Project Bedrock (EN) - Google Docs  ## Metadata - Author: [[google.com]] - Full Title: Project Bedrock (EN) - Google Docs - Category: #articles - Document Note: ## Summarize: The article discusses the idea of making a subset of information publicly available and indexed in search engines. While it is agreed that public access to information is important, the question remains whether it should be made available to search engines as well. The article suggests that creating a standard for this could be a solution, making it easier for companies to maintain their websites and information. Additionally, the importance of verifying the source of information is highlighted, as well as the need for a public profile connected to the company. The article concludes by mentioning the possibility of using OAuth for login purposes and the importance of having a knowledge base and community. ## Bullet Points: - Should there be a rule for making a subset of information publicly available and indexed in search engines? - Importance of public access to information. - Debate over whether legal information should always be publicly available in search results. - Suggestion to create a standard for making information available. - Benefits of verifying the source of information and having a public profile. - Possibility of using OAuth for login purposes. - Importance of having a knowledge base and community. ## Paraphrases: 1. Having public access to a subset of information is crucial, but whether this information should also be indexed in search engines is uncertain. 2. The idea of creating a standard for making information available online is an intriguing solution, as it would simplify the process of maintaining websites. ### Conclusion: The article explores the idea of making a subset of information publicly available and indexed in search engines. While it is agreed that public access to information is important, there is a debate over whether this information should also be available to search engines. The suggestion of creating a standard for making information available is seen as a potential solution to streamline website maintenance. The importance of verifying the source of information and having a public profile is emphasized, along with the potential use of OAuth for login purposes. Overall, the article highlights the need for a knowledge base and community in order to facilitate access to information. ### Questions: 1. What are the benefits of making a subset of information publicly available and indexed in search engines? 2. What challenges could arise from implementing a rule for public access to information? 3. How can the source of information be effectively verified in order to prevent misinformation? 4. What impact could creating a standard for making information available have on website maintenance? 5. Are there any potential privacy concerns associated with making certain information publicly available? ### Auto-tagging: public access, information availability, search engines, website maintenance, source verification, public profile, OAuth, knowledge base, community ### Index Creation: 1. Public access to information 2. Search engine indexing 3. Website maintenance 4. Source verification 5. Public profile 6. OAuth for login 7. Knowledge base 8. Community ### Table of Contents: - Introduction - Public Access to Information - Importance of Public Access - Debate over Search Engine Indexing - Creating a Standard - Verifying the Source of Information - Having a Public Profile - Using OAuth for Login - Importance of a Knowledge Base and Community ### References: None consulted or cited. ### Future Research: 1. Investigate the potential privacy implications of making certain information publicly available and indexed in search engines. 2. Examine the impact of creating a standard for information availability on website maintenance practices. 3. Explore different methods of verifying the source of information to ensure accuracy and prevent misinformation. 4. Evaluate the effectiveness of using OAuth for login purposes in accessing public and private information. 5. Investigate the role of knowledge bases and communities in facilitating access to information. ### Hypotheses: 1. Hypothesis 1: Making a subset of information publicly available and indexed in search engines increases access to important information. 2. Hypothesis 2: Creating a standard for information availability streamlines website maintenance and improves the user experience. 3. Hypothesis 3: Verifying the source of information and having a public profile enhances the credibility and reliability of the information. 4. Hypothesis 4: Implementing OAuth for login purposes improves the security and ease of accessing public and private information. ### Methodology: 1. Conduct a survey to gather opinions on the benefits and challenges of making information publicly available and indexed in search engines. 2. Analyze website maintenance practices before and after the implementation of a standard for information availability. 3. Perform case studies to explore different methods of verifying the source of information and their impact on accuracy and reliability. 4. Use a combination of user interviews and data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of using OAuth for login in accessing public and private information. 