not like other sources are not covering that same topic they are covering it but still the same source appears two or three times So that's why I don't know how top stories would deal with that I do hear this from time to time so if you have any specific examples or screenshots or something that you can post on twitter and send my way that would be useful to pass on to the team it's sometimes a bit tricky with top stories because it's so specific to the location and the exact time when you do that query so screenshots are really helpful for that Sure, we'll do that Cool John Bassin applies to PA also not a part of that domain diversity update People also ask I don't know probably I don't know how those results are created but that's also essentially a separate block so generally speaking they would have their own internal ranking within that block Let me double check Yeah please Let me double check the submitted questions to see if anything new that we can add I think for most part we have things covered What else is on your mind? I had one very in my mind So John nowadays I am seeing that people have some schedule like if we want to shift to other domain let us just redirect it for one year and we will leave it In webmaster forum I am also seeing a lot of people discussing the same thing that please tell me for how long we should have this redirect 301 and then we will leave it How does Google really see if we have shifted this domain in the market to this domain and now links are still pointing to X domain which was earlier redirecting to Y domain How Google determines later on that yeah this link equivalent to this this link Y because 6 months back it was redirecting so now it is also the link where it should be passed to this Unfortunately if you reuse a domain for something else which could be either on your side could be that someone else has bought that domain and we discover links to that domain even if these are older links then we will count those links as applying to the new domain so it is not that we would say well this is an old link that was there when that redirect took place therefore we will ignore that link or pass it to the website that has moved on it is really the case if you remove those redirects if you remove those old URLs then we will probably try to apply them to the new website there so it is not something that you would get to kind of like keep if you move to a new domain and you let the old one expire because of that that is something where I really recommend on the one hand going through and updating the links kind of how we have that listed in the help center of trying to keep that old domain for as long as possible even if you are not using redirects anymore just at least keep it within your own control so that you don't run into a situation that suddenly a competitor is taking your old domain and using it to try to rank their content so if you are moving from one domain to another and set up permanent redirects I try to keep them as permanent as possible and in any case I try to keep the old domain name so that it doesn't expire and end up being something completely unrelated yeah cool John can I ask a quick question about image links versus regular links okay because we or I want us to link to the other websites that we have but showing the logo so it is more user friendly and that people can see it and not only have a text link would it still be okay to have it the link in the image sure sure what I think is useful there is either that you have the text link as well or at least that you use the alt attribute for the image to kind of give us the anchor text that you want associated with that link so that the alt text can be the full domain name sure okay but you will also have a text under it so it will be linking with the image and then the text under okay yeah that sounds good yeah perfect thanks hi John my question is Google is solving queries on its own such as what is the capital of UK it is possible that the Google got to know about this from such as websites as Wikipedia and others if Google will keep answering these questions without mentioning the website source it is possible that in the future Google is going to kill all the traffic to the webmasters who is providing such information about the persons and places Google is thinking about the criteria of these kind of webmasters right now sure absolutely I think that's something that pretty much everyone on the search team thinks about and tries to take into account so trying to find the balance between giving people information and making sure that the whole web ecosystem has a reason to remain kind of a thriving ecosystem that's something that we definitely think about a lot I think there are some kind of queries where it makes sense to show information directly in the search results and maybe others where it doesn't make that much sense so for example if someone is looking for the opening hours of a business then showing those opening hours doesn't cause any problems for that website in the sense that users aren't showing to the website and clicking on that page anymore to find the opening hours but they find the opening hours and they use these opening hours to go and visit the business in person so for the business itself clicks to that page are not really the critical aspect there but rather kind of being visible in search and being findable and having their information available for users at the right time so that they can then kind of have it a little bit easier to actually convert with that business and become actual customers and that's one aspect there the other aspect is of course if you have content that is very limited in the sense that you ask what is the capital of India and the answer is one word then if your whole web web page is essentially just to answer that