AI Readiness Assessment
https://www.bicepjpa.org
Assessed2026-07-31
Reference0731/BIC/35
IndustryInsurance
Scale187 / 1,227
TrafficNAAwaiting live domain connection, provided as part of service deployment.
Regulated sectorYesInsurance sector; no explicit regulator statement in the sampled pages.
Listed companyNo (not a company with shares)
Manual equivalent12 days · £7,344estimate only
Registered identity from official sources
Registered nameBig Independent Cities Excess Pool Joint Powers Authority
Country of incorporationUnited States
Listing
Established record held for this organisation · retrieved 2026-07-31 16:45 UTC
Foundations assessed now · the automated tests
Your Digital Doorway
PeopleAI systems
AI readiness · Pages
24.8%
AI readiness · PDFs
57.0%
Misinformation · Pages
Extremely likely
Misinformation · PDFs
Likely
0%25%50%75%100%
Governancestage 2 · not assessed yet...more
64 judgements need a named person in the organisation to confirm, because they turn on what you know to be true rather than anything measurement can settle: whether a claim is supported, whether a page is still current, which of two versions is the one to quote. In order, they cover: who is answerable for this content; is it still true today; can each claim be backed; does our published content agree; will the right meaning come across; can someone reach it and act on it. An answer recorded against each, with a name and a date, is what turns published content into governed content.
Visibilitystage 3 · not assessed yet...more
Once the foundations are sound and the content is governed, the visibility stage measures how AI systems and agents actually find the estate: which pages they reach, how often, and how the organisation is represented when they answer questions about it, tracked over time. Building visibility on unconfirmed foundations only amplifies whatever is wrong, which is why it comes last.
Key findings · AI readiness
How much of your content is reachable and readable, rather than blocked, buried or missing. Higher is better.
AI readiness is very low.the content can be reached, but the way the pages are built keeps much of it from being read cleanly.
What is holding it back
- The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted.22 pages
- With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary.22 pages
- Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together.22 pages
- The document is refused to AI crawlers at the edge, so its contents never reach the systems that answer about it, and what they state about it is left to guesswork.5 documents
- Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated.5 documents
Key findings · Misinformation
Where your content could lead an AI system to state something incorrect. Only direct routes to a wrong answer count here.
Misinformation risk is high.The pages read as extremely likely and the documents as likely to cause it, which is why the risk reads as high.
What could cause it
- Duplicates collapse to a single surviving version, and which one survives is not the publisher's choice.pages
- When shared furniture is most of the text, distinct pages look like copies of each other and the little real content is easily passed over.pages
- The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted.pages
- Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated.documents
▸Overall findings what makes up the figures · click to view
The front door5 of 15 AI systems turned away at the door, 1 of those challenged with their own way in. Content behind the door cannot be read by whoever is refused, and that holds the figures down. The full picture is the Digital doorway below.
The site as a whole · 9.3%the estate's shared machinery measures 77.5% built. The figure shown is lower because the assessment found repeated pages, boilerplate-dominated near-duplicate pages, which raise the chance of an answer being wrong, and a direct route to a wrong answer caps what can be relied on, however well built. The evidence for each finding is under Site infrastructure below.
Pages · 24.8%the average of 22 pages, each scored on its own build and its own misinformation exposure; today they range 9.3% to 54.9%. Each page's evidence is under Pages considered below.
Documents · 57.0%the average of 5 documents, scored the same way; today they range 56.0% to 57.2%. Each document's evidence is under PDF documents below.
▸Digital doorway measured at the front door · click to view
Anyone asking for this site, a person on a phone or an AI system building an answer, is either let in or turned away, in milliseconds, by machinery most organisations never see. An AI system refused here gets nothing at all: to that system the organisation simply does not answer.
The door changes without notice: a security setting, a network change or a new crawler policy can close it silently. It is measured live on the day of assessment, and it is worth watching continuously rather than once.
People
4 out of 4 served
AI systems
4 out of 15 turned away
People are served; 4 of 15 AI systems are turned away; 1 search crawler keeps a way in.
Whether the estate can be reached and read at all: access rules, links, redirects, sitemap, transport.
▸The site as a whole 9.3% Extremely likely 8 out of 25
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS04 | fail | 1 of 24 crawled URLs returned an error status (not found, or a server error) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Addresses that answered with an error, not found or gone or a server failure, during the visit. What good looks like The addresses visited answer successfully, without error, not-found or server-failure statuses. Why it matters Each errored address is content the visit proved unavailable, so it is missing from anything built on what came back. What we found on this page 1 of 24 crawled URLs returned an error status (not found, or a server error) The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawled URL that returned an error status
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the addresses visited answer successfully, without error, not-found or server-failure statuses. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 5 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS03 | warning | 5 of 15 AI crawlers asking for the site are refused by the security layer in front of it while the other 10 are served, so the content is closed to those AI services and open to the rest. The refused services answer about the site from outside sources. The door decides call by call: this check's own requests saw 3 of 15 refused and the front-door probe 5 of 15, and the verdict stands on the worse of the two. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The same page loads for a browser but is refused when the request names itself as an AI service. What good looks like The page returns the same response to a named AI service as to a browser, with no edge block. Why it matters The block sits in front of the site and leaves no trace in its own logs, so the estate is closed off unnoticed. What we found on this page 5 of 15 AI crawlers asking for the site are refused by the security layer in front of it while the other 10 are served, so the content is closed to those AI services and open to the rest. The refused services answer about the site from outside sources. The door decides call by call: this check's own requests saw 3 of 15 refused and the front-door probe 5 of 15, and the verdict stands on the worse of the two. The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawler's own request to the entry page, and the status it received
Hostwww.bicepjpa.org · resolves to 141.193.213.20, 141.193.213.21 · Cloudflare
Address trailwww.bicepjpa.org › at9d294how6i.wpeproxy.com
Checked2026-07-31 16:42 UTC · request sent from 10.100.100.212 (our checker)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS16 | fail | 1 URL group(s) are reachable under more than one form (case, trailing slash, or query variants) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The same page served at several addresses, varying by capitals, slashes or query strings. What good looks like Each page is served at a single address, not several varying by capitals, slashes or query strings. Why it matters The site cedes the choice of which address is stored and cited, so links and credit scatter across the variants. What we found on this page 1 URL group(s) are reachable under more than one form (case, trailing slash, or query variants) The evidence, taken from the page as served The URLs that serve the same page under more than one form
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page is served at a single address, not several varying by capitals, slashes or query strings. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MX12 | fail | 5 pair(s) of pages carry near-identical text (at least 90% of the same words) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Distinct URLs among the assessed pages that carry near-identical body text. What good looks like No two assessed pages carry near-identical body text. Why it matters Duplicates collapse to a single surviving version, and which one survives is not the publisher's choice. What we found on this page 5 pair(s) of pages carry near-identical text (at least 90% of the same words) The evidence, taken from the page as served Each page pair whose visible text is near-identical (at least 90% shared vocabulary)
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: no two assessed pages carry near-identical body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT34 | fail | 4 page(s) read as near-identical to other pages in the text a machine ingests (up to 95% shared), but the overlap is shared navigation and footer rather than content: the worst affected page has 2 words of its own out of 179. Distinct pages can then be taken as duplicates and the real content passed over; the pages are listed in the view. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether a page's own words are so few against a large shared navigation and footer that it reads as near-identical to other pages. What good looks like A page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. Why it matters When shared furniture is most of the text, distinct pages look like copies of each other and the little real content is easily passed over. What we found on this page 4 page(s) read as near-identical to other pages in the text a machine ingests (up to 95% shared), but the overlap is shared navigation and footer rather than content: the worst affected page has 2 words of its own out of 179. Distinct pages can then be taken as duplicates and the real content passed over; the pages are listed in the view. The evidence, taken from the page as served Pages whose own words are lost in a shared navigation and footer (near-identical to a machine)
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: a page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS08 | fail | one link to the site's own pages points at a page that no longer exists. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The share of links to the site's own pages, from a sample, whose targets do not resolve. What good looks like The site's own links open, leading to live pages. Where one no longer does, the page either carries the point in its own words or stops presenting a route that does not open. Why it matters Routes into the site's own material dead-end, so content that exists is never reached from the pages pointing at it. What we found on this page one link to the site's own pages points at a page that no longer exists. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The internal links checked, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning. Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the site's own links open, leading to live pages. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 5 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS12 | fail | 12% of the links to sources on other sites did not open when they were checked. 2 were refused, meaning the page is still published but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. That is 2 of the 10 checked | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The share of links pointing off the site, from a sample, whose targets no longer resolve. What good looks like Sources the page relies on open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact in its own words, shows the reference without making it a link, or points somewhere that answers. A refusal by another site is still this site's to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Why it matters A source the page leans on did not answer when it was asked for. The claim is left standing with nothing behind it, so the same fact gets taken from elsewhere, the claim is set aside as unsupported, or a partial account is presented as a complete one. Where the source is still published but declined the request, the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible. What we found on this page 12% of the links to sources on other sites did not open when they were checked. 2 were refused, meaning the page is still published but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. That is 2 of the 10 checked The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: sources the page relies on open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 5 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT07 | warning | 5 page title(s) are used on more than one page: “Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA”, “Governance - BICEPJPA”, “Home Page - BICEPJPA” and 2 more; the pages are listed in the view | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Any title string that is shared by more than one of the assessed pages. What good looks like Each assessed page carries its own distinct title. Why it matters Pages sharing one title carry the same label, so nothing distinguishes them at the point one is picked. What we found on this page 5 page title(s) are used on more than one page: “Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA”, “Governance - BICEPJPA”, “Home Page - BICEPJPA” and 2 more; the pages are listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The pages that share a title, grouped by the title they share