5. Conduct qualitative research to explore the role of knowledge bases and communities in facilitating access to information. ### Implications: Future research in this area has the potential to advance knowledge by exploring the benefits and challenges of making a subset of information publicly available and indexed in search engines. The findings can inform policies and practices related to information availability and website maintenance. Additionally, understanding the implications of source verification and having a public profile can enhance the credibility and reliability of information online. The use of OAuth for login purposes and the importance of knowledge bases and communities can also influence the development of secure and accessible platforms for accessing information. ### Logical validity: The main arguments presented in the article are logical and coherent. The debate over whether a subset of information should be publicly available and indexed in search engines is discussed, weighing the importance of public access against potential concerns. The suggestion of creating a standard for information availability is logical, as it would simplify website maintenance. The importance of verifying the source of information and having a public profile is also logical, as it enhances credibility. Overall, there are no apparent logical fallacies employed in the article. - Document Tags: [[wordpress]] - Summary: The content could not be imported from the original document. - URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/edit Project Bedrock aka WordPress /hosting Authors * [Javier Casares](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/javiercasares/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848925106&usg=AOvVaw1iMgwf3NEUIXxGU9A8ENZP) Reviewers * [Amy Kamala](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/amykamala/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848927717&usg=AOvVaw2cZO9ZfyYOm-jsrOB-_O16) * [Jessica Frick](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/jessibelle/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848928520&usg=AOvVaw07x5arVYw9jLf-SCx5hZya) * [Lucas Radke](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/crixu/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848929204&usg=AOvVaw2V-LyhOOCGiJwf2YkEDoG2) * [Kira](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/kirasong/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848929836&usg=AOvVaw3YhNx__u1BfRit35xkPWGy) [Schroder](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/kirasong/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848930248&usg=AOvVaw2cEcuWq-5LIYxP0KjuwiCk) * [Jesús Yesares](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/glycymeris/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848930857&usg=AOvVaw0lHJ3W7vCugvzzImCxwsju) * [Bernard Zijlstra](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profiles.wordpress.org/bernardzijlstra/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848931524&usg=AOvVaw283dkqFMrAzPGI1ETObwzB) #### Project Bedrock One of the pillars of WordPress to work on is hosting. Hosting companies depend on the WordPress project but also collaborate within community teams like core, docs, and hosting. Hosting companies are mainly in the spotlights with event sponsorships, we think it’s time to revive another spotlight. For a long time, there has been [wordpress.org/hosting](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wordpress.org/hosting/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848934540&usg=AOvVaw2ERzT6j7fVuidLG2Abqg1v), which is underused and which is currently just that, a simple page. For many years, the Make Hosting team has been raising the possibility of creating a directory in which any hosting company that meets a series of predefined requirements, can appear as recommended hosting, or compatible with the WordPress CMS. This project began as the [“Requirement Matrix” Criteria](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uvb3LsOyTZ0D2mVw7yokfCxMb0lCkFWdSnXD1b-2HWU/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848936311&usg=AOvVaw0cIfRBB_laMKoqK25QyofD), a list created by several members of the Community in which dozens of factors are listed by which each of these hosting providers can be considered, either by functionalities (not numbers), alignment with the project and WordPress values, the minimum technical requirements and options. This document will try to solve some doubts regarding what factors should be considered, how to develop the project, what teams should be involved in it, and how to maintain the site. An important element, which should appear in the list, is respect for the use of the WordPress brand. This living directory can also help WordPress as a brand to make sure we have a transparent and trusted source of hosting companies. Companies where the onboarding experience is friendly and in a well-maintained shape, to not lose newcomers to other solutions like WIX or Shopify. We, as a community, need to make sure that we don’t lose them as customers and users of our ecosystem only because they couldn’t find a good hosting solution. #### Idea and goal To have a directory of hosting providers, the idea is to be able to access the site and have a list of companies that can be filtered through a series of filters. This directory would be