Volar-e EV racer goes for a test drive, hopes to turn heads

Still nervous about trading in your gas guzzler for an electric carriage? The European Commission wants you to cast your eyes on the Volar-e, a high performance EV prototype designed specifically to garner attention. Designed and built by Applus IDIADA, the Volar-e boasts 1,000 horses driven by four independently controlled electric motors, a regenerative breaking system and the ability to juice up in under twenty minutes. The prototype -- which was built in only four months -- saw its first public outing this week at Circuit de Catalunya, in Spain, giving onlookers at peek at what its four driving modes can do.

The company didn't specify what differentiates the vehicles Eco, Dynamic, Racing and Wet modes, but did go out of its way to highlight the Volar-e's acceleration and top speed: 62mph in 3.4 seconds and 186 mph. The European Commission says the vehicle is built to promote electric vehicles to European markets, standing as a reference point to category's potential. Cool? Sure, but with performance like that, we can't imagine the Volar-e will do much to calm our range anxiety. Check out the prototype racer in action after the break.

Comments

Via: Motor Authority

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/01/volar-e-ev-racer-goes-for-a-test-drive-hopes-to-turn-heads/

lifelock camp david hawaii weather the jerk lake havasu halo 4 jewel

SpaceX recovers cargo capsule control after glitch

By Irene Klotz

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida | Fri Mar 1, 2013 7:23pm EST

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - A rocket built by Space Exploration Technologies blasted off on Friday on a supply run to the International Space Station, but a thruster problem with the cargo ship will cause it to miss its scheduled Saturday docking, officials said.

The 157-foot (48-meter) tall Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo ship lifted off at 10:10 a.m. EST (1510 GMT) from the company's leased launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, just south of NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The rocket delivered the Dragon capsule into its intended orbit, but within minutes engineers discovered three of the spacecraft's four rocket thruster pods were not working.

Engineers believe the problem most likely stemmed from a blockage in a pressurization system or a stuck valve, according to Elon Musk, chief executive and chief technical officer of privately owned Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX as the company is known.

Engineers were later able to get all four of the rocket thruster pods working. The first order of business then was to raise the capsule's obit to a higher altitude so it would not re-enter Earth's atmosphere within a day or two.

"Orbit raising burn successful. Dragon back on track," Musk posted on Twitter. NASA requires at least three thruster pods to be working before it will clear Dragon to approach the station.

The Dragon capsule, which carries more than 2,300 pounds (1,043 kg) of science equipment, spare parts, food and supplies, had been scheduled to reach the station on Saturday morning. NASA had not yet cleared SpaceX for a docking attempt. The next opportunity is Sunday.

"We have quite a bit of flexibility," NASA space station program manager Mike Suffredini said.

The cargo run is the second of 12 missions for SpaceX under a $1.6 billion NASA contract. Following a successful test flight to the space station in May 2012, SpaceX conducted its first supply run to the orbital outpost in October.

'TWO OPTIONS'

During launch of that mission, one of the Falcon's nine engines shut down early, but the other motors compensated for the power shortfall. The problem was traced to an engine material flaw, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said on Thursday.

NASA's Suffredini said of that finding: "The conclusions they came to, we agree with."

"Our role as NASA is to sit next to them and work with them and understand the anomaly so that we're comfortable. We have two options as the customer: We can either put our hardware on that vehicle or not," he said.

A second space freighter, built by Orbital Sciences Corp, is expected to debut this year.

NASA turned to private companies to ferry supplies to the Space Station, a $100 billion project of 15 nations, following the retirement of the U.S. space agency's shuttle fleet in 2011. Staffed by rotating crews of six, the orbiting laboratory flies about 250 miles above the Earth.

With the shuttles grounded, NASA plans to hire private firms to fly astronauts as well as cargo, breaking Russia's monopoly on crew transportation that costs more than $60 million per trip.

Across-the-board automatic U.S. government spending cuts going into effect late on Friday do not impact space station operations or supply runs, Suffredini said. But the cuts will slow development of privately owned space taxis, NASA said.

NASA has partnership agreements worth more than $1.1 billion through May 2014 with SpaceX, Boeing Co and privately owned Sierra Nevada Corp to develop passenger spacecraft.

Due to the cuts, NASA would effectively halt space taxi development work this summer, agency planning documents show.

Under the spending cuts, the agency expects its $17.8 billion spending plan for the current fiscal year to drop to $16.9 billion, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden wrote in a letter last month to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski.

"Overall availability of commercial crew transportation services would be significantly delayed, thereby extending our reliance on foreign providers for crew transportation to the International Space Station," Bolden wrote.