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Passing checks are omitted here; the full record is in the exports.
Pages considered 22 pages
The highest-priority pages, chosen from the site's own signals of importance.
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org 54.7% Likely 11 out of 58
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Home Page - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="The Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, an innovative, member-driven joint powers authority (JPA),"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px soli…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Home Page - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="The Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, an innovative, member-driven joint powers authority (JPA),"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px soli… | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Home Page - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="The Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, an innovative, member-driven joint powers authority (JPA),"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px soli… | |||||||||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. ety culture to the next level. SafetyMadeSimple BICEP is celebrating over 25 years as a joint powers authority, BICEP is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of one representative or alternate from each of its member cities. Our Membership A combination of self-funding and the ability to purchase commercial insurance when rates are attractive provides BICEP members with many advantages. Advantages of Membership Reach Us Administrative Forms and Documents Travel and Expense Reimbursement Form Meeting Agendas More Forms... About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MS09 | warning | link wording that does not say where it leads: “learn more” | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Link wording that names no destination, phrases such as click here, read more and details. What good looks like Link wording names its destination, rather than saying click here or read more. Why it matters The destination is stated nowhere on the link itself, so the choice rests entirely on the text around it. What we found on this page link wording that does not say where it leads: “learn more” The evidence, taken from the page as served The links whose text names no destination, as served
<a href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/about-us/" class="btn small-btn border-btn white-border">Learn More</a> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/reach-us 10.5% Extremely likely 12 out of 57
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Reach Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Reach Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | |||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Reach Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | |||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Reach Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | |||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. Password Remember Me MENU Search Terms Reach Us BICEP contracts with York to handle the day-to-day operations of the group. The firm's employees provide general administrative, financial management, underwriting, loss prevention, claims management, litigation management, risk management, accounting, and other services as necessary for the operations of the group. How Can We Help TELEPHONE 800-541-4591 x 19154 FAX 916-244-1199 Mr. Rob Kramer 916-244-1122 LOCATION Sedgwick 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95833 About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT34 | fail | the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 204 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 86% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view | |||||||||||
What we check Whether a page's own words are so few against a large shared navigation and footer that it reads as near-identical to other pages. What good looks like A page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. Why it matters When shared furniture is most of the text, distinct pages look like copies of each other and the little real content is easily passed over. What we found on this page the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 204 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 86% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served This page's own words, lost in shared navigation and footer
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: a page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/about-us/programs 30.9% Very likely 14 out of 57
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | |||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Programs H3 Excess Liability level jumped H3 Other Programs H2 Member Advantages H3 Membership in BICEP allows municipalities to self-insure, pool their large liabi H2 Benefits of Group Membership H3 * Active participation in governance * Investment income from premium contributi
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | |||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | |||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. nicipalities to self-insure, pool their large liability losses and obtain additional insurance through the commercial market. * Expanded availability of coverages * Cost stability in spite of market fluctuations * Broader coverage terms, conditions, and limits * Interest in joining? Benefits of Group Membership * Active participation in governance * Investment income from premium contributions * Reduced costs due to the elimination of annual insurance shopping by city staff * Immediate and long-term savings Reach our Leadership About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Programs H3 Excess Liability level jumped H3 Other Programs H2 Member Advantages H3 Membership in BICEP allows municipalities to self-insure, pool their large liabi H2 Benefits of Group Membership H3 * Active participation in governance * Investment income from premium contributi
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| MS09 | warning | link wording that does not say where it leads: “learn more” | |||||||
What we check Link wording that names no destination, phrases such as click here, read more and details. What good looks like Link wording names its destination, rather than saying click here or read more. Why it matters The destination is stated nowhere on the link itself, so the choice rests entirely on the text around it. What we found on this page link wording that does not say where it leads: “learn more” The evidence, taken from the page as served The links whose text names no destination, as served
<a href="/summary-of-programs" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_self">Learn More</a> <a href="/summary-of-programs" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_self">Learn More</a> | |||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/about-us 32.9% Very likely 10 out of 57
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>About Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="CSJVRMA is a public entity formed by a joint powers agreement in accordance with the California Government Code."/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>About Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="CSJVRMA is a public entity formed by a joint powers agreement in accordance with the California Government Code."/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a… | |||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page shows the year 2019 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content | |||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page shows the year 2019 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag stating the date of the content. The year shown above was found in the page's own text. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>About Us - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="CSJVRMA is a public entity formed by a joint powers agreement in accordance with the California Government Code."/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a… | |||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. liabilities of the members for the years in which coverage was provided. Accreditation BICEP has met all of the high professional standards established by the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) in the areas of governance, finance, claims control, safety and loss prevention, excess coverage, and risk management. CAJPA’s accreditation process requires reviews by independent consultants in all of these areas, including accounting, claims adjusting, and actuarial analysis. BICEP is fully accredited by CAJPA. About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/events 10.5% Extremely likely 12 out of 57
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Events - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu l…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Events - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu l… | |||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section event-summaries"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section event-summaries"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Events - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu l… | |||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Events - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu l… | |||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section event-summaries"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. About Us Programs Services Membership Documents Agendas and Minutes Governing Documents Events Reach Us Board Members Resources Staff More Member Forms Search Terms Login Username or Email Address Password Remember Me MENU Search Terms Upcoming Events Board Meetings About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section event-summaries"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section event-summaries"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT34 | fail | the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 179 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 95% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view | |||||||||||
What we check Whether a page's own words are so few against a large shared navigation and footer that it reads as near-identical to other pages. What good looks like A page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. Why it matters When shared furniture is most of the text, distinct pages look like copies of each other and the little real content is easily passed over. What we found on this page the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 179 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 95% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served This page's own words, lost in shared navigation and footer
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: a page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/ 54.7% Likely 11 out of 58
