Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

Posted by timothy on from the now-there's-a-nudge dept.

jfruh writes: Google has announced that it will be adding mobile-friendliness to the list of factors that will get a site bumped up in search rankings. Sites that have no mobile versions — which includes sites owned by Wikipedia, the BBC and the European Union — will find themselves with lower Google search placement, starting today.

20 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. Instead... by click2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about doing this ONLY when the person is using a mobile device?

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    1. Re:Instead... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or when a lack of mobile version actually matters?

      I've been using small devices to get to the Internet since the days of my Palm T3. There have been lots and lots of sites with mobile versions that were or are utter crap, and using the 'desktop' version on the mobile device is preferred or even necessary to use the site well. I don't see necessarily having a mobile site as being good.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Instead... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The honest answer to this question is Google cares about one thing, and one thing only ... their fucking ad revenue.

      So they've decided they'll use their dominant position to try to force everybody into re-tooling their sites to make sure Google makes as much money as possible.

      Never mind that most mobile versions of websites are utter garbage which are unusable and impossible to find anything, and that links you follow are immediately broken.

      This is purely about Google's revenue stream.

      But, yes, I agree with you ... when I'm searching from my desktop I don't give a flying crap if the site has a mobile presence or not, because I usually have to request the desktop site for it to be useful.

      But then Google would need to know you're a desktop, otherwise they're going to have different set of search results. And they don't want that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Instead... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. XKCD covered it concerning apps, but it's usually not much better with mobile versions.

      What happened with Google? It's like every change they make these days is to make things worse. And I say this as a person who's generally a big Google fan.

      --
      *Kid Rock runs for Senate* Democrats: We must run Kid Scissors.
    4. Re:Instead... by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That should be an even lower ranking. Especially bad when it's local TV stations that do it.

    5. Re:Instead... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      have been lots and lots of sites with mobile versions that were or are utter crap, and using the 'desktop' version on the mobile device is preferred or even necessary to use the site well. I don't see necessarily having a mobile site as being good.

      This right here! I am seriously fucking tired of everyone trying to turn my large screen high def computer into a fucking phone! There is a reason I do not browse the web on a "smart" phone. A 4 inch screen sucks! And when I can not get out of your "mobile optimized" site on my large tablet, guess what? I find another!

    6. Re:Instead... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have vested interest in mobile now because it's much more effective to monetize through their own dominant OS.

    7. Re:Instead... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have two words for you(well, one word and a symbol): 'Google +'

      Google has some very sharp people, this much is undeniable; but enough hubris will fuck up the best of us; and they've succumbed to that from time to time.

    8. Re:Instead... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google has an agenda. Their agenda may or may not be the same as mine. More and more recently, their agenda certainly doesn't match mine. They can be "right" for Mr Brin, just not for me.

      Google Wave? Google Plus? Forcing Google plus on absolutely everyone then abandoning it? Orkut? Not honoring do