question then of course that will be trickier because on the one hand there's a lot more competition for those kind of pages out there now and on the other hand a lot of this information is general information that we can just show and search so if the whole reason for being of your website is to answer kind of these one word questions then I do imagine that's something you'll have to figure out on your side kind of migrating the change in how search works, how the web works overall but that's something that from my point of view is normal as a normal part of the web in the sense that things evolve over time the user needs to evolve over time the expectations change over time and therefore websites themselves also need to find ways to stay with the web sometimes and find ways to be unique and compelling so that users want to go to your web page and don't just want a one word answer actually in recent article of Ryan Fischkin he is saying that the Google is providing answering the queries 48% without mentioning the source isn't it alarming to the webmasters I did not read that article so it's really hard for me to comment that John do you have a number or do you know a rough percentage of what queries you answer on the page rather than not I don't know I don't think we have a public number I think it's also tricky to say because some things are answered directly in a snippet on a page and it's kind of hard to say that this is something that Google is doing differently versus maybe the answer is just in the meta description of the page no I just wonder I suspect it's not a big issue people just notice it I imagine I imagine it's something that changes over time as well depending on how people search what kind of questions people use to search it's one of those things where I think user needs and user expectations change quite a bit I think business expectations have changed as well I think people now think you can monetize what's the capital of India where 20 years ago you look at it in a book or you ask someone else there's no money to be made from that query so people have got lucky for 20 years and maybe have made some money out of it but things change you can't make money out of everything that's probably the case too yeah I mean like capital of India I could imagine that for a long time you could make kind of ads made for ads landing pages that worked really well in search for that and that like you said for a while you could probably make a decent living just answering these basic questions but things change and especially when it comes to I think bigger websites that's something that has changed significantly as well where in the beginning you could make a landing page on specific book topics or specific things just because there is no kind of general source of information on the web and you could rank for those and perform really well and nowadays there are lots of different sites that are trying to compete for all of these queries yeah I think Axel you're raising your hand Axel from Germany I'm managing a really old site where we have a special charge in the URL so like some editors created URLs with copyright names and French accents like Avan or Elmix Julli and I noticed as the gear see the check URL tool is not accepting the URL at the moment because it says it's wrong encoded could you investigate on that do you have some example URLs that maybe you can copy into the chat yeah I give you one minute so we have here one URL where the editor or the person basically putting the product in this one it's a German site and there's a product and there's a percentage AE which is the copyright sign this one I would say is not so legit but there's another one where the brand name is called French Avan is also a famous toothpaste in Germany called Elmix Julli which has an E so the content editor just types in the name of the brand and the CMS is like converting the URL and if you paste that into a check URL it's like not okay trying those in the browser also doesn't show the character but it should at least load so I'll double check with the team on that in general what we recommend for kind of non I don't know non-standard I mean these are standard characters but kind of the non-asky characters yeah the kind of special characters is that you use Unicode if you include them in a URL that way we can always pick that up but we should if you can load this page in a browser we should be able to test it with the testing tools as well so that seems like a bug on our side the tool says at the moment URL is not in the correct format and we are trying to switch our system from to UTFH so it's going to be probably so if you could pass it to the devs yeah I'll definitely pass that on thanks cool any last questions before we close out for the week everything good okay that's good I think the indexing issue that we had yesterday should be mostly resolved now as well so maybe we can go into the weekend with a little bit less stress I hope the week has been good for you all and I wish you all a great weekend thanks everyone and see you next time bye


Maguire's Classic Wash & Wax Kit is loaded with essential products to keep your vehicle clean and looking its best inside and out. Maguire's Gold Class Car Wash provides rich suds to wash and condition paint in one easy step. Quick Detailer keeps your car clean between washing. Cleaner Wax cleans, shines and protects in one easy step. Potrim's Wheel & Tire Cleaner features a powerful formula to safely and easily dissolve brake dust and road grime from factory clear-coated wheels and tires. Quick interior detailers safely cleans and protects all interior surfaces. Also, essential accessories are included to apply and remove each product. The Maguire's Classic Wash & Wax Kit is truly a must for anyone who loves to keep their car looking its best.