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Home Page - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="The Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, an innovative, member-driven joint powers authority (JPA),"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px soli…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Home Page - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="The Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, an innovative, member-driven joint powers authority (JPA),"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px soli… | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Home Page - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="The Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority, an innovative, member-driven joint powers authority (JPA),"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px soli… | |||||||||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. ety culture to the next level. SafetyMadeSimple BICEP is celebrating over 25 years as a joint powers authority, BICEP is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of one representative or alternate from each of its member cities. Our Membership A combination of self-funding and the ability to purchase commercial insurance when rates are attractive provides BICEP members with many advantages. Advantages of Membership Reach Us Administrative Forms and Documents Travel and Expense Reimbursement Form Meeting Agendas More Forms... About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section three-column-section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MS09 | warning | link wording that does not say where it leads: “learn more” | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check Link wording that names no destination, phrases such as click here, read more and details. What good looks like Link wording names its destination, rather than saying click here or read more. Why it matters The destination is stated nowhere on the link itself, so the choice rests entirely on the text around it. What we found on this page link wording that does not say where it leads: “learn more” The evidence, taken from the page as served The links whose text names no destination, as served
<a href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/about-us/" class="btn small-btn border-btn white-border">Learn More</a> | |||||||||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/about-us/services 52.3% Likely 13 out of 56
| Check | Result | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | ||||||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | ||||||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order | ||||||||||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Services H3 Self-Insured Program Administration Services level jumped H3 Liability Claims Services H3 Safety and Risk Control Services H2 Quick Access Links H3 Access to the most sought after resources requested by our members. H2 Broker Services H3 As BICEP is currently structured, each member pays an actuarially determined pur
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | ||||||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | ||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | ||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | ||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu… | ||||||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | ||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | ||||||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. Control Resources Requires a user login Administrative Forms Get Forms Need Help? Broker Services As BICEP is currently structured, each member pays an actuarially determined pure risk premium for coverage from $1 million to $2 million, excess and/or reinsurance premiums from $2 million to $27 million, plus an additional amount for administration costs. The ultimate goal of the program is to provide coverage to members through insurance when it is available — and to fall back on the pooled coverage when it is not. View Services About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow | ||||||||||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Services H3 Self-Insured Program Administration Services level jumped H3 Liability Claims Services H3 Safety and Risk Control Services H2 Quick Access Links H3 Access to the most sought after resources requested by our members. H2 Broker Services H3 As BICEP is currently structured, each member pays an actuarially determined pur
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | ||||||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/agendasandminutes 54.2% Likely 12 out of 56
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 395ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | |||||||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 395ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| |||||||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; …Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | |||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | |||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page shows the year 2026 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page shows the year 2026 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag stating the date of the content. The year shown above was found in the page's own text. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | |||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. w users who need access must first register. To obtain a user login, click here . Board Agendas The Board is composed of a representative from each of the member cities. June 16, 2026 Agenda March 17, 2026 Agenda December 9, 2025 Agenda September 9, 2025 Agenda June 3, 2025 Agenda March 11, 2025 Agenda December 12, 2024 Agenda Full Agendas and Meeting Minutes Access to these documents can only be viewed with a user login. New users who need access must first register. To obtain a user login, please click here . Need Assistance? About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/governing 54.9% Likely 11 out of 56
| Check | Result | Evidence | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | ||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governing Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; …Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | ||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governing Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | ||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | ||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | ||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | ||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governing Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | ||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | ||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governing Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | ||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | ||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | ||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. erest Code Litigation Management Guidlines Memorandum of Coverage The documents for memorandum of coverage (MOC) for the group program in the most current program years can be found below. To obtain MOC documents from previous program years, please contact our staff. Pooled Liability Program Financial Reports The financial reports for the group program are considered private content and can be accessed using a login. Please contact staff for assistance in obtaining login credentials. Special Districts Annual Compensation Report About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | ||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | ||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/member-forms 32.5% Very likely 12 out of 57
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Member Forms - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Member Forms - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-… | |||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Member Forms - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-… | |||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Member Forms - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-… | |||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. Documents Events Reach Us Board Members Resources Staff More Member Forms Search Terms Login Username or Email Address Password Remember Me MENU Search Terms Forms and Information Forms can be found on this page. Please review all information and follow the procedures as described. Information contained on this page is in addition to following your city's procedures for reporting and responding to an incident. You should alert local emergency authorities as appropriate. Administrative Forms Travel and Expense Reimbursement Form About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT34 | fail | the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 204 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 86% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view | |||||||||||
What we check Whether a page's own words are so few against a large shared navigation and footer that it reads as near-identical to other pages. What good looks like A page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. Why it matters When shared furniture is most of the text, distinct pages look like copies of each other and the little real content is easily passed over. What we found on this page the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 204 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 86% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served This page's own words, lost in shared navigation and footer
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: a page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/about-us/members 23.8% Very likely 15 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 358ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 358ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Our Membership H3 City of Huntington Beach level jumped H3 City of Santa Ana H3 City of West Covina H3 City of Oxnard H3 City of Ventura
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. the County Seat and second largest city in Orange County, and eleventh largest in California. 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5400 website City of West Covina The City of West Covina was incorporated in 1923. 1444 West Garvey Ave South West Covina, CA 91790 626-939-8400 Website City of Oxnard The City of Oxnard was incorporated in 1903. 300 West 3rd St, Oxnard, CA 805-385-7430 Website City of Ventura The City of San Buenaventura was incorporated in 1866. 501 Poli Street Ventura, CA 93001 805-654-7800 Website About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MS08 | fail | 1 link wording(s) are used for more than one destination, so the same words point at different pages: “website”; the links are listed in the view | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Links that share exactly the same wording on one page while pointing at different destinations. What good looks like Links that share the same wording lead to the same destination. Why it matters The wording no longer settles the target, so the wrong one gets followed at the point where the choice matters. What we found on this page 1 link wording(s) are used for more than one destination, so the same words point at different pages: “website”; the links are listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served Links that share the same text but point to different destinations, as served
<a href="https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">website</a> <a href="https://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">website</a> <a href="https://www.westcovina.org/home" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">Website</a> <a href="https://www.oxnard.org/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">Website</a> <a href="https://www.cityofventura.net/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">Website</a> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: links that share the same wording lead to the same destination. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Our Membership H3 City of Huntington Beach level jumped H3 City of Santa Ana H3 City of West Covina H3 City of Oxnard H3 City of Ventura
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | SEVERE: 40% of the links to sources on other sites did not open when they were checked. 2 were refused, meaning the page is still published but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. That is 2 of the 3 checked | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page SEVERE: 40% of the links to sources on other sites did not open when they were checked. 2 were refused, meaning the page is still published but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. That is 2 of the 3 checked The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents 48.9% Likely 13 out of 41
| Check | Result | Evidence | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | ||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="These documents typically record the events of the meeting and may include a list of attendees, a statement of the issues considered, and related responses or decisions for the issues."/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: …Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| CT32 | warning | length 184 | ||||||||||
What we check The meta description's length is usable, between 50 and 170 characters. What good looks like The meta description's length is usable, long enough to say something and short enough not to be cut. Why it matters Too short says nothing and too long gets cut, so the summary field is spent without doing its job. What we found on this page length 184 The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's description, as served
