Slashdot Mirror
Google Incorporates Site Speed Into PageRank Calculation
lee1 writes "Google is now taking into account how fast a page loads in calculating its PageRank. In their own words: '[W]e're including a new signal in our search ranking algorithms: site speed. Site speed reflects how quickly a website responds to web requests. ... our users place a lot of value in speed — that's why we've decided to take site speed into account in our search rankings. ... While site speed is a new signal, it doesn't carry as much weight as the relevance of a page. Currently, fewer than 1% of search queries are affected by the site speed signal in our implementation and the signal for site speed only applies for visitors searching in English on Google.com at this point.' Considering the increasing dilution of high-ranking results by endless series of plagiarizing 'blogs,' brainless forums, and outright scam sites, anything that further reduces the influence of the quality of the content is something I would rather not have. Not that Google asked me."
...close to and prioritising Google. Gotcha.
Really, am I the only one to find Google a fairly poor *find* engine? I mean, for anything which might remotely come close to sounding like it's a product, you've got Wikipedia right at the top, followed by 1000 review/comparison/pricing sites. For a tech question, you have expert-sexchange and 1000 crappy forums with responses from the downright wrong to the gratuitously abusive. I barely use Google (or any search engine much) for their generic WWW search - I'm more likely to be +site: searching a specific newsgroup/support forum/journal/enthusiast site I already know has intelligence. I don't need Google using yet another algorithm to fail at finding useful information - just employ 100 people spending 8 hours a day tagging the clone/spam/pricecheck/etc sites if you actually want to make a difference.
Yay! I can DDoS my competitors and have Google endorse it!
There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
One would think only if the Google Bot happens to be indexing your site at that exact moment; one would additionally think they'll revisit to see if it's structural or not?
If you use Google Webmaster Central you may notice that, while Google's algorithm is smart, it's also very overestimated in some areas, and involves plenty of manual tweaking by the Google employees for it to work properly.
Site Speed is not calculated solely from the times the Google bot takes to crawl the page, it's calculated from Google toolbars that have the pagerank feature enabled (that feature calls home which sites you visit, and how fast the page got loaded).
Whether Google can detect clusters of frequent accesses such as from "slashdotting" is entirely under question, since most slashdot users may not have google toolbar with pagerank on, but for the *few* users that do, the site will just appear slow in general.
Additionally, if a site targets a demographic that has worse latency (low income people, areas with dial-up and so on), then, again, that site will appear to be slower, while actually the visitors have slower internet in general.
Additionally yet, often the reason a site is slow is somewhere along the route, nowhere close to either the visitor ISP, not the site server, and it's not for all users either. So if you have bad luck or due to your content you pick up users that happen to often be routed through the bad route, you'll lose page rank.
Does this help do battle against spam/scam sites? Yes.
Does this help hosts of original content? Maybe... maybe not.
Does this serve as an indirect or otherwise passive-aggressive push for network neutrality? I suspect it might be.
After all, those seeking to act against Google's interests by lowering speed and throughput to and from Google would automatically get a lower rank. Think about some of the newspapers out there who can't get over their aging business model. Think about other sources of information who might also be a competitor of Google in other markets? At the moment, Google is the primary source for lots of people.
I must admit, I am having some difficulty coming up with arguments against this idea but I can't help but get a slightly uneasy feeling about this just the same.
If a server can't handle much load, it's probably not that important
Or it is a very informative hobbyist site with lots of useful info on it, which is comparatively slow compared to a well funded commercial site that has nothing but marketing-speak.
TFA says they are looking at "server response times", but I can't see this being at all useful unless they look at the total page load time (including all the ads that come off slow servers).
Slashdotting, power failure, tsumani, cleaning lady tripping over the network cables, poor server-side scripting, badly configured web server... What's the difference anyway?
The difference is that some of these problems are transitory and some are more permanent. You probably don't want transitory problems to affect the ranking (here's hoping they average it over several crawls).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
So, a guy with a 8Gb per month website is now required to have a server with root access and his own copy of apache, which he will then tune like a whistle without even having to read the documentation? Come on, man. Shared host. Non-expert admin that doesn't even like to mess with his Drupal install now that it's working, for fear of breaking it in some subtle yet damaging way. But thanks for shitting all over a novice with that nasty tone, though.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!