(Editing by Tom Brown and Will Dunham)

Source: http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/scienceNews/~3/C6u5w8PMbSk/us-space-nasa-idUSBRE92006C20130302

colorado rockies moonshine news channel 4 radar weather morosini death jacoby ellsbury jacoby ellsbury

GI's WikiLeaks admission energizes his supporters

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, back center, is escorted into a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., Friday, March 1, 2013, before a pretrial military hearing. Manning, who is charged with causing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to be published on the secret-sharing website WikiLeaks, pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that could carry a maximum sentence of 20 years. Prosecutors plan to pursue 12 more charges against him at a court martial, including a charge of aiding the enemy that carries a potential life sentence. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, back center, is escorted into a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md., Friday, March 1, 2013, before a pretrial military hearing. Manning, who is charged with causing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to be published on the secret-sharing website WikiLeaks, pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that could carry a maximum sentence of 20 years. Prosecutors plan to pursue 12 more charges against him at a court martial, including a charge of aiding the enemy that carries a potential life sentence. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

WASHINGTON (AP) ? While it may be a curious legal strategy, an Army private's decision to admit in court that he sent hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks has energized his supporters around the world.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, 25, has been called by some a whistleblowing hero, a political prisoner and a symbol of the misplaced priorities of the U.S. military and the Obama administration. Others, particularly in the United States, view him as a traitor. Regardless of his motives, he appears likely to spend many years in a military prison.

At the very least, Manning likely ended speculation that he leaked the largest trove of classified material in U.S. history wantonly or unknowingly.

At a court hearing Thursday, Manning read a 35-page statement describing his internal deliberations about whether to send the first batch of hundreds of thousands of battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he was trying to expose the American military's disregard for human life and provoke a public debate about U.S. military and foreign policy.

"I felt this sense of relief by them having it," Manning said Thursday of WikiLeaks. "I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience."

Jeff Paterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network, which has raised more than $900,000 for Manning's legal defense, said the statement confirmed what supporters have long thought of him.

"We've been defending this person as a heroic whistleblower for 2 1/2 years now, and it was inspiring and it was motivating to finally hear in his own words why he made this life-changing and possibly history-changing decision," Paterson said.

Besides the battlefield reports, he sent WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of State Department diplomatic cables, detainee records from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other classified records. He also released a 2007 combat video of a U.S. helicopter assault that killed 11 men, including a Reuters news photographer.

Manning said he didn't think the material would harm the United States, although the diplomatic cables would be embarrassing. The Obama administration has said it threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained relations with other governments.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute and the author of "Necessary Secrets," said Manning made a brash decision to release the State Department cables and should be punished for it.

"He said nothing he put out, he thought was damaging to the United States. I would beg to differ with that," Schoenfeld said. "He wasn't in a position to evaluate the damage."

But Schoenfeld doesn't think Manning was guilty of his most serious charge, aiding the enemy. "I don't think that was his intention," he said.

Manning's supporters say the documents exposed war crimes. They also credit a State Department cable indicating that the U.S. would not back former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali with helping spark the pro-democracy Arab Spring uprisings in 2010.

"I think he really deserves great credit for his courage and for doing the right thing," said Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers revealing that the U.S. had deceived the public about the Vietnam War. "I hope people will see these quotes and realize how well-motivated he was."

Military justice experts say it's unclear whether Manning will derive any benefit from pleading guilty to offenses that carry a maximum 20-year sentence. He admitted guilt without the benefit of a deal with prosecutors ? known in military parlance as a "naked plea."

After the judge accepted the plea, prosecutors announced that they would go forward with the remaining charges. Aiding the enemy, an offense that has not been brought to trial in decades, carries a maximum life sentence. Manning is also charged with violating federal espionage laws and theft counts that carry decades in prison.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale and has followed the Manning case, said Manning gained little by pleading guilty without a deal.

"The only thing that might have been a nice outcome for him would have been if the government had said they don't want to pursue these other charges," Fidell said. "The only thing he has gained is some brownie points from the judge."

But Michael Navarre, a former Navy judge advocate and military justice analyst, said there might be some advantage, because the remaining charges would be more difficult to prove.

"He's laying the groundwork for a more lenient sentence and laying the groundwork for a potential defense to the aiding the enemy and the espionage charges," Navarre said. "You end up with a more reasonable starting position ? 'I admit I did it, but I didn't think it was going to harm anyone.'"

Internationally, Manning tends to be seen far more favorably than in the United States ? particularly in countries such as Britain where many opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and see his prosecution as an attempt by the Pentagon to punish a soldier who dared challenge the war.