<meta name="description" content="These documents typically record the events of the meeting and may include a list of attendees, a statement of the issues considered, and related responses or decisions for the issues."/> | ||||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order | ||||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Documents H3 Meeting Agendas level jumped H3 Meeting Minutes H3 Resolutions H3 Administration Documents H3 Financial Information H3 Administrative Forms H2 BICEP Leadership H3 Would you like to contact a board member to discuss an item? H2 Governing Documents H3 You can access the most recent meeting agendas and minutes from this page. Shoul
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | ||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | ||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | ||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="These documents typically record the events of the meeting and may include a list of attendees, a statement of the issues considered, and related responses or decisions for the issues."/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: … | ||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | ||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Documents - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="These documents typically record the events of the meeting and may include a list of attendees, a statement of the issues considered, and related responses or decisions for the issues."/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: … | ||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | ||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | ||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. link with the administrative functions of the group. Get forms BICEP Leadership Would you like to contact a board member to discuss an item? Group Leadership Governing Documents You can access the most recent meeting agendas and minutes from this page. Should you need to see documents from previous years, please reach us for assistance. Access to some of these documents can only be viewed with a user login. New users who need access must first register. To obtain a user login, please contact us. Contact Us Request a User Login About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | ||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="section equal-height side-by-side"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow | ||||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Documents H3 Meeting Agendas level jumped H3 Meeting Minutes H3 Resolutions H3 Administration Documents H3 Financial Information H3 Administrative Forms H2 BICEP Leadership H3 Would you like to contact a board member to discuss an item? H2 Governing Documents H3 You can access the most recent meeting agendas and minutes from this page. Shoul
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | ||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/reach-us/governance 29.1% Very likely 13 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | |||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 12 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 12 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Governing Board H2 Officers H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board President level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Vice President level jumped H2 Board Representatives and Alternates H3 Bert Perello H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Lauren Bueling H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Brandon Chandler H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Luisa Najera H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Lisa Oland H5 Board Member / Treasurer level jumped H3 Jennifer Tillson H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Board Member / Vice President level jumped H3 Milan Mrakich H5 Alternate level jumped H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board Member / President level jumped H3 Alternate Member H5 Vacant level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | |||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | |||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. ve Director of Human Resources, City of Santa Ana Luisa Najera Alternate Senior Risk Analyst, City of Santa Ana Lisa Oland Board Member / Treasurer Risk Manager, City of Ventura Jennifer Tillson Alternate Human Resources Tech II - Risk Management Division, City of Ventura Carmelita Underwood Board Member / Vice President Senior Human Resources Analyst, City of West Covina Milan Mrakich Alternate City Manager, City of West Covina DeAnna Soria Board Member / President Risk Manager, City of Huntington Beach Alternate Member Vacant About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 12 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 12 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Governing Board H2 Officers H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board President level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Vice President level jumped H2 Board Representatives and Alternates H3 Bert Perello H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Lauren Bueling H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Brandon Chandler H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Luisa Najera H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Lisa Oland H5 Board Member / Treasurer level jumped H3 Jennifer Tillson H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Board Member / Vice President level jumped H3 Milan Mrakich H5 Alternate level jumped H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board Member / President level jumped H3 Alternate Member H5 Vacant level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/reach-us/resources 28.6% Very likely 14 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 399ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | |||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 399ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| |||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men… | |||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 5 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 5 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Service Providers H3 Sedgwick level jumped H5 Self Insurance Program Administration level jumped H3 Carl Warren & Co. H5 Litigation Managers level jumped H3 Best, Best, & Krieger H5 General Legal Counsel level jumped H3 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. H5 Broker level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men… | |||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men… | |||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. n Username or Email Address Password Remember Me MENU Search Terms Service Providers Sedgwick Self Insurance Program Administration Robert L. Kramer, BICEP General Manager 800-541-4591 ext. 19122 [email protected] Carl Warren & Co. Litigation Managers Beth Tavares, Claims/Litigation Manager 657-622-4215 Email Beth Tavares Best, Best, & Krieger General Legal Counsel Scott Campbell 213-617-8100 [email protected] Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Broker Gordon Descombes, Exec. VP Renetta Poncy, Sr. VP 925-609-6500 [email protected] About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 5 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 5 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Service Providers H3 Sedgwick level jumped H5 Self Insurance Program Administration level jumped H3 Carl Warren & Co. H5 Litigation Managers level jumped H3 Best, Best, & Krieger H5 General Legal Counsel level jumped H3 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. H5 Broker level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/reach-us/staff 9.3% Extremely likely 14 out of 41
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Staff - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu li…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Staff - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu li… | |||||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 4 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 4 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 BICEP Staff H3 Robert Kramer level jumped H5 General Manager level jumped H3 Min Su H5 Finance Manager level jumped H3 Mike McNicholas H5 BICEP Analyst level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Staff - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu li… | |||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Staff - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-menu li… | |||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. About Us Programs Services Membership Documents Agendas and Minutes Governing Documents Events Reach Us Board Members Resources Staff More Member Forms Search Terms Login Username or Email Address Password Remember Me MENU Search Terms BICEP Staff Robert Kramer General Manager 916-244-1154 EMAIL ROBERT KRAMER Min Su Finance Manager 916-244-1194 EMAIL MIN SU Mike McNicholas BICEP Analyst 916-936-7751 EMAIL MIKE MCNICHOLAS About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 4 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 4 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 BICEP Staff H3 Robert Kramer level jumped H5 General Manager level jumped H3 Min Su H5 Finance Manager level jumped H3 Mike McNicholas H5 BICEP Analyst level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
| CT34 | fail | the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 185 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 95% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view | |||||||||||
What we check Whether a page's own words are so few against a large shared navigation and footer that it reads as near-identical to other pages. What good looks like A page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. Why it matters When shared furniture is most of the text, distinct pages look like copies of each other and the little real content is easily passed over. What we found on this page the page's own words are thin: 177 of its 185 words are shared navigation and footer, so it reads as 95% identical to another page, which a machine can then take as a duplicate and pass over, missing the little content that is its own; the matching page is named in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served This page's own words, lost in shared navigation and footer
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: a page carries enough of its own words that a shared navigation and footer do not make it read as a copy of other pages. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/availability-of-alternate-format 31.3% Very likely 11 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Availability of Alternate Format - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; backg…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Availability of Alternate Format - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; backg… | |||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Availability of Alternate Format - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; backg… | |||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Availability of Alternate Format - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; backg… | |||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. ur website will be tested on a periodic basis with assistive technology such as screen readers and screen magnifiers and other technologies. CONTACT SEDGWICK WITH YOUR ACCESSIBILITY QUESTIONS Please be aware that our efforts are ongoing. If you have a disability and the format of any material on our website interferes with your ability to access information, please reach us. Please be sure to specify the web page in your e-mail or phone call, and we will make all reasonable efforts to make that page accessible for you. Reach Us About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/risk-control-services 52.4% Likely 11 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Risk Control Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Risk Control Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff… | |||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Risk Control Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff… | |||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Risk Control Services - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff… | |||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. he webinar series serves as an interactive learning tool for people at all levels of your organization. Rent a Safety Manager Virtual Safety Manager Program Risk Control Services Brochure York has released an upgraded safety website with easy-to-use resources to take your safety culture to the next level. With a focus on WHY safety matters, everything we provide is aimed to help inspire and motivate managers, supervisors, and employees to make a difference by being safe and productive. Click here to access your safety resources About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="big-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url(https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/upload… <div class="section"> <div class="medium-contain"> <div class="section"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/members 23.8% Very likely 15 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 458ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 458ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 1 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Our Membership H3 City of Huntington Beach level jumped H3 City of Santa Ana H3 City of West Covina H3 City of Oxnard H3 City of Ventura