So I'll be focusing on the asset, not so much Ethereum, the protocol. And it turns out there's only one DEF CON talk about EFER, the asset. And that's the one right now. And I'm hoping that this time next year we'll have multiple talks about EFER, the asset. Because in my opinion, EFER, the asset is critical for Ethereum to be successful in its mission in becoming the settlement layer for the Internet of Value. We need to understand it, we need to nurture it. So yeah, without EFER there's no Ethereum. And if Ethereum becomes the settlement layer for the Internet of Value, then de facto, EFER will become something very special, namely money for the Internet, Internet money. And there's this deep friendship between EFER and Ethereum that I'm going to try and tell you about today.  I'm going to invite you to think of money as water, which can be in multiple states. It can be liquid, it could be solid if it's cooled down and frozen, and it can be in this gas state if it has extremely high velocity. And this is interesting because at layer one, we have mechanisms that explore these extreme temperatures. So you can take EFER, water, and at layer one, you can freeze it, you can stake it. And in the process of staking, you're reducing the velocity of that EFER because it's kind of put in a black box and can't move. And something similar happens with the burn. The burn is all about, you know, destroying EF, consuming it, vaporizing it, and turning it into gas vapor. And something very similar happens at layer two. So at layer one, all of this is enshrined in the sense that EFER has a monopoly. And at layer two, there's something similar happening, but it's more of an emergent ecosystem. It's more competitive. So what happens at layer two is that EFER or other forms of money get bonded and get used as collateral in the context of decentralized finance, and money can also be used as currency when you're transacting. For example, when if it flows through the pipes of Uniswap, and the word currency comes from the word current, and it's basically money that is moving. And most of the time when people hear the word money, they think currency, and they only think about the high-velocity use cases. But it turns out that, especially for Ethereum, we shouldn't be discounting the low-velocity use cases, as those are extremely important as well. Using EFER as collateral is a use of money. So just to recap, we have EFER, Programmable Money, which can be programmed to do various things that contribute towards Ethereum.  It can be fully programmed to be a brain cell or heart cell or liver cell. And EFER could be programmed to be steak, contribute towards security. It can be programmed to be base fees, and contribute towards the sustainability of Ethereum as a project, economic sustainability, economic security. It can contribute as economic bandwidth in the context of DeFi, and it can contribute to economic activity that is on top of Ethereum within the decentralized ecosystem. And one thing that I want to highlight again is that there's these two different economies. There's the cold economy of money, mostly collateral money, and there's the hot economy. And both are extremely important. And in this talk, we're going to go through the various uses of EFER that kind of help Ethereum become a settlement layer for the Internet of Value, starting with security. So if Ethereum is going to settle the Internet of Value, it shouldn't get crushed by the economic weight of it because the Internet of Value is going to be massive. It's going to be tens of trillions of dollars.  And so there's this important concept of the security ratio, which is simply the total value secured divided by the economic security that Ethereum has. And right now we're at a point where the security ratio is very healthy. It's only 20, the lower, the better. And Ethereum is securing roughly $400 billion of value in the form of ETH, ERC20s, and NFTs, and because it has roughly $20 billion of economic security that gives us the security ratio of 20. $20 billion of economic security. Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? Well, in a way, it is a good thing, especially for Ethereum that is such a nascent project. And it's especially good that it's become, Ethereum today is the most secure blockchain, even surpassing its older brother, Bitcoin, by a factor of 2X. So if you want to do a 51% attack on Ethereum, that's going to cost you $20 billion. If you want to do a 51% attack on Bitcoin, that's going to cost you roughly $10 billion. But $20 billion in the grand scheme of things, is that a lot? No, it's not. We, I would argue that we want trillions of dollars of economic security for Ethereum, partly because we want to keep that security ratio relatively low, but also because we don't want any attacker, even the most sophisticated ones, like nation states, to be able to attack Ethereum. And if we have so much economic activity, then we'll be protected. Now, the economic security comes from these ETH deposits. And in the last two years, we've had a very healthy, continuous stream of deposits. On the order of 20,000 ETH every single day for roughly two years. And so now we're at a point where we have 14.2 million ETH staked. And we can ask ourselves, how much ETH can we expect to be staked in the long term? And the way that I think about it is by looking at what incentivizes people to stake, which is issuance. So there's two parts to staking. There's the cold economy, where you're freezing money at stake. But there's also the hot component, which is when you're issuing ETH as incentives for validators. And it turns out you can have a look, you can look at the yield from issuance. And there's this relationship, which is that every time the amount of ETH stake grows by a factor of 4x, the yield from issuance decreases by a factor of 2. So with 4 million ETH staked, the yield from issuance would be 8%. With 16 million ETH staked, it would be 4%. And with 54 million ETH staked, it would be 2%. And now it turns out that what we should expect is that the yield from issuance is going to have an equilibrium with the cost of money. And if the cost of money is, let's say, 3%, then we should expect something between 16 and 64, something like 30 million ETH