Manning's picture was on the front page of Britain's left-leaning Guardian and The Independent newspapers Friday.

Supporters held an early-evening vigil in Manning's honor Friday in front of the U.S. Embassy in London. Ben Griffin, a former British soldier who resigned to protest the tactics of his American colleagues in Iraq, said Manning was trying to gain control over a trial that has been weighted against him.

"He is defining ? before the prosecution and anyone else can try to define for him ? why he did this," Griffin said. "It's been put out into the public domain now."

Jude Fleming, a 50-year-old Canadian teacher, said Manning's statement of principles had raised his moral stature in the eyes of the world.

"I think it elevates him," she said. "It takes the word 'alleged' out. Instead of saying 'alleged whistleblower,' all of a sudden he becomes the hero: He is the whistleblower. He's proud to say that he's the whistleblower."

Jesselyn Radack, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project, said her clients accused of leaking classified material are treated like "rock stars" abroad. But she doesn't envision a groundswell of support for Manning in the U.S.

"We continue to move on this very draconian path in terms of whistleblowers," Radack said. "I think historically, people will be vindicated, but that may not be for decades or even in my lifetime."

___

Associated Press writer Raphael Satter in London contributed to this report.

___

Follow Ben Nuckols on Twitter at https://twitter.com/APBenNuckols.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/386c25518f464186bf7a2ac026580ce7/Article_2013-03-01-US-Manning-WikiLeaks/id-faf1d6e4c8ea4dd38f0164e37488c5c8

nfl mock draft 2012 norfolk island michael brockers lisa marie presley florida panthers tannehill joel ward

Space station capsule engine problem may be fixed

AAA??Mar. 1, 2013?3:47 PM ET
Space station capsule engine problem may be fixed
By MARCIA DUNN??By MARCIA DUNN

The Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket lifts off from launch complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla., Friday, March 1, 2013. The rocket is transporting the Dragon capsule to the International Space Station containing more than a ton of food, tools, computer hardware and science experiments. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

The Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket lifts off from launch complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla., Friday, March 1, 2013. The rocket is transporting the Dragon capsule to the International Space Station containing more than a ton of food, tools, computer hardware and science experiments. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

This Jan. 12, 2013 photo provided by NASA shows the Dragon spacecraft inside a processing hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla. where teams had just installed the spacecraft's solar array fairings. The California company known as SpaceX is scheduled to launch its unmanned Falcon rocket on Friday morning, March 1, 2013, carrying a Dragon capsule containing more than a ton of food, tools, computer hardware and science experiments. (AP Photo/NASA, Kim Shiflett)

In a photo provided by NASA, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, with it's Dragon spacecraft onboard, is seen shortly after it was erected at Launch Complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on Friday, March 1, 2013. Launch of the second SpaceX Commercial Resupply Services mission is scheduled for later Friday morning. (AP Photo/Nasa, Bill Ingalls)

The Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket lifts off from launch complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla., Friday, March 1, 2013. The rocket is transporting the Dragon capsule to the International Space Station containing more than a ton of food, tools, computer hardware and science experiments. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

The Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket lifts off from launch complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla., Friday, March 1, 2013. The rocket is transporting the Dragon capsule to the International Space Station containing more than a ton of food, tools, computer hardware and science experiments. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) ? SpaceX says it looks like an engine problem with its orbiting Dragon capsule has been fixed. But the vessel's arrival at the International Space Station with a load of supplies will be delayed.

The private spacecraft ran into trouble with its thrusters shortly after liftoff Friday morning.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk says all four sets of maneuvering thrusters should be working soon. The problem might have been caused by a stuck valve or line blockage.

But the delay means that the unmanned Dragon won't get to the space station on Saturday.

The California-based company has a contract with NASA to make a dozen deliveries to restock the space station. This is the third trip by a Dragon capsule to the station.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-03-01-Private%20Space/id-37bebd6cd88e454ea651ecf4367d17fa

nfl scores Devon Walker Tom Cruise ryan reynolds Star Trek: The Original Series Carlton Morgan Freeman Dead

AP PHOTOS: A look at sinkholes in Fla.