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Membership - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. the County Seat and second largest city in Orange County, and eleventh largest in California. 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5400 website City of West Covina The City of West Covina was incorporated in 1923. 1444 West Garvey Ave South West Covina, CA 91790 626-939-8400 Website City of Oxnard The City of Oxnard was incorporated in 1903. 300 West 3rd St, Oxnard, CA 805-385-7430 Website City of Ventura The City of San Buenaventura was incorporated in 1866. 501 Poli Street Ventura, CA 93001 805-654-7800 Website About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MS08 | fail | 1 link wording(s) are used for more than one destination, so the same words point at different pages: “website”; the links are listed in the view | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Links that share exactly the same wording on one page while pointing at different destinations. What good looks like Links that share the same wording lead to the same destination. Why it matters The wording no longer settles the target, so the wrong one gets followed at the point where the choice matters. What we found on this page 1 link wording(s) are used for more than one destination, so the same words point at different pages: “website”; the links are listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served Links that share the same text but point to different destinations, as served
<a href="https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">website</a> <a href="https://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">website</a> <a href="https://www.westcovina.org/home" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">Website</a> <a href="https://www.oxnard.org/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">Website</a> <a href="https://www.cityofventura.net/" class="btn dark-border large-btn" target="_blank">Website</a> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: links that share the same wording lead to the same destination. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 1 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Our Membership H3 City of Huntington Beach level jumped H3 City of Santa Ana H3 City of West Covina H3 City of Oxnard H3 City of Ventura
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | SEVERE: 40% of the links to sources on other sites did not open when they were checked. 2 were refused, meaning the page is still published but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. That is 2 of the 3 checked | ||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page SEVERE: 40% of the links to sources on other sites did not open when they were checked. 2 were refused, meaning the page is still published but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. That is 2 of the 3 checked The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/resources 28.6% Very likely 14 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 382ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | |||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 382ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| |||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men… | |||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 5 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 5 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Service Providers H3 Sedgwick level jumped H5 Self Insurance Program Administration level jumped H3 Carl Warren & Co. H5 Litigation Managers level jumped H3 Best, Best, & Krieger H5 General Legal Counsel level jumped H3 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. H5 Broker level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men… | |||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Resources - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-men… | |||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. n Username or Email Address Password Remember Me MENU Search Terms Service Providers Sedgwick Self Insurance Program Administration Robert L. Kramer, BICEP General Manager 800-541-4591 ext. 19122 [email protected] Carl Warren & Co. Litigation Managers Beth Tavares, Claims/Litigation Manager 657-622-4215 Email Beth Tavares Best, Best, & Krieger General Legal Counsel Scott Campbell 213-617-8100 [email protected] Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Broker Gordon Descombes, Exec. VP Renetta Poncy, Sr. VP 925-609-6500 [email protected] About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"/> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 5 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 5 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Service Providers H3 Sedgwick level jumped H5 Self Insurance Program Administration level jumped H3 Carl Warren & Co. H5 Litigation Managers level jumped H3 Best, Best, & Krieger H5 General Legal Counsel level jumped H3 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. H5 Broker level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/summary-of-programs 31.0% Very likely 11 out of 41
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 361ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | |||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 361ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| |||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Summary of Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="CSJVRMA provide a variety of coverages to its member cities and the member cities’ employees"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Summary of Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="CSJVRMA provide a variety of coverages to its member cities and the member cities’ employees"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .… | |||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Summary of Programs - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content="CSJVRMA provide a variety of coverages to its member cities and the member cities’ employees"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .… | |||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. and out), Robbery or Safe Burglary, Computer Fraud, Funds Transfer Fraud, and Money Orders and Counterfeit Currency. Get a quote Pollution Insurance Program This program provides coverage for pollution conditions for third party bodily injury and property damage, on and offsite. Coverage includes remediation costs and defense costs. It can cover landfills, underground storage tanks, wastewater plants, non-owned disposal sites and other specific operations. It can also extend to first party “clean-up” costs. Get More Information About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/governance 28.6% Very likely 14 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 373ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | |||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 373ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| |||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me…Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | |||||||||||
| CT09 | fail | 12 skipped heading level(s) in document order | |||||||||
What we check Heading levels step down one at a time, rather than jumping from an H2 straight to an H5. What good looks like Heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. Why it matters A skipped level breaks the trail that says which section a passage belongs to, so it is filed under the wrong one. What we found on this page 12 skipped heading level(s) in document order The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Governing Board H2 Officers H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board President level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Vice President level jumped H2 Board Representatives and Alternates H3 Bert Perello H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Lauren Bueling H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Brandon Chandler H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Luisa Najera H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Lisa Oland H5 Board Member / Treasurer level jumped H3 Jennifer Tillson H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Board Member / Vice President level jumped H3 Milan Mrakich H5 Alternate level jumped H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board Member / President level jumped H3 Alternate Member H5 Vacant level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: heading levels step down one at a time, without jumping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | |||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is | |||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page carries no date, so there is nothing on it saying how current its content is The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page and the page's own text were read for a date. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Governance - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; } .sub-me… | |||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. ve Director of Human Resources, City of Santa Ana Luisa Najera Alternate Senior Risk Analyst, City of Santa Ana Lisa Oland Board Member / Treasurer Risk Manager, City of Ventura Jennifer Tillson Alternate Human Resources Tech II - Risk Management Division, City of Ventura Carmelita Underwood Board Member / Vice President Senior Human Resources Analyst, City of West Covina Milan Mrakich Alternate City Manager, City of West Covina DeAnna Soria Board Member / President Risk Manager, City of Huntington Beach Alternate Member Vacant About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||
| MS10 | fail | the heading structure skips a level in 12 place(s), so the order does not follow | |||||||||
What we check A page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What good looks like The page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. Why it matters Content under a skipped level has no clear parent section, so structure taken from the page misplaces its text. What we found on this page the heading structure skips a level in 12 place(s), so the order does not follow The evidence, taken from the page as served The page's heading outline, in document order (a jump in level is marked)
H1 Governing Board H2 Officers H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board President level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Vice President level jumped H2 Board Representatives and Alternates H3 Bert Perello H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Lauren Bueling H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Brandon Chandler H5 Board Member level jumped H3 Luisa Najera H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Lisa Oland H5 Board Member / Treasurer level jumped H3 Jennifer Tillson H5 Alternate level jumped H3 Carmelita Underwood H5 Board Member / Vice President level jumped H3 Milan Mrakich H5 Alternate level jumped H3 DeAnna Soria H5 Board Member / President level jumped H3 Alternate Member H5 Vacant level jumped
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's headings start at the top level and step down without skipping a level. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure is a real and common route to a wrong answer for the content it affects, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/govdocuments/agendasandminutes 51.5% Likely 12 out of 40
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MX01 | warning | the site took 459ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first | |||||||||||||
What we check How quickly the page starts to reply, measured against a 345 millisecond first-byte threshold. What good looks like The page starts to reply promptly, within the first-byte threshold. Why it matters Past the waiting limit the answer is assembled from stale or third-party material instead of from your page. What we found on this page the site took 459ms to start answering; beyond about 345ms an automated reader is liable to give up first The evidence, taken from the page as served How long this page took to start answering
Timed from the request leaving our checker to the first byte coming back, on the page as served. The 345ms figure is the point beyond which an automated reader is liable to give up.