found at [wordpress.org/hosting](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wordpress.org/hosting/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848940086&usg=AOvVaw3pP6KrzS8uPvdKM35C3fVH). These filters will be, for the most part, the different factors that will subsequently arise and that may evolve. A directory is proposed in which users can choose providers for their functionalities and needs. It does not suggest a directory in which to promote one over the other, but a list of factors that allow you to help according to your hosting needs. Visually, the listing could be similar to the one currently on [wordpress.org/showcase](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wordpress.org/showcase/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848941462&usg=AOvVaw2OSN90Pmer31G4pxLCf9Hw), where you can search, filter or browse. Some existing examples of directory projects can be: * [webhostinggeeks.com/providers](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://webhostinggeeks.com/providers&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848942586&usg=AOvVaw2UKVjlIBqfZ4yObl8ElFeq) * [www.whtop.com/directory](https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.whtop.com/directory&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848943349&usg=AOvVaw1h-OUf9Dc9-5ityviWHxZh) There would be a series of search listing pages, and listings of each of the hosting providers. ##### Who can appear For starters, any hosting provider can appear on the list as long as it meets minimum requirements. The main one will be compliance with the use of the WordPress brand on your sites, and also help WordCamp, Meetup and other WordPress events to vetting the sponsors. Apart from this, if the data filled in is correct, there should be no problem in showing up. This implies that infrastructure providers, providers that use third-party infrastructure or providers that resell third-party services, among others, may appear. ###### Disclaimer In any case, it will always be necessary to inform that WordPress is not responsible for the products, services, or actions of the providers; nor shall it act as an arbitrator between providers and customers; and that WordPress does not accept any type of payment for the appearance of companies in that list. #### The procedure On the site there will be a form, to be filled in by the companies that want to appear, in which a series of data will be requested. It will be a long and informative form, so a temporary draft system could be created until its review and publication. This means that a provider accesses the form and can save it temporarily (until the next visit) or submit it for final review. Once the form is received, the team created for this project, which could be like “Hosting Review Team” just like there is the Plugins Review or Themes Review. ##### Review of data As with plugins, the review of the data must be initial by the Hosting Review team, and later by the provider and users. In that first review, the team will analyze all the URLs that are proposed (company, products, terms and conditions, etc.) to validate that they exist and that they meet the minimums, and a general vetting process, like the one we have in place for WordCamp sponsors. A first analysis will also be made in which it is validated that all the factors are publicly available on the site. If all the elements are met, it would be approved and published in the directory, creating a single file of the company, and a single file for its different products. ##### Subsequent updates Frequently, an automatic email will be sent to validate the data. If the data does not change, that validation must also be approved, as is done with plugins every time a new version is sent. This review can be every 3 months (4 annual reviews). This will help validate that the emails are received and that the data is reviewed and up-to-date. In case a provider does not accept these updates during 2 automatic reviews, the listing will be temporarily hidden from the search results, although its tabs will remain active, in addition to being notified. If after these warnings, you still do not validate after the fourth time, the listings on the site will be deactivated. In addition, manual shipments can be made to notify changes in factors. A quick example can be the appearance of a new version of PHP, in which they report the existence, for example, that PHP 8.3 has appeared, and have the option to update that information when appropriate. In this process, the Hosting Review team will be limited to supporting and reporting changes, in addition to managing incidents. ##### User suggestions As it is very possible that it happens, there will be some providers that have contradictory or erroneous elements in their listing. Although the Hosting Review team makes the first review, in later times they can change and, in the same way as any other WordPress elements. We should provide forms in which users can indicate information that may be incorrect, or some detail about the provider. When an incident is received, the Hosting Review team will make the first analysis and, in case of not finding the information publicly, a notice will be sent to the provider to update it or send data about it.