staked. Now this brings us to the importance of the ETH price, because we have, let's say, 2x increase in the amount of ETH staked. Like how are we going to get trillions of dollars of economic security? So today we have 20 billion dollars of economic security. We want to get, let's say, to 1 trillion dollars. That's a 50x increase. We can get a 2x increase from ETH staked to 40 billion dollars, but we're going to need more than that. And specifically, we're going to need the price of ETH to go up 25x in order to get this really robust amount of economic security. Now one thing I want to mention at the end of this first section is this idea of minimizing the cost of security. So issuance has negative externalities because it dilutes all the holders. And at Genesis, we were issuing a lot of ETH, roughly 12.5 million ETH every single year. And now we're at a point at the merge where we've decreased that by roughly a factor of 20x. And we've reached a point where the issuance is extremely small and it's essentially optimal. And because we can't improve it, this is actually a forcing function for us to essentially ossify it because we've reached the best possible design. Great. So now that we understand that ETH is critical to the security of Ethereum, let's talk about sustainability. Now what do I mean by sustainability? We can think of Ethereum as a company. And the product that it's selling is block space, specifically secure block space, extremely secure block space. And as a project, it has income and it has expenses and that leads to profits. And we want profits to eventually be positive. We want the project to be successful, to be sustainable. So income is the block space sales, expenses is the security budget, and that's basically for Ethereum is the burn minus the issuance. And we can go further than that. We can actually look at P ratios, for example, and analyze Ethereum almost as if it was a tech stock. Now, since the merge, despite the massive reduction in cost of security, we are still not sustainable in the sense that Ethereum is still not able to pay for its security to compensate that with the income that it gets from selling block space. But the good news is that the amount of unsustainability is absolutely tiny. It's less than 0.1% per year. If we were to zoom out a little bit, because right now we're at a moment in history where the depth of a bear market and the transaction fees are very low, but if we were to zoom out even just a little bit, then we'll see that actually Ethereum is in a position to burn much, much, much faster than it is issuing. So if we take all the data that we have, since EIP 1559, we're burning roughly at a rate that's 3.5 times the amount that we're issuing today. And so the supply growth is expected to be negative. And so we have this shape of the supply which we should have, which is that during the first seven years of EFA's existence, the supply has grown very, very fast from this extremely high issuance. And the peak is this inflection point around the merge after which the supply will start decreasing and finding a new equilibrium. And this is what birthed the ultrasound money meme. If we call money, strong money that can't be debased, artificially, because they have a cap supply sound money, then surely something that has a decreasing supply where the money becomes stronger and stronger every single day should be called ultrasound money. And it turns out that bats produce ultrasound. And David, who's with us here, kind of innovated here at the memetic level and said, let's wear the bat signal to spread the ultrasound money meme. And this is where he started. We now have thousands of accounts on Twitter that are spreading the ultrasound money meme with the bat signal. And there's a community that is being built as we speak. Okay, so Ethereum needs security. It will almost certainly be sustainable thanks to all the fees that it's collecting and burning compensating for the cost of security. What about the application layer? What about economic bandwidth? So EF is used as economic bandwidth for decentralized applications. So two examples would be Maker, which uses 1.4 million EF as collateral to power its decentralized stablecoin and Ave, which is consuming roughly half a million EF for its decentralized loans. And the reason why EF is such a good choice as a collateral asset is because it's pristine. And what we mean by pristine is that it doesn't have a lot of these tail risks that other assets might have. It has no contract risk, no custodial risk, no oracle risk, no bridge risk, and no governance risk. But there is one downside to EF, which is that it is pretty damn volatile. And so one of the things that we can try and do is stabilize EF. And this is exactly what stablecoins are, specifically decentralized stablecoins that are backed by EFER. And here are three different projects that are using EFER to back that decentralized stablecoin. And right now we're using about 2 million EF specifically for collateralizing decentralized stablecoins. Now, I believe that we're at the very early days of EFER being used as a collateral. In my opinion, EFER is the perfect collateral money. And so today we may only have, let's say, 16 million EF that's used as collateral, but in 10 years' time it could easily be four times more. It could be something like 60 million EF that is used as collateral. Now again, I want to emphasize the importance of the EF price here in the context of economic bandwidth. Right now we have about 1 billion dollars of decentralized stablecoins that are collateralized by EFER, which is almost nothing. And really we want to be in a position where we have trillions of dollars of decentralized stablecoins. Right? We don't want to see a future where the economic activity is denominated in USDC or USDT, which are centralized stablecoins. Now let's say we want to get to 1 trillion dollars of decentralized stablecoins. We need to grow 1,000 EF from where we are today. We can grow the amount of collateral quite a bit by 15 EF, but that would only give us 15 billion dollars. We need the price to go up essentially. We need Ethereum to be successful so that we have a lot of economic bandwidth for decentralized stablecoins. Now one of the concepts I want to talk