| |||||||||||||||
| DS17 | fail | the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited | |||||||||||||
What we check Each page names one preferred address for itself, its canonical link. What good looks like Each page names one preferred address for itself. Why it matters With no preferred address stated, duplicate copies compete and the version that ends up cited is arbitrary. What we found on this page the page states no preferred address for itself, so duplicate copies compete to be the one cited The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag naming the page's preferred address. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; …Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: each page names one preferred address for itself. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT31 | warning | the page carries no description of itself in its head | |||||||||||||
What we check The page provides a meta description, the short summary offered alongside its title. What good looks like The page provides a meta description. Why it matters Absent, the page gives up its one documented summary field, though Google rewrites these freely anyway. What we found on this page the page carries no description of itself in its head The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a description tag. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | |||||||||||||||
| CT12 | fail | the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What good looks like The page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. Why it matters Without them nothing states where the content starts and the furniture ends, so the two come out mixed together. What we found on this page the page does not mark out where its main content or navigation or header or footer begins or ends, so a machine reading it cannot tell the page's own content from the parts repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the blocks that mark out its main content, its navigation, its header and its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page marks its regions with landmark tags such as main, nav, header and footer. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 3 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide how cleanly content can be read once reached, so it carries a middle weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| MS11 | warning | the page does not mark out which part holds its main content | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page marks which region holds its main content, as against navigation and footer. What good looks like The page marks which region holds its main content. Why it matters Nothing separates the substance from the surrounding furniture, so menus and boilerplate travel with the text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out which part holds its main content The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| CT16 | warning | the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries structured data, the machine-readable summary of what it describes. What good looks like The page carries structured data summarising what it describes. Why it matters Vendors document this as optional rather than required, so its absence is a small forfeit and no more. What we found on this page the page carries no structured data block stating what it is (not required; a hygiene signal) The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The page was read for a structured data block describing what the page is. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | |||||||||||||||
| CT04 | warning | the page shows the year 2026 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content | |||||||||||||
What we check The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. What good looks like The page carries a date, ideally written into the markup rather than sitting only in the text. Why it matters An undated page gives nothing to weigh its age against, so old and new material are treated alike. What we found on this page the page shows the year 2026 in its text, but nothing on the page states it as the date of the content The evidence, taken from the page as served The head of this page, as served
The head of the page was read for a tag stating the date of the content. The year shown above was found in the page's own text. <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge"/> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"/> <meta charset="UTF-8"/> <title>Agendas and Minutes - BICEPJPA</title> <meta name="description" content=""/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Work+Sans:400,300,200,500,600,700"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/style.css"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/css/icomoon/style.css"/> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <link rel="icon" href="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bicep-favicon.jpg" type="image/x-icon"/> <style> .primary-text-color { color: #005a87; } .primary-bg-color { background-color: #005a87; } .border-primary-color { border: 1px solid #005a87; } .border-primary-color:hover { color: #005a87 !important; } .secondary-text-color { color: #7a7a7a; } .form input:focus, .form textarea:focus{ border: 1px solid #7a7a7a; } .side-by-side .new { background: #005a87; } .sub-menu li { color: #005a87; background: #fff; … | |||||||||||||||
| AR13 | warning | the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site | |||||||||||||
What we check Whether the page's main content is marked off from the navigation and footer around it. What good looks like A main or article region marks the primary content off from the navigation and footer around it. Why it matters Pulling the page's text returns menus and legal footers mixed with the substance, so the answer arrives buried in noise. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its main content, so what is unique to this page cannot be told apart from the menus and foot-of-page text repeated across the site The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its main content. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| CT35 | warning | the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template | |||||||||||||
What we check The copyright line at the foot of the page, and the year it states. What good looks like The copyright line states the current year. Why it matters A copyright year in the past reads as a page nobody has attended to, and it is the usual sign of a template copied from somewhere else. Either way an AI treats the content as stale and can present old material as current. What we found on this page the page carries no copyright line in the content as served, so there is nothing on it to date it by, and an absent copyright line is one of the marks of a copied template The evidence, taken from the page as served The foot of this page, as served
The foot of the page was read for a copyright line. w users who need access must first register. To obtain a user login, click here . Board Agendas The Board is composed of a representative from each of the member cities. June 16, 2026 Agenda March 17, 2026 Agenda December 9, 2025 Agenda September 9, 2025 Agenda June 3, 2025 Agenda March 11, 2025 Agenda December 12, 2024 Agenda Full Agendas and Meeting Minutes Access to these documents can only be viewed with a user login. New users who need access must first register. To obtain a user login, please click here . Need Assistance? About Us Programs Services Events Reach Us Availability of Alternate Format BICEP - 1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Ste. 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 - 800.541.4591 - Sitemap | |||||||||||||||
| CT14 | fail | the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What good looks like Navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked menus read as ordinary sentences once the page is extracted, padding each passage with link text. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its navigation, so the menu links run into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its navigation. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: navigation is marked as navigation, so its links separate cleanly from the body text. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 1 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the supporting checks, so it carries the lightest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
| CT15 | warning | the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read | |||||||||||||
What we check The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. What good looks like The footer is marked as a footer, so the small print separates from the body text. Why it matters Unmarked footer text joins the body of each page, so the same boilerplate is quoted back as page content. What we found on this page the page does not mark out its footer, so the repeated foot-of-page text runs into the page's own words when it is read The evidence, taken from the page as served The blocks this page marks out, as served
The page was read for the block that marks out its footer. <script> <a href="#top" class="scroll-top" title="top"/> <div id="header"> <div id="hero" class="slim-hero primary-bg-color" style="background-image: url();"> <div class="section image-text"> <div class="section"> <div class="section"> <div class="footer"> <div class="sub-footer width-100"> <script src="https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/themes/york-templates/js/app.js"/> <script type="speculationrules"> | |||||||||||||||
| DS28 | fail | one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view | |||||||||||||
What we check For a single page, the share of its links to OTHER sites, sampled, that lead nowhere. The site's own links are assessed separately. What good looks like The page's references to other sites open for any reader. Where one refuses or has gone, the page carries the fact itself, shows the reference as plain text rather than as a link, or points to a source that answers. Why it matters The outside sources this page offers as support did not answer when they were asked for, so what the page claims is left resting on material that does not come back. In a regulated setting, where a link is carrying a figure or a required statement, that is the difference between a claim that is evidenced and one that is merely asserted. What we found on this page one link to sources on other sites was refused when it was checked. The page is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser. It is listed in the view The evidence, taken from the page as served The external links checked on this page, with the status each returned
A link that did not open appears here in two forms. A DEAD link points at a page that has gone. A REFUSED link points at a page that is still published, but the other site turns away requests that do not come from a person using a browser, so our request was declined. Both land in the same place: the material this page offers as its support did not come back when it was asked for. The consequence is not a matter of tidiness. Where a link carries the weight of a claim, a figure, a policy or a regulatory statement, and the target does not open, the support behind that claim is missing at the moment it is needed. Three things follow, and each of them costs the organisation. The same fact gets taken from somewhere else, which hands a third party control of how the claim is worded. Or the claim is treated as unsupported and set aside. Or an answer is drawn from what remains on the page, and a partial account is presented as a complete one. A refused link is the worst of the three, because the page still reads as though the evidence sits one step away, so the gap is invisible and the answer carries false confidence. A refusal by another site is still this site's matter to resolve, because this site chose to rest a claim on it. Three practical ways close it. Carry the fact being relied on in the page's own words, so the claim stands without the visit. Keep the reference but stop making it a link, showing the address as plain text, so nothing promises a route that does not open. Or point to a source that answers any reader. Where the reference has to stay live, say beside it what a reader will meet, so no one is sent to a closed door without warning.