FILE - In this June 25, 2012 file photo, a truck hangs over the edge of a sinkhole that opened up in the parking lot of Hughes Relocation Services in Salt Springs, Fla. Tropical Storm Debby raked the Tampa Bay area with high wind and heavy rain Monday in a drenching that could top 2 feet over the next few days and trigger widespread flooding. (AP Photo/The Ocala Star-Banner, Alan Youngblood)

FILE - In this June 25, 2012 file photo, a truck hangs over the edge of a sinkhole that opened up in the parking lot of Hughes Relocation Services in Salt Springs, Fla. Tropical Storm Debby raked the Tampa Bay area with high wind and heavy rain Monday in a drenching that could top 2 feet over the next few days and trigger widespread flooding. (AP Photo/The Ocala Star-Banner, Alan Youngblood)

FILE - In this Sept. 7, 2004 file photo, a sinkhole approximately 10 feet deep swallowed this automobile in the parking lot of Hitchcocks Foodliner in Archer, Fla. (AP Photo/The Gainsville Sun, Jim Matthews)

FILE - In this Sept. 5, 2004 file photo, a driver cruises past a sinkhole in West Palm Beach, Fla., on northbound Interstate 95 that developed following heavy rains Saturday night from Hurricane Frances. (AP Photo/Palm Beach Post, Damon Higgins)

FILE - In this June 25, 2012 file photo, people look at a large sinkhole near Jonesville Park, in Jonesville, Fla. Tropical Storm Debby raked the Tampa Bay area with high wind and heavy rain in a drenching that could top 2 feet over the next few days and trigger widespread flooding. (AP Photo/The Gainesville Sun, Doug Finger)

FILE - In this Sept. 28, 2004 file photo, Sean Watson looks down into a massive sinkhole that opened up during hurricane Jeanne at the Brookfield subdivision across the street from Fort Clarke Middle School. Initial estimates put the sinkhole at 40 by 50 feet across and about 30 feet to the water. Watson said that Alachua County Public Works told him the water depth was estimated at another 20 feet. (AP Photo/The Gainsville Sun, Lee Ferinden)

A man has disappeared after being swallowed up by a large sinkhole that opened under his bedroom in Seffner, Fla. The state is especially prone to sinkholes because underneath the ground is limestone, a porous rock that easily dissolves in water, sometimes forming a hole in the earth.

Here's a look at other sinkholes in Florida.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-03-01-Sinkhole%20Swallows%20Man-Photo%20Gallery/id-4c9076e3b4c846e4bf9b86eb52d84feb

Star Wars citizens bank Hansel and Gretel LGBT Giovanna Plowman martin luther king jr quotes Inauguration 2013

Groupon fires CEO, still faces underlying problems

FILE - In this Oct. 14, 2009 file photo, Andrew Mason, the CEO of Groupon, poses for a photo in Chicago. The struggling online deals company said Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, after the market closed that it ousted Mason as CEO and will look for a new chief. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Greenm, File)

FILE - In this Oct. 14, 2009 file photo, Andrew Mason, the CEO of Groupon, poses for a photo in Chicago. The struggling online deals company said Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, after the market closed that it ousted Mason as CEO and will look for a new chief. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Greenm, File)

NEW YORK (AP) ? Now that Groupon has gotten rid of its quirky founder and CEO, the chief question is whether the company's underlying online deals business is promising enough to reverse its falling stock price, declining revenue growth and waning consumer interest.

Groupon Inc. fired Andrew Mason on Thursday, one day after the company reported another disappointing quarter amid worries that people are tiring of the restaurant, spa and Botox deals that Groupon built its business on.

In a refreshingly candid memo to staff, Groupon CEO Andrew Mason admitted he "failed at this part of the journey" and said the company's employees "deserve the outside world to give you a second chance. I'm getting in the way of that. A fresh CEO earns you that chance."

Mason's firing has been "fairly widely expected" given the company's performance, and the surprise was how long it took, Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg said.

But a new CEO may not be enough to tackle all of Groupon's problems.

"The question is whether this as a business model can last," Gartenberg said. "It's easy to replicate and under a lot of pressure. The question is where the company goes from here.... Clearly something wasn't working, isn't working."

Benchmark Capital analyst Daniel Kurnos also questioned whether a change in leadership will be enough, but he said a successor might succeed in getting Groupon more focused and steering it toward more traditional businesses. For example, Groupon Goods, which sells products rather than restaurant or spa deals, has been performing well. With its deals, Groupon's challenge is to balance pleasing merchants who sell the deals with pleasing the customers who buy them, he added.

"There was always a sense that Groupon had a lot of good ideas but no real focus," he said.

The company appointed Executive Chairman Eric Lefkofsky and Vice Chairman Ted Leonsis to the Office of the Chief Executive while a replacement for Mason is found. Lefkofsky is a co-founder of Groupon. The 43-year-old entrepreneur, a veteran of the Internet boom and bust in the late 1990s and early 2000s, is also the company's largest shareholder and pre-IPO investor. Leonsis is a former executive at AOL, where he helped steer the company's transition from a dying business, selling dial-up access, to one revolved around ad-supported content and services.