[[a]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt1)[[b]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt2) If the provider does not send the information in an established timeframe, their information will be hidden from the results, and if in a set time a greater response is not received, the files will be deleted from the website. ##### Review Hosting Team The Hosting Review team will be made up of several people from the WordPress Community who must follow the documentation published in the Handbook of the Hosting team. Like other WordPress Community teams, users will be able to start or end their participation whenever they want, following up in weekly, biweekly or monthly meetings, depending on the workload of the project, which is currently unknown. There must be two levels of access. A higher level where you have permission to disable the appearance of the results, the deactivation of tabs, and the modification and display of any element of the tabs. A lower level where tabs can be updated, without having access to the provider's personal data (for example, email addresses or WordPress users). #### Technical development[[c]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt3)[[d]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt4)[[e]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt5) This is a complex project, without any doubt, and one that involves many parts within the WordPress Community. ##### Custom Post Type There must be at least 2 Custom Post Type. The first one will be generic, and will refer to hosting providers. Here we will have the general data of the provider, its name, website, description and generic elements. The second will be that of a product, which will be associated with the Custom Post Type of providers. In this, we will have an (endless) list of factors that can be considered for filters or searches.[[f]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt6)[[g]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt7) All factors could appear on the front, next to provider data. Still, not all factors have to be part of the filters or search system. ##### Front-end The front will consist of several parts. When accessing, there will be a general list of results of suppliers that can be filtered through a simple filter system. This filtering system can be expanded into an advanced one or having a specific page to filter by any of the elements. The summary tab should be the same for everyone, including a logo, product name, company name, and some factors considered “essential”. This part should link to the product sheet, in which all possible factors will be shown. You will also be linked to the provider's file, which will show links to your site, terms and conditions, and more generic elements common to all products, as well as a list of all available products. In addition to the directory, there should be many parts where forms can be filled. Ideally, it should be open to anyone, although that can mean an increase in spam. Closing it to registered users could be an impediment to appear in the listings. In any case, another option could be to relate that hosting provider to some existing users. The registration process should allow the saving and recovery of a registration process, being a long and complex list, or allow it to be paginated according to sections or factors. Another option is that filling in the first page creates a unique URL that can later be edited until it is published. In the product and supplier sheets, there should be a report form by any user to be able to notify of any type of data that does not correspond. ##### Design The design and, above all, the UX will have a vital weight in this project. There are many factors that will have to be grouped and displayed so that users do not get lost in so much information. The ideal would be to follow other parts of the existing site that have been redesigned, such as the Showcase section, so you could take advantage of what you learned in this part, as a directory that is, for the creation of the hosting directory. ##### Access / User levels There must be two levels of access. A higher level where you have permission to disable the appearance of the results, the deactivation of tabs and the modification and display of any element of the tabs. A lower level where tabs can be updated, without having access to the provider's personal data (for example, email addresses or WordPress users). ##### Sorting factor Probably one of the biggest concerns of hosting providers is the way in which the results will be sorted for the appearance in the results. We can propose several ways to order the data, which can be better or worse depending on how you look at it. The simplest way would be to sort alphabetically. This is a classic system, but it does not always help everyone, neither users nor providers. Another way would be random. The problem with this option is that a user who is browsing, the pagination can be created randomly, so it can be very confusing. You can consider cached lists, but with all the combination of filters, it could become a problem in the medium to long term.