Why it reads as a failure The result is set by what was measured on this item, quoted above, and not by an opinion of it. It reads as a failure because the standard was not met: the page's references to other sites open for any reader. What it does to the figure This check counts toward the readiness figure for this item, at a weight of 15 out of a possible 5, because it is one of the checks that decide whether content can be reached and read at all, so it carries the heaviest weight in the figure for this item. Why it moves the misinformation reading This failure could contribute to a wrong answer in some cases, so it raises the misinformation reading for this item. Where an item carries more than one such failure, the readings compound and the item moves up the scale. What this result does not say This says what was found on this item at the time of assessment, and nothing beyond it: it is not a statement about the rest of the estate, and it does not judge the quality of the content itself. | |||||||||||||||
PDF documents 5 documents
The first documents discovered on the estate, scored separately from pages.
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/BICEP-6.16.26-Agenda.pdf 57.2% Likely 3 out of 30
| Document information | |
|---|---|
| Title | CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES |
| Author | Kristil Ehrlich |
| PDF version, pages, size | 1.6 · 3 pages · 187 KB |
| Found on | https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/agendasandminutes |
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS29 | warning | 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The documents load for a browser but are refused when the request names itself as an AI service, tested on the host that actually serves them (often separate from the pages). What good looks like The document host returns the same response to a named AI service as to a browser, with no edge block. Why it matters The document is refused to AI crawlers at the edge, so its contents never reach the systems that answer about it, and what they state about it is left to guesswork. What we found on this page 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawler's own request to this document, and the status it received
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD14 | warning | the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. What good looks like Charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. Why it matters Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated. What we found on this page the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text The evidence, taken from the page as served Which pages carry images with no text description
Images with no text description appear on page(s): 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD35 | warning | this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The document's title beside the titles of the other assessed documents: whether it says something distinctive, or is generic, or is identical to another document's. What good looks like A distinctive title of its own, such as 'Report on compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code'. A WARNING means the title is generic ('Report') and likely to be ranked low, or that it is identical to another assessed document's title and likely to be passed over as a duplicate; each cause is stated on the finding itself. Why it matters A system choosing what to read ranks documents by their names. A generic title gives it little to hold on to, and identical titles read as duplicates, so one document is kept and the rest are passed over, unread. What we found on this page this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. The evidence, taken from the page as served The documents sharing this title
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD25 | alert | the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. What good looks like The same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. Why it matters Without a page version the content exists only in document form, where its structure is far more fragile. What we found on this page the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. The evidence, taken from the page as served Where an ordinary web page of this content was looked for
Each address below was asked for. A companion page is also matched by a title matching the document's own.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/BICEP-Agenda-3.17.26.pdf 57.2% Likely 3 out of 30
| Document information | |
|---|---|
| Title | CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES |
| Author | Kristil Ehrlich |
| PDF version, pages, size | 1.6 · 3 pages · 207 KB |
| Found on | https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/agendasandminutes |
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS29 | warning | 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The documents load for a browser but are refused when the request names itself as an AI service, tested on the host that actually serves them (often separate from the pages). What good looks like The document host returns the same response to a named AI service as to a browser, with no edge block. Why it matters The document is refused to AI crawlers at the edge, so its contents never reach the systems that answer about it, and what they state about it is left to guesswork. What we found on this page 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawler's own request to this document, and the status it received
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD14 | warning | the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. What good looks like Charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. Why it matters Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated. What we found on this page the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text The evidence, taken from the page as served Which pages carry images with no text description
Images with no text description appear on page(s): 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD35 | warning | this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The document's title beside the titles of the other assessed documents: whether it says something distinctive, or is generic, or is identical to another document's. What good looks like A distinctive title of its own, such as 'Report on compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code'. A WARNING means the title is generic ('Report') and likely to be ranked low, or that it is identical to another assessed document's title and likely to be passed over as a duplicate; each cause is stated on the finding itself. Why it matters A system choosing what to read ranks documents by their names. A generic title gives it little to hold on to, and identical titles read as duplicates, so one document is kept and the rest are passed over, unread. What we found on this page this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. The evidence, taken from the page as served The documents sharing this title
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD25 | alert | the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. What good looks like The same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. Why it matters Without a page version the content exists only in document form, where its structure is far more fragile. What we found on this page the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. The evidence, taken from the page as served Where an ordinary web page of this content was looked for
Each address below was asked for. A companion page is also matched by a title matching the document's own.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/BICEP-Agenda-12.9.2025.pdf 57.2% Likely 3 out of 30
| Document information | |
|---|---|
| Title | CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES |
| Author | Kristil Ehrlich |
| PDF version, pages, size | 1.6 · 3 pages · 251 KB |
| Found on | https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/agendasandminutes |
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS29 | warning | 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The documents load for a browser but are refused when the request names itself as an AI service, tested on the host that actually serves them (often separate from the pages). What good looks like The document host returns the same response to a named AI service as to a browser, with no edge block. Why it matters The document is refused to AI crawlers at the edge, so its contents never reach the systems that answer about it, and what they state about it is left to guesswork. What we found on this page 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawler's own request to this document, and the status it received
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD14 | warning | the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. What good looks like Charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. Why it matters Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated. What we found on this page the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text The evidence, taken from the page as served Which pages carry images with no text description
Images with no text description appear on page(s): 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD35 | warning | this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The document's title beside the titles of the other assessed documents: whether it says something distinctive, or is generic, or is identical to another document's. What good looks like A distinctive title of its own, such as 'Report on compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code'. A WARNING means the title is generic ('Report') and likely to be ranked low, or that it is identical to another assessed document's title and likely to be passed over as a duplicate; each cause is stated on the finding itself. Why it matters A system choosing what to read ranks documents by their names. A generic title gives it little to hold on to, and identical titles read as duplicates, so one document is kept and the rest are passed over, unread. What we found on this page this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. The evidence, taken from the page as served The documents sharing this title
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD25 | alert | the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. What good looks like The same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. Why it matters Without a page version the content exists only in document form, where its structure is far more fragile. What we found on this page the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. The evidence, taken from the page as served Where an ordinary web page of this content was looked for
Each address below was asked for. A companion page is also matched by a title matching the document's own.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BICEP-Agenda-9.9.25.pdf 57.2% Likely 3 out of 30
| Document information | |
|---|---|
| Title | CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES |
| Author | Kristil Ehrlich |
| PDF version, pages, size | 1.6 · 3 pages · 205 KB |
| Found on | https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/agendasandminutes |