about here is the notion of illiquidity multiplier. So you know how I kept on emphasizing that there's two economies within Ethereum. There's the liquid economy, which is hot, and the illiquid economy, which is cold. And really, all the cash flows happen within the illiquid part. So if you think of the burn, it's liquid EF that is burned to pay for block space. And if you think of the issuance, there's like fresh EF that is liquid that is added to the liquid portion. And so really, one way to think about the Ethereum market cap is to focus on the liquid portion for which we have models. We have the discounted cash flow. We have PE ratios, et cetera. And then once we understand how much this liquid portion should be worth, the portion which is basically Ethereum as a business, as a tech company, then we can scale that out to the whole market cap. And the scaling factor is this illiquidity multiplier. And where we are today is that most of the EF is liquid. And so the illiquidity multiplier is actually tiny. It's just noise. It's like 25%, which is roughly the monthly volatility of EF. But things change quite a bit once most of the EF is used as collateral money. Let's say that 80% of EF is used as collateral money and only 20% is liquid. Here, then, the illiquidity multiplier is pretty big. It's 5x. So if the Ethereum cash flows, if the business of selling block space is worth, let's say, $1 trillion, then the whole market cap of EF the assets should be $5 trillion. Great. So we understand security, sustainability, bandwidth. All of these things are critical to the success of Ethereum and they all are tied with EF the assets. What about the last point, activity? So by activity, I just mean the amount of flows that are happening on top of EF. I'm thinking fluidity, liquidity, diversity, vitality, all sorts of applications, millions of transactions per second, something very vibrant. And the only way that we can get there is with scalability. Now, the good news is that I believe we will be able to scale Ethereum roughly a million x. We have this massive wave of scalability coming. We have the surge is coming. And just to give you a little bit more detail, there's basically three technologies that compound on each other, each of which give us roughly 100x in scalability. So we have roll-ups that will bring us to 1,000 transactions a second. We have shouting, which is going to bring us to 100,000 transactions per second. And we have Nielsen's law, which is going to bring us to 10 million transactions a second. Nielsen's law is basically the equivalent law to Moore's law, but for bandwidth. And it turns out that bandwidth is the only fundamental resource that blockchains need to consume. Now, as we scale Ethereum by a million x, there's this concept of the ultrasound barrier, which is how much each single transaction needs to pay for Ethereum to remain sustainable, basically for Ethereum to have enough income to pay for its security expenses. And so the ultrasound barrier is going to decrease by roughly a million x. So right now, we need to burn in base fees roughly three million GUI for every single transaction. But once we scale things up a million x, we only need to pay per transaction three GUI to be able to be sustainable. And the good news is that three GUI is an absolutely tiny amount of money. It's three billionths of an ether. And even if this ether is widely successful, even if it's worth a million dollars, let's say, three GUI would be still less than one cent. It would be $0.003, basically one third of a cent. And so basically, we're going to be in a position where Ethereum to remain sustainable requires transaction fees, which are essentially noise, essentially just dust. Now, one of the exciting thing about Ethereum as a business is that the secure block space is big business and it's been growing extremely fast. And this is basically the daily block space sales since the very beginning of Ethereum. And the y-axis is a logarithmic axis. So as time progresses, even though the per transaction fees might go down, the aggregate, the income should increase. And this is partly due to a concept called induced demand. As you improve things, as you reduce costs, then more and more users will come in, more and more decentralized applications will be built, and you're unlocking more and more activity. And I expect this to continue to happen. Of course, the block space is a very volatile resource. And so these peaks and troughs, they're highly correlated with bears and bull markets. And it could look like the aggregate fee volume has dramatically decreased by a factor of 100x, and it has 100x in the grand scheme of things is actually not much. Okay, so here's my last slide. And it's basically trying to give you a big picture summary, talking in terms of orders of magnitude, in terms of where I see a potential future for Ethereum. So I expect the supply to be roughly 100 million dollars in the long term. So right now we're at 120 million dollars, and the supply should decrease slowly, and eventually in the equilibrium reach 100 million dollars. Now where will these 100 million ether live? So they will live partly as stake, securing Ethereum, partly as collateral, providing economic bandwidth for DeFi, and partly as currency. For example, ether within exchanges like Uniswap or even centralized exchanges. If we have roughly 30 million ETH staking, that's going to lead to roughly 1 million ETH per year of issuance. And if Ethereum is going to be sustainable as a business, then the burn must match that at also 1 million ETH per year. Now the income, what I expect is, remember the previous graph, I expect the income for Ethereum to be billions of dollars every single day in selling block space, even though the per transaction fee will be less than a cent. So this is the success for Ethereum, where we can get the best of both worlds. On the one hand, we get tiny transaction fees for one single transaction, but in aggregate, because we're doing 10 million transactions per second, actually Ethereum has a huge amount of income and that allows it to have a huge amount of economic security. And then again, in the success scenario, I'm expecting tens of trillions of dollars of economic bandwidth for DeFi and correspondingly