[[h]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt8) The optimal way of ordering would be that part of the existing factors have a series of weights, and to be able to order the results in the same way always. Each of the factors would have a certain weight, as considered. For example, those providers participating in Five for the Future have a +0.9 weight, or those using WP-CLI also have +0.2. We can pose the weights in a range between 0.0 and 1.0 (0.1 steps). In any case, may the factor be negative. This sorting system can be recalculated once a day, considering that any provider can update their data, or someone from the Hosting Review can deactivate products or providers. This, in addition, would allow generating simpler caches having a sort value. #### The factors The list of factors should not be considered a ranking, but a filtering system that allows users to find a list of providers that meets their needs. The key elements will be: * The company * Products * Target audience * Uptime/SLA * Control Panel * Security / Performance * Development Features * Support * Certifications * Price It is important to note that this directory should not be a recommendation by “us”, keeping in mind that “we” are WordPress as a Community. This project simply has to be a list of providers with information and options. This list should avoid comparisons, quantity, or interpretation of functionalities. ##### The company[[i]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt9)[[j]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt10) One of the significant elements is whether the company contributes to WordPress or open-source projects. In this case, you could ask for the URL of Five for the Future, as well as a URL detailing open-source projects in which you participate. You should also include a series of generic URLs such as the homepage, the privacy page or the terms and conditions page. Another element to consider is the existence of a clear content policy, which should also be available through a URL. This content policy refers to the control of legal and illegal content, and its relationship with local policies. ###### Ownership of infrastructure A fundamental element will be who owns the infrastructure on which you work. In this sense, we can find: owners of the infrastructure / servers or providers that use third-party infrastructure (indicating which). ##### Products Hosting providers must be able to offer several products based on several elements not comparable to each other. A clear example can be the type of technology offered, or the management of this, key elements that make a user can do more or less in them. A classic classification can be the type of hosting (shared, VPS, cloud) and its management (managed / unmanaged). This combination would allow a company to offer, with that combination, up to 6 different products. Each of these products should have its URL. ##### Target audience Hosting providers must be able to choose one or more target audiences to which it is directed, depending on the person who is going to hire it. A simple list can be: individual, agency, company. Another option, perhaps more interesting than the previous one, is to select the type of target project to be hosted. A simple list can be: blog, corporate website, e-commerce, scalability, performance… ##### Uptime/SLA Offering service guarantee figures can generate many misunderstandings because of the combination it can entail, but it can offer links to two URLs. The first one is the URL where the uptime or SLA levels are specified, if any. Another can be a URL where you can check whether the service is active or not, as a status, to know if there is any kind of problem. ##### Control Panel An important element when choosing a provider is the use or not of a control panel from which to manage practically everything. The most common would be: no, Plesk, cPanel, VirtualMin, own panel… This panel is not that of the provider, for example, where the services are contracted, and the procedures are made, but a panel to manage the sites. If there is a possibility to activate an MFA system. ##### Security / Performance ###### Security Certificate Whether a security certificate is offered. Whether the certificate is Let's Encrypt or another. Whether a free, paid certificate, or both is offered. Supported versions of TLS (1.0, 1.1, 1.23, 1.3). HSTS support. ###### Security Headers X-Frame support. Support for hotlinking. X-XSS support. Content-Security support. ###### Firewall / WAF / AntiDoS There is some type of DoS protection, by default, optional or alternative. GeoIP protection or IP blocking. Management of access lists. IDS (Intrusion Detection System). IPS (Intrusion Prevention System). SIEM (Security Information and Event Management). WAF, specific to WordPress. Security tools like fail2ban, mod\_security, firewall to close ports. ###### Virus / Malware Antivirus/antimalware service. Email Notice. ###### Vulnerabilities Tools for vulnerability detection in Core, Plugins and Themes. ###### Backups Backups included Backup cadence ###### Other tools Review file permissions File shortcut lock User listing blocking Secure keys Disable Directory Browsing Disable PHP in certain places Admin User Management ###### WordPress Versions Automatic updates Update to the latest major version by default Update to the latest minor version by default Version upgrade is not forced ###### PHP versions PHP 5.6.20+ PHP 7.0 PHP 7.1 PHP 7.2 PHP 7.3 PHP 7.4 PHP 8.0 PHP 8.1 PHP 8.2 ###### Recommended PHP extensions List of [extensions