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS29 | warning | 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The documents load for a browser but are refused when the request names itself as an AI service, tested on the host that actually serves them (often separate from the pages). What good looks like The document host returns the same response to a named AI service as to a browser, with no edge block. Why it matters The document is refused to AI crawlers at the edge, so its contents never reach the systems that answer about it, and what they state about it is left to guesswork. What we found on this page 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawler's own request to this document, and the status it received
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD14 | warning | the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. What good looks like Charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. Why it matters Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated. What we found on this page the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text The evidence, taken from the page as served Which pages carry images with no text description
Images with no text description appear on page(s): 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD35 | warning | this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The document's title beside the titles of the other assessed documents: whether it says something distinctive, or is generic, or is identical to another document's. What good looks like A distinctive title of its own, such as 'Report on compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code'. A WARNING means the title is generic ('Report') and likely to be ranked low, or that it is identical to another assessed document's title and likely to be passed over as a duplicate; each cause is stated on the finding itself. Why it matters A system choosing what to read ranks documents by their names. A generic title gives it little to hold on to, and identical titles read as duplicates, so one document is kept and the rest are passed over, unread. What we found on this page this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. The evidence, taken from the page as served The documents sharing this title
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD25 | alert | the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. What good looks like The same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. Why it matters Without a page version the content exists only in document form, where its structure is far more fragile. What we found on this page the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. The evidence, taken from the page as served Where an ordinary web page of this content was looked for
Each address below was asked for. A companion page is also matched by a title matching the document's own.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▸https://www.bicepjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/BICEP-6.3.25-Agenda-FINAL.pdf 56.0% Likely 4 out of 30
| Document information | |
|---|---|
| Title | CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES |
| Author | Kristil Ehrlich |
| PDF version, pages, size | 1.6 · 3 pages · 185 KB |
| Found on | https://www.bicepjpa.org/documents/agendasandminutes |
| Check | Result | Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS29 | warning | 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The documents load for a browser but are refused when the request names itself as an AI service, tested on the host that actually serves them (often separate from the pages). What good looks like The document host returns the same response to a named AI service as to a browser, with no edge block. Why it matters The document is refused to AI crawlers at the edge, so its contents never reach the systems that answer about it, and what they state about it is left to guesswork. What we found on this page 1 of the 15 AI crawlers asking for this document is refused by the security layer in front of the document host; the other 14 are served it. The refusal falls on that service alone. The evidence, taken from the page as served Each crawler's own request to this document, and the status it received
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD26 | warning | the document is over a year old (last dated 2025-05): review whether it remains current | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check How old the document is, measured from the most recent date recorded inside the file. What good looks like The document's most recent internal date is recent rather than long past. Why it matters A document years past its last update still reads as a current statement, because nothing on it says otherwise. What we found on this page the document is over a year old (last dated 2025-05): review whether it remains current The evidence, taken from the page as served This document's properties, as recorded in the file
The date shown is the date the file records for itself.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD14 | warning | the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. What good looks like Charts and images in the document carry a written description of what they show. Why it matters Data living only inside a chart picture is absent from the document's text, so the figures behind it go unstated. What we found on this page the document has images but none carry a text description of what they show, so any figures that live only inside a chart or diagram are absent from the text The evidence, taken from the page as served Which pages carry images with no text description
Images with no text description appear on page(s): 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD35 | warning | this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check The document's title beside the titles of the other assessed documents: whether it says something distinctive, or is generic, or is identical to another document's. What good looks like A distinctive title of its own, such as 'Report on compliance with the UK Corporate Governance Code'. A WARNING means the title is generic ('Report') and likely to be ranked low, or that it is identical to another assessed document's title and likely to be passed over as a duplicate; each cause is stated on the finding itself. Why it matters A system choosing what to read ranks documents by their names. A generic title gives it little to hold on to, and identical titles read as duplicates, so one document is kept and the rest are passed over, unread. What we found on this page this document's title, "CALIFORNIA AFFILIATED RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES", is the same as 4 other documents in this assessment. Identical titles read as duplicates, so a system ranking by name may keep one and pass the rest over. The evidence, taken from the page as served The documents sharing this title
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PD25 | alert | the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we check Whether the same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. What good looks like The same content is also published as an ordinary web page, not only as a download. Why it matters Without a page version the content exists only in document form, where its structure is far more fragile. What we found on this page the same content is not published as an ordinary web page, only as this PDF, which is a harder format to read reliably. This is an alert, not a fault in the document. The evidence, taken from the page as served Where an ordinary web page of this content was looked for
Each address below was asked for. A companion page is also matched by a title matching the document's own.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How the scores work method & bands
This report is Stage 1, Foundations: each automated test the engine can run without human input, so there is a usable result at the first stage. Governance (owner-confirmed truth) and Visibility (how AI agents find the estate) are later stages and are shown greyed above.
What was assessed. 22 pages were assessed, selected from 24 reviewed using the site's own signals of importance (its navigation, homepage links, most-linked pages, sitemap, and any llms.txt file), and the first 5 PDF documents found were assessed separately. The industry in the header is classified from the site's own content. The traffic classification comes from a recognised top-sites list or a connected traffic provider; it reads NA when the domain is not connected to a traffic source.
Header identity signals. The regulated sector and listed company values are inferred from the same crawled content, and shown here so the header can stay to the answer alone. Regulated sector reads “Yes”: insurance sector; no explicit regulator statement in the sampled pages. Listed company reads “No (not a company with shares)”: no (not a company with shares).
AI readiness is the weighted share of checks that passed, reported separately for pages and for PDF documents because each is reached and corrected differently. Grade A checks decide whether content can be reached and read at all; grade B whether it is understood correctly; grade C support reliability. A measured score is scaled into a ceiling when an access gate binds it (for example the site blocking AI crawlers at its edge): content that cannot be reached is not partially ready. Scores never read exactly 25, 50, 75 or 100, because those are buckets, not measurements.
Likelihood of misinformation is a band, given as a worst case (the highest any single item or estate-wide finding reaches) and a typical position across the pages or documents. Only checks whose failure is a direct route to a wrong answer carry a band; the rest affect readiness only.
| Band | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Likely zero | 0-5% | No failing misinformation-bearing checks. |
| Very little | 6-25% | Unlikely to cause wrong information. |
| Likely | 26-50% | Could contribute to wrong information in some cases. |
| Very likely | 51-75% | A real and common route to wrong information. |
| Extremely likely | 76-100% | A frequent and direct cause of wrong information. |
Of the register's 187 checks, 112 ran automatically in this Foundations stage. 64 are governance questions for the next stage. The remainder need organisation-supplied data or an external service; each check that did not run is listed in the exports.
About us
Built on evidence, not assumptions.
We have been doing this for 25 years. For the last two years, we have been training AI to understand and map AI Readiness (fundamentals, governance, visibility), against our unique dataset of more than 3.7 trillion data points.
3.7
Trillion
Data points, with each result kept since the beginning: probably the largest experience and compliance dataset of its kind. Our AI is trained on factual, controlled, real-world evidence.
$106
Billion
Estimated manual effort avoided through automation. An estimate, and a conservative one: since ARTY was introduced, we have removed 95% of costs and delivered efficiency gains beyond 70x.
119
Million
Websites analysed and mapped for content fundamentals, from the outside in. AI Readiness begins by removing the human issues that undermine Value and create unnecessary Risk.
25
Years
When we started, we were labelled 'the pioneers' of website automation and checking. In 2023, we launched our first AI analysis tools.
Who’s talking about us