Groupon Inc.'s stock increased 8 percent Friday morning. The announcement had come Thursday after the market closed.

Mason, a Northwestern University graduate and former punk band keyboardist, founded Groupon in 2008, pioneering the daily deals business. Groupon started as a side project to another website, The Point, which helped raise funds for various causes. The idea behind daily deals is that if enough people sign up for a discount ? for restaurant meals, manicures or weekend getaways ? offering the deals will be worthwhile for businesses, especially if customers bring friends or come back. Groupon makes money by taking a cut from those deals. By 2010, Groupon was available in 25 countries, and some people saw online deals as the next big thing in retailing.

But analysts have been questioning the long-term viability of such a business, not just at Groupon but also at the long list of copycats, which include LivingSocial, Google Offers and Amazon Local.

While the business is easy to set up, it is difficult to sustain and to stand out. Companies must make both their customers and the businesses that offer the deals happy. Many merchants have become reluctant to offer deals because of how little they were getting in payments and repeat business once the promotions ended. And to keep growing, companies need to make more from each subscriber, rather than simply add more addresses to email deals lists. Investors had been worried that instead of buying more, people were suffering from fatigue over the frequent emails.

LivingSocial, Groupon's closest competitor, laid off 9 percent of its workforce late last year. To diversify its business, Groupon has expanded into product sales, payments services and other areas, but there have been worries that those efforts haven't been paying off.

Mason, known for an eccentric character that didn't fit the mold of a buttoned-down CEO, made no qualms about what had happened.

"I've decided that I'd like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding ? I was fired today," wrote Mason, 32. "If you're wondering why... you haven't been paying attention."

He referred to controversy over its accounting practices, "two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that's hovering around one quarter of our listing price." The stock fell another 24 percent Thursday before the announcement and closed at $4.53, 77 percent below the $20 it started trading at when Groupon went public in November 2011.

"The events of the last year and a half speak for themselves," he wrote. "As CEO, I am accountable."

Groupon, which is based in Chicago, has faced scrutiny about its high marketing expenses and enormous employee base. Its staff has ballooned to more than 11,000, more than that of other Internet darlings such as Twitter, Facebook or Zynga Inc., the other fallen star of the latest swath of Internet IPOs.

Groupon's IPO was one of the most highly anticipated ? and controversial ? among the social media and Internet companies that began publicly trading in the past year and a half. It faced regulatory scrutiny for reporting as revenue the total amount its customers spent on deals, not just the money it got to keep. After federal regulators questioned the practice, Groupon submitted new documents that showed that net revenue in the first half of 2011 was about half of what it originally reported.

Though it made a profit in the second quarter of last year ? its only profitable quarter as a public company ? investors have been more focused on its slowing revenue growth. In 2012, its first full year as a public company, Groupon's revenue increased 45 percent to $2.33 billion. But that's much slower than the five-fold growth in 2011 and 22-fold increase in 2010, compared with the previous years.

Thursday's announcement came one day after more disappointing news on revenue. The company said revenue in the current quarter would be in the range of $560 million to $610 million, below analyst expectations of $647 million.

Groupon said Mason was not available for interviews.

The company did not disclose details about any severance package he might have received, though it will be required to do so by next week. In a regulatory filing last year, Groupon said Mason is potentially entitled to $4,344.36 in total compensation if he is fired "without cause or for good reason." The bulk of that amount is for health coverage, as Mason voluntarily reduced his base salary to $756.72 in 2011, from $180,000.

Much of Mason's wealth comes from Groupon's stock. He owns 7 percent, or about 46 million shares, according to FactSet. Based on Thursday's closing price of $4.53, that's worth more than $208 million.

Groupon's stock hasn't traded above $10 since last July and hit its lowest point, $2.60, in November. Until Wednesday's earnings report, the stock had been crawling back up, but the results disappointed investors who sent it tumbling once again.

On Friday, the stock added 36 cents to $4.89 in morning trading. The 8 percent gain was modest compared with the 24 percent drop Thursday, before the announcement. It's a sign that investors will need more than the CEO's firing to start believing in Groupon again.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2013-03-01-Groupon-CEO/id-2c016ee0acd14c7fb37f15ef0fcbb3a8

VP debate drew brees drew brees sandusky Sam Champion Hulk Hogan sex tape orioles

Google Gutted Its Search Quality Rating ... - DeonDesigns.ca

As part of today?s big ?How Search Works? reveal, Google also took the big step of sharing its Search Quality Rating Guidelines for the first time.

This is the document that Google?s human search quality raters use when grading Google?s search results.