recommended](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://make.wordpress.org/hosting/handbook/server-environment/%23php-extensions&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1738674848981338&usg=AOvVaw1DnNg4PBz1JQZJDBUJ4PMU) by the hosting team. ###### SQL Options MySQL 5.7 MySQL 8.0 MariaDB 10.3 MariaDB 10.4 MariaDB 10.5 MariaDB 10.6 MariaDB 10.11 Other versions ###### Object Cache Options Redis Memcached Own Others ###### Server updates Automatic kernel updates Automatic PHP updates Automatic MySQL/MariaDB updates ###### IP address An IPv4 address is provided. More IPv4 addresses can be added. An IPv6 address is provided. More IPv6 addresses can be added. ###### Performance (Server Side) Gzip Brotli HTTP 1.1 HTTP 2.0 HTTP 3.0 ImageMagick libraries WebP libraries ###### CDN Own CDN Cloudflare Integration Integration with others ###### DataCenter List of countries where there are physical datacenters. Where data is stored Compliance with the privacy policies of each region (list of existing policies, GDPR type, etc.) ##### Development Features ###### WordPress Installation Manual WordPress installation Automatic / one-click WordPress installation Hybrid WordPress Installation ###### Environments and migration Different development environments (staging, production, local...) Migration tools or services ###### Server access SSH Access SFTP Access Access to WP-CLI SQL Access Panel (phpMyAdmin type) ###### DNS Management DNS can be managed External DNS can be used ##### Support ###### Channel Form Chat Instant messaging Toll-free Non-free phone Social Media Forum ###### Languages List of all possible languages ###### Availability Office Hours / 24/7 Business days / Every day ###### Knowledge Base / Community URL to Knowledge Base URL to Community ##### Pricing Price is a complex factor to measure from a listing perspective, but it's important for users. In addition, we must bear in mind that there are many currencies in the world, some quoted and others not, so you cannot have control of the currency exchange either. It is for this reason, and to avoid conflicts, that a system of price levels is proposed, being able to be “$” the lowest, and “$$$” the highest. Having 5 price ranges internally. Price ranges should be measured annually and without discounts. In this way, we could have: * $: less than 120.00 USD / year * $: between 120.00 and 240.00 USD / year * $$: between 240.00 and 600.00 USD / year * $$: between 600.00 and 1,200.00 USD / year * $$$: more than 1,200.00 USD / year #### Closing Project Bedrock is an ambitious project, with a long history, and, above all, a project that both have been commenting, talking about and preparing for years. Only the “Requirement Matrix” Criteria, which has been working for more than 3 years, started in September 2019. Thanks to everyone who has participated in the proposals, review and creation of the document and project. [[a]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref1)Should there be a rule that a subset of information NEEDS to be public available and indexed in search engines? [[b]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref2)Yes to the public part... I don't know if available to Search Engines... I think that is good, but, for example, legal information not always may be publicly available in the results (although are in the T&C in the site). [[c]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref3)What about a normalized format to provide all data by the hoster? Like my-hosting.com/.well-known/wp-offering? [[d]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref4)Create a standard? It may be a solution... so they only need to maintain their site and the information there... I like the idea. [[e]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref5)And it's verified to be from the company + it's not a single account that might get lost during offboarding [[f]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref6)Is there a 1:n relationship between Hosting Company (Type 1) and Product (Type 2)? [[g]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref7)Yes, because, idk, you can have a shared hosting optimized for WP, and a VPS managed with WP, and a Cloud solution. 3 products but so far one from another... so, yes, 1:N is the best solution. The other thing is, if a shared hosting with different HDD size is the same or different product (same, for me). In that case, if they want to check all the options, probably mark the better product, and also the most expensive range ;) [[h]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref8)The way that Gravity Forms handles this for Certified Developers, which I think is fair, is random sorting that is cached for a fixed period of time that is longer than a user session (for example, cached for 1 week). See the example here: https://www.gravityforms.com/add-ons/?party%5B%5D=second&orderby= [[i]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref9)I would vote to have at least one .org profile connected somehow. [[j]](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhjFjY9I6gn6uqz4oBsHvYzxnrUg0RfAYuRhlLjdWec/export?format=html#cmnt_ref10)Yes. I know there is some project to have like an oAuth for the login.wordpress site... but yes, I think having some public and private IDs may be useful. Also, for example, the Bots for the Test Runner., Project Bedrock (EN) - Google Docs, google.com, 01h5ztg3d03k2226t17jnzch1b.