tens of trillions of dollars of stable coins that are being traded on top of Ethereum. And I think if we do reach this potential future, then undoubtedly Ethereum will have succeeded in becoming the settlement layer for the intent of value. Thank you. Hey, Justin, thanks so much for one making this a talk highly approachable. Thank you for that. So I had a question with respect to, from your talk, what I would now call the illiquid premium. And I think it was actually in David's talk where he had a friendly ultrasound debate where he gave up essentially the point that liquid staking derivatives, then I guess would reduce this illiquid premium. Could you potentially speak to that a little bit? Yes, so I wouldn't have given up so easily for a couple of reasons. Like the first reason is that one of the main uses of the liquid staking token is to have leverage. And so what you end up doing is you end up locking this liquid staking token. And so that liquid staking token is itself not liquid. But there's maybe another reason which is more important which has to do with the cost of money that I mentioned. So let's assume that the cost of money is fixed over time. Let's say it's 3%. The cost of money is going to dictate how much ETH is being staked. And what the liquid staking tokens do is they allow you to unsteak immediately as opposed to having to go through the execute. And you get this privilege of unsteaking immediately by basically paying a very small fraction to market makers or arbitrators who will go through the pain of unsteaking on your behalf. So you're going to sell let's say your one staked ETH for 0.9999 ETH, paying a little fee for the privilege of not having to go through the execute. Now what will happen is that these arbitrators, they will go through the process of unsteaking but when they do that someone else will come in and compensate for this removal of stake. And the reason is that in the equilibrium the amount of staked ETH should correspond to the cost of money. And so even if there's like a large amount of ETH that unsteaks then in the equilibrium more ETH will come in to bring things in. And so really you can think of the total amount of ETH really as being this illiquid iceberg that is essentially impossible to melt because if you melt a small portion another amount of ice grows on the other side. Awesome we'll move on to our second question. So in your future why would there be tens of trillions of dollars of stable coins instead of ETH or just having much less volatility and becoming like a stable coin? Right so you're really thinking ahead. So I'm thinking ten years into the future and I think it's going to take a long time to transition from fiat currencies that live in central banks to and commercial banks to basically stable coins that are settled on Ethereum. But I think you're right if you want to think much further than 10 years if you want to think 20 years, 30 years, 40 years then maybe there is a case for ETH asset to kind of be the stable money. I mean one possible counter-argument here is gold in the sense that gold never really managed to become this like perfectly stable asset and it's possible that there will always be like too much volatility relative to you know baskets of goods that people want to buy for ETH asset. So I think at the minimum we have to go through a transition period where we have these decentralized stable coins and it's possible that even in the end game ETH won't be stable enough. This is just an extra play on the last question. The debate was that ETH are locked in this taking contract has always been a fundamentally like bullish pillar of ETH. It's like the more ETH that's locked in the contract the more scarce it is more that more value it has and then Jordy in the debate was like well all these things are going to become staking derivatives so that you can easily sell so there's no such thing as locking anymore. But the counter-argument that I heard that I want to check with you Justin is that it doesn't matter whether you can easily sell it on a secondary market because the incentive to hold has always been through the yield and you can always you can always withdraw out of the staking contract. So is the 4%, 5%, 3% yield of ETH are equivalent to just like straight raw demand for holding this staking token regardless of whether you can unlock it or not. Are you saying that completely nullifies that argument? In my opinion it does yeah awesome. Well please give Justin a big round of applause. Thank you so much.


Round three of the World Championship here in the marketer stadium. Business time now. This is when you really got to produce it. If you want to make the final, keep yourself together. Drop that clutch at the right time. Don't be impatient. Don't blow it now. Greenlight is about to come on. Worfenden was a little bit nervous on the start. Tied away into the first term. Worfenden's just about there. Yanovskiy gets to the front round the outside in the first turn. He now fires himself to the front. Dan Buley coming through in the third place. Roaring round the outside of Worfenden. He's not quite there. Yanovskiy's stolen him out in the opposition. Worfenden hanging on in second place. Buley and Leon Madsen now squabbling for third place, but that's cost them dearly. But Madsen Yanovskiy, a brilliant first term from him. May you count himself lucky. He had a nibble at the start. He's already on a warning, but referee being kind to him. Out front, looking fast. Tied Worfenden settled down into second place. Once again now, Dan Buley pulled clear of Leon Madsen. But a lot of ground to make up. Can't see him doing anything from there. Madsen Yanovskiy out in front. Terrific first term from him showing real speed. Tied Worfenden there was close in that first turn. These two riders who ride together in Wroclaw in the extra league in Poland. Looking set fair for the final. Yanovskiy followed home closely there by Tied Worfenden. They make the final this evening. Buley and Leon Madsen missing out. Polish fans on their feet. A lot of respect between the first two riders. Of course there is. They've been teammates for some considerable times in Poland. But Madsen Yanovskiy wins his last two outings. And of course he has very fond memories and recent memories of the winning here in the Marqueta Stadium. Fourth in the world coming into tonight's meeting. 29 World Championship points to his name. And he's looking good. Yanovskiy wins very nicely indeed. Worfenden follows him home in second place. There through to the final. Buley and Madsen missing out this time. Cracking stuff from Yanovskiy. As I said he had a little nibble at the start and if the referee really wanted to pick on him he's on a warning. Now you can see Worfenden hasn't moved but Yanovskiy did move quite a bit there. I think Worfenden did move initially. Yeah maybe just a tiny bit there but Yanovskiy jumped there then goes and gets the advantage once he gets around the first turn. Maybe if he'd have made a clear start the referee may have not been so kind. I tend to agree. I think we could have seen a red light come on there but he was kind to them and Yanovskiy and Worfenden may well feel they've been a little bit fortunate there but for Yanovskiy once he settles down in front he looked fast, he looked composed. Buley had a real go early on but couldn't just make that stick. Had to try early doors. And then they were squabbling and that really cost any chance for those two riders to make the final. Yeah Buley never really had the opportunity because of the track grade. I think if it had been in the second semifinal maybe he'd have had the opportunity around the outside. Yeah disappointment for him but when you consider what happened to him earlier on he did very well to make the semifinals and he's picked up some valuable points this evening so fair play to him. But for that man Yanovskiy looking strong. Second semifinal is right here building up nicely, they're up at tapes and Bartos Smarslik there is on the inside in the red helmet colour alongside him is Martin Veselik in blue Jason Doyle will come out of gate three in white and Anders Thompson will go from the outside can he do something pretty spectacular has been below par on his last two outings prior to the semifinals, failed to score a point but I feel that Smarslik on that inside gate will be a favourite to make the final he'll want to put two weeks ago out of his mind of course we made that mistake and didn't make the final so the green light is about to come on semifinal number two, where they go Martin Veselik makes a really good start really gets to the first corner in front Jason Doyle alongside him Anders Thompson, oh he's gone down I thought for a moment he was going to run in the back of Jason Doyle the race continues it's going to go on now, out in front Martin Veselik and once again Bartos Smarslik has got a lot of work to do if he wants to make the final here Jason Doyle in second place looking strong, looking set but Martin Veselik the form continues for the Slovakian he's looking comfortably out from brave move but Smarslik poking Doyle under so much pressure look for that dive bomb move up the inside again but Doyle really not leaving him enough room and at the moment set fair to make his first semifinal of the season there it is Martin Veselik will move on to the final if he hangs on out in front there looking good for Doyle now Bartos Smarslik running too wide going to miss out on the final for the second consecutive Grand Prix Martin Veselik riding out of his skin through to the final chased home hard by the former world champion Jason Doyle those two riders had had disappointing campaigns before tonight's meeting and they have turned it around in fine style Smarslik is another shock to miss out on the final but for that man out in front he really has been making starts for fun and Martin Veselik and Jason Doyle through to the final I said that Veselik was brave to take gate 2 heat 20 they'd been in the same order and Smarslik came out on top of that one so to go into your very next race and he was selecting to do the same thing again he was brave but it just shows his confidence and we did see that with Max Frick a couple of weeks ago when he chose gate 4 on three occasions but this is a terrific effort for Martin Veselik yeah unfortunate friend is Thompson they just ran out of room as he picked up some drive nearly ran into the back of Jason Doyle and it was very fair on the other riders to get himself up which is very important to see there Doyle is just stopping that run but it's a mistake from Thompson really yeah great stuff it's great to see Jason Doyle back in the tick of the action now but that man in blue Martin Veselik full of confidence took gate 2 made absolute took advantage of it and Smarslik once again doesn't make it final nope just missing out on the final but we're now waiting for the big final race of the night Martin Veselik then really riding strongly tonight totally transformed character here in the Marqueta stadium all out of sorts two weeks ago in Warsaw but all of a sudden he's got the juices flowing here this evening that's for sure and Martin Veselik looks like his old self


awesome awesome awesome oh wow that was an amazing interview session i feel you know like the way you've had something like very delicious meal but then you're still not satisfied like not going for seconds per se but you feel like the portion you had stuffed was very little that's how i feel right now so maybe the inspirational vibe segment will be able to fill us up all right the scriptures today are found in john chapter 13 and verse 34 and the title is love one another and so the scripture says a new command i give you love one another as i have loved you so you must love one another all right let's think about that for a minute isn't that a tall order you know of actually a very tall order to fill won't you say like isn't it um so hard to actually love love one another it doesn't say love your family it doesn't say love your friends it doesn't say love those who love you back the scriptures just say love one another i feel it's a tall order and as a human beings you know spirit aside as a human being it's definitely the hardest thing to do it's not easy even some cultures would go ahead and say hey we're not loving we're not marrying for love love will grow you know let's marry because we need to fulfill you know the obligations of our culture it's very very very tough but guess what jesus actually did that you know look at the scenario so he has just washed the feet of his disciples all right so you see where we are right now yes he's up there in the house and he's washing the feet of his disciples he knows over the next few hours judas will betray him all right with a kiss he knows peter will deny him three times and what happens to the other ten disciples he knows they will forsake and leave him to die alone yet he's still washed their feet knowing they would do this he still goes to the cross for them while knowing they will abandon him i'm not sure honestly if i can love like that i'm not even pretending i'm not even going to try it like god if i don't make it too so easy what nick and any pang ya come i say i am trust you me it's gonna be so so hard to prophesy and say hey i still love and care about this guy it's a very very hard i'm sure i'm talking to someone out there love one another yet however with the holy spirit's help hallelujah someone say hallelujah with the holy spirit's help i will make a renewed commitment to love others and throw me under the bus you know as a person as sally standing here before you i cannot do it bow myself by my own strength by my own will i cannot do it by the christian me who promised me a helper in the name of the holy spirit he is able to renew my heart to renew my soul to renew my mindset and embrace love irrespective of whatever is sent my way by that person why is that important it is important because the point here is and that's what we're emphasizing in the month of january ensuring that god's presence is felt in you by you through you you cannot stand there and say you are his instrument you are his vessel for his use you are his person that god can be able to say oh that is my child yet whatever it is that comes from you whatever it is that comes actions them fully and that is the challenge i thought to you to me out there today let's just believe make that a man relationships it's very very important we've just started the year where you know heart instead forgive you know when you forgive eventually love comes in i know it's very easy to say i'll give but i will not forget fine it will take time however when you allow the holy spirit to renew your heart forgive you first love you first then it's very easy to trickle in someone's life love one another as christ loved us let us just endeavor to be christlikeness because we are here we are proclaiming that we are heirs of the kingdom with him so let's abide with the teachings that he taught us back then and this way we'll be able to actually win and conquer and the good lord will see us through all our actions and steps in jesus mighty name amen and amen and amen and the bible also says in the book of corridians let everything that you do be done with love do it with love because it's one thing loving the other thing expressing and of course love even with your action and do everything that you do to your friends even to those people that don't like you love them back all right that's how hey we have to really wrap the show men um i feel so sad but uh we have to come to the end of the show there's someone very special i went to actually say a prayer really quick they are down you know uh so much affected by the flu you know yourself and i know you are watching i want to stand with you in prayer right now so a quick one uh father in the mighty name of jesus i want to come before your presence and i want to say that lord i know you're able to restore to heal and to be able father god to make new father god i cancel and render powerless the attacks of the enemy that father god um are attacking this special person right now watching father god father god she trusts that lord you are able to heal and make her whole father god and so we speak the power of resurrection we speak the power of restoration and we claim the blood of jesus father god upon her life right now may you heal her may you make her whole and father god cancel null and void all the attacks of the enemy sent to render her powerless but father god as she proclaims your goodness and she proclaims that you are a healer father god you are able to restore her in jesus mighty name we pray and believe amen receive your healing in jesus mighty name awesome when you say thank you thank you so so much for choosing to watch jc circle show thank you so much for starting with us up to now thank you so much it has been indeed a very different show today i do not know why but the holy spirit knows why and even the songs that were played today by dj nicks you know the guests that came in today there was just some mellowness that came with the show and what is that supposed to tell you that when you release yourself when you release everything before lord the lord he will definitely take charge may you allow him to do so today and the rest of your week you know taking charge and letting god take first place and then everything else falls into place thank you so much the transmission crew for ensuring that we had a smooth flow of the show thank you so much um you know the sound team led by and the the technical side led by miss Miriam thank you so much our programmer miss Yvonne up there and our production team thank you led by you know our mama even in absence miss Evelyn Kangai and i were able by the way she had her birthday yesterday we have a vocal


A contentious copper nickel mine in north eastern Minnesota has taken another step forward with state regulators releasing a crucial draft permit for public comment. PolyMet executive vice president Brad Moore calls Friday's release a major milestone for the project after more than 10 years of environmental review and permitting. The draft permit to mine includes a requirement that PolyMet provide a large financial assurances package to protect taxpayers if the company goes bankrupt from having to cover the costs of closing and cleaning up the mine including long-term wastewater treatment. That's been a major issue in the long debate in which PolyMet and its supporters have touted the jobs it would create while environmentalists have warned of the potential for catastrophe. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland news please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.