But the new, public document is actually an edited version of the old one that circulated quietly several times amongst webmasters and SEOs. In fact, ?gutted? is more accurate than ?edited? ? where the most recent non-public version of the document was 161 pages, the public document released today is only 43 pages.

What?s Changed

The biggest change, in my opinion, is the complete removal of Parts 3 and 4 ? ?Page Quality Rating Guidelines? and ?Rating Examples.? These sections offered extremely detailed guidance on how to rate pages, how to rate sections of pages, how to judge the reputation of a website, and specific examples of public web pages and how they should be rated. I?ll share more on this below.

Many sections, in fact, are now missing the specific URL examples that were included in the old document ? URLs that matched the different labels of Google?s rating scale, for example (?vital,? ?relevant,? ?useless,? etc.) It?s likely that Google doesn?t want all those specific examples of pages and how they?re rated to be public. It?s also possible that Google decided web pages/URLs change regularly and it?s not efficient to have to manage a public list of URLs in that setting.

A substantial amount of material related to local search and location-based queries was removed.

There are also some sections that were expanded to add clarification ? a section on ?thin affiliates? is one example.

I?ve spent most of the morning comparing the most recent ?underground? version of the Search Quality Rating Guidelines with the new document made public today, side-by-side, listing all the relevant (and some you might say aren?t relevant!) changes. Who loves ya, baby?

Ready? Here we go?.

34 (At Least!) Changes To Google?s Search Quality Rating Guidelines

1) The old document was version 3.27. The new document is 1.0.

2) Google added this preface to the new document:

?Google relies on raters, working in countries and languages around the world, to help us measure the quality of our search results, ranking, and search experience. These raters perform a variety of different kinds of ?rating tasks? designed to give us information about the quality of different kinds of results in response to different kinds of queries. The data they generate is rolled up statistically to give us within the Google search team a view of the quality of our search results and search experience over time, as well as an ability to measure the effect of proposed changes to Google?s search algorithms. Raters? judgments do not directly impact Google?s search result rankings. While a rater may give a particular URL a score, that score does not directly increase or decrease a given website?s ranking. Instead these scores are used in aggregate to evaluate search quality and make decisions about changes.

This document is a ?Cliff?s Notes? version of our search quality rating guidelines. By this, we mean that it is not the entire version that raters use on a daily basis; however, it is a summary of the important topics. The raters? version includes instruction on using the rating interface, additional rating examples, etc. These guidelines are used as rating specifications for search raters, and this document in particular focuses on a core type of rating task called ?URL rating.? In a URL rating task, a rater is shown a search query from their locale (country + language) and a URL that could be returned by a search engine for that query. The raters ?rate? the quality of that result for that query, on a scale described within the document. Sounds simple, right? As you?ll see, there are many cases to think through, and this document is used to guide raters on some of those cases and how to look at them.

Our search quality rating guidelines are in constant flux as we learn and search evolves over time. We?ve created this version especially for those individuals who want to understand better how Google thinks about relevance and quality of search results.?

3) Section 1.3 ? ?The Purpose of Search Quality Rating?

Old text: ?Your ratings will be used to evaluate search engine quality around the world. Good search engines give results that are helpful for users in their specific language and location.?

New text (change in bold): ?Your ratings will be used to evaluate search engine quality around the world. Good search engines give results that are helpful for users in their specific language and location. Please note that your ratings do not directly impact Google?s search result rankings or ranking algorithms.?

That?s something that Google has emphasized in the past, and obviously has reason to emphasize again.

3) Google removed Section 1.6 (?Releasing Tasks?).

This section explained that it?s okay for raters to skip (release) some rating tasks, and described some cases when that?s acceptable, i.e., ?You believe that the landing page will be offensive to you.?

4) Section 2.4.1 (?Action Queries ? Do?) and 2.4.2 (?Information Queries ? Know?)

In these sections, Google edited the charts showing the relationship between a query and a landing page; example URLs of helpful pages were removed, as shown below.

OLD

NEW

The example URLs were left in Section 2.4.3 (Navigation Queries ? ?Go?) and Section 2.4.4 (Queries with Multiple User Intents (Do-Know-Go)).

5) In Section 3.0, ?The Language of the Landing Page,? a chart showing examples of landing page language flags was removed.

6) In Section 4.1, ?Vital,? which is about the highest rating that a page can receive, Google removed a paragraph directing the reader to a later part of the document.

7) Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 were removed. These were titled:

• 4.1.1 ? Examples of English (US) Navigation Queries with Vital Pages for the Task Location
• 4.1.2 ? Examples of Entity Queries with Vital Pages
• 4.1.3 Vital Pages for People Queries

Each section included a chart listing examples of ?vital? web pages for different types of queries.

8) Section 4.1.4 (?Other Important Vital Concepts?) was changed to become Section 4.1.1 (?Important Vital Concepts?) and was edited substantially. A chart showing examples of queries that don?t have vital pages was left in, but two charts showing examples of vital pages were removed ? one chart showed how there may be more than vital page for some queries, and the other showed examples of unofficial website that look official and should not be considered vital.

9) Section 4.1.5 (?Vital Pages and Geographic Location?) was removed completely. This section offered guidance for dealing with websites and web pages that have multiple versions for different languages.

10) Also removed completely are:

• Section 4.2.1 (?Examples of Useful Pages?)
• Section 4.3.1 (?Examples of Relevant Pages?)
• Section 4.4.1 (?Examples of Slightly Relevant Pages?)
• 4.5.1 (?Examples of Off-Topic or Useless Pages?)

Each of these sections showed specific web pages matching the labels from Google?s rating scale. The company clearly doesn?t want the general public ? and the companies whose pages were used as examples ? to see specific examples of how Google assesses their pages. And, it?s also likely that these examples were removed because web pages change and some of the ratings may not have been accurate.

One interesting example is this paragraph from Section 4.4.1 which is now gone:

Please note that not all pages with copied content are considered ?low quality?. The website www.answers.com contains content copied from Wikipedia.org and other dictionary and encyclopedia sites, but is not considered to be a low quality site because the content is well-organized and intended to be helpful for users. Similarly, there are pages on medical information sites that contain copied content. If the page is well-organized and appears to be designed to be helpful for users and not just to display ads for users to click on, it should be rated based on how helpful the content would be for users.

I?m guessing that Google wouldn?t want an endorsement of Answers.com like that to be widely distributed.

11) In 4.5 (?Off-Topic or Useless?), this paragraph was added to the new document:

A rating of Off-Topic or Useless also applies when there is lack of attention to an aspect of the query that is important for satisfying user intent.

12) In Section 4.6.1 (?Unratable: Didn?t Load?), some text describing a military site that triggers a message saying its security certificate isn?t trusted was removed, and a chart showing similar examples was edited to remove the URLs of sample pages that deserve the ?didn?t load? rating. Another chart showing similar web page-generated messages was removed.

13) Charts with example URLs were removed from

• Section 5.1 (?User Intent and Page Utility?).
• Section 5.2 (?Location is Important?)
• Section 5.3 (?Language is Important (This section is for Non-English Task Languages)?)
• Section 5.5 (?Specificity of Queries and Landing Pages?)

14) In the ?Common Rating Problems? section of the document, Section 5.6.1 (?Dictionary or Encyclopedia Results?) was changed as you see here:

OLD

NEW

15) Section 5.6.2 (?Action vs. Information Intent?) was removed completely from the new document.

16) Section 5.6.3 (?Queries that Ask for a List?) became 5.6.2, and a chart with example URLs was removed. Ditto for Section 5.6.4 (?Misspelled and Mistyped Queries?).

17) The very detailed Section 5.6.5 (?URL Queries?) was renamed to 5.6.4, but remains very detailed. Some example URLs were changed, and two charts with example URLs were removed.

18) Section 5.6.6 (?New and Old Pages?) becomes 5.6.5 and two charts with example URLs were removed.

19) Section 5.6.7 (?Search Engine Result Pages?) was removed entirely, and probably should?ve been a long time ago. This section tells raters that they should rate search engine result pages ?just like any other landing page? ? even though Google has said for years that it doesn?t want its own search results to include search result pages.

20) Section 5.6.8 (?Video Landing Pages?) was also removed completely.

21) In the ?Flags? section of the document, these sections were edited substantially, usually to remove charts with example URLs:

• Section 6.2.1 (?Clear Non-Porn Intent?)
• Section 6.2.2 (?Possible Porn Intent?)
• Section 6.2.2 (?Clear Porn Intent?)

22) Section 6.2.4 (?Reporting Illegal Images?), which discusses child pornography and bestiality and has specific reporting instructions for both Leapforce and Lionbridge employees (the two companies that hire and manage the Quality Raters), was removed.

23) There are significant changes to ?Part 2: URL Rating Tasks with User Locations?, where several sections were removed completely:

• Section 1.0 (?Important Definitions?)
• Section 1.1 (?What is the User Location??)
• Section 1.2 (?Why are the Task Location and User Location important??)
• Section 1.3 (?User Location, Task Location, and Explicit Location in the query?)

All of those were replaced with a Section 1.0 called ?Query Locations? that?s about half as long as the old material.

24) Section 2.0 (?Location-Specific Rating Task Screenshot?) was changed ? a chart was moved to Section 1.0 (?Query Locations?).

25) Another major change in this section is the consolidation of 11 pages of local query information down to two. These sections are gone and/or were condensed:

• Section 3.0 (?The Role of User Location in Understanding Query Interpretation/User Intent?)
• Section 3.1 (?Queries with Local Intent?)
• Section 3.2 (?Rating Landing Pages when the task has a User Location?)
  Unchanged
• Section 3.3 (?Vital Ratings for Rating Tasks with User Locations?)
• Section 3.4 (?Rating Examples?)

Those are replaced by two sections:

• Section 3.0 (?Assigning a Rating When There is a Query Location?)
• Section 3.1 (?When Does the Query Location Matter??)

26) Parts 3 and 4 of the old document are completely missing from the new one. Part 3 was called ?Page Quality Rating Guidelines? and Part 4 was ?Rating Examples.?

They totaled about 50 pages of very detailed instructions and guidelines about identifying the quality of web pages, identifying ?main content? and ?supplemental content? on a page, how to rate the layout of a page, how to identify the reputation of a website, determining if content is high, medium, or low quality ? and so forth.

Some of the material in these two sections was very ?inside baseball? and not stuff that the general public would care about, but certainly anyone creating web content would.

27) ?Webspam Guidelines? used to be Part 5 of the document, but becomes Part 3 with the removal of the two sections described above.

Some text has been edited to educate the reader about things like PPC ads, and some text has been removed ? including a section (2.0) on browser requirements that human raters have to follow, text that linked to screenshot examples showing raters how to check for spam (i.e., ?use Ctrl-A to reveal hidden text?), and text-based instructions for doing this like disabling javascript.

28) In the new document, Section 2.2 (?Keyword Stuffing?), these two bullet items were added to the list of examples:

• Pages with a large amount of what look like gibberish or random keywords.
• Pages that appear to be programmatically or automatically generated text that doesn?t really make sense.

29) This sentence was added to Section 2.4 (?Cloaking?): ?True cloaking is somewhat rare, but spammers do use other methods to show different pages to search engines than to users.?

30) Section 3.1.5 (?Copied Message Boards?) now mentions ?copies of Usenet posts? as an example of spam.

31) In the old document, a section on ?Recognizing Copied Content? was broken up in the new document to two sections, but the content is the same.

32) The definition of ?thin affiliate? has been clarified in the new document; the sentence in bold is new:

A thin affiliate is a site that offers little additional information and does not offer substantial value to users compared to many other sources on the Web. For example, an affiliate that has only copied content from the merchant site is considered a thin affiliate. This is a moneymaking spam technique.

Also in the new document, these two bullet points describing thin affiliates have been removed:

• Click buttons on the page. Click on a ?More Information? or ?Make a Purchase? button. If you are taken to a merchant on a different domain, it is probably a thin affiliate. You will not be able to make the purchase on the affiliate webpage.
• Check properties of images on the page. Right-click on an image on the page with your mouse and look at ?Properties? to see where the image originates. Check to see if the address of the image is the same as the address of the page or if it is the address of a ?real? merchant.

33) The instructions for identifying ?Pages with Unhelpful Content and PPC Ads? have been expanded. Google says raters should ask themselves these questions:

• Is the content likely to be helpful to users or is it too general, too poorly written, or gibberish?
• Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
• Does the page have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
• Would you trust the content?
• Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to the site?

34) In the new document, ?Part 6: Using EWOQ? is removed ? that has instructions for using the evaluation system where tasks are performed. Also gone is ?Part 7: Quick Guide to URL Rating? and ?Part 8: Quick Guide to Webspam Recognition.?

Conclusion

I think it?s great that Google has publicly released this Search Quality Rating Guidelines document. But the changes above strongly suggest that this is not the document that its hired human raters will be using, but more of a watered-down, public-friendly version.

Related Topics: Features: Analysis | Google: Search Quality Raters | Google: SEO

---

About The Author: Matt McGee is Editor-In-Chief of Search Engine Land. His news career includes time spent in TV, radio, and print journalism. His web career continues to include a small number of SEO and social media consulting clients, as well as regular speaking engagements at marketing events around the U.S. He blogs at Small Business Search Marketing and can be found on Twitter at @MattMcGee and/or on Google Plus. You can read Matt?s disclosures on his personal blog. See more articles by Matt McGee

Connect with the author via:
Email

| Twitter
| Google+
| LinkedIn

---

Source: http://www.deondesigns.ca/blog/google-gutted-its-search-quality-rating-guidelines-for-public-release/

kennedy demi moore roy oswalt kevin martin 2012 senior bowl chuck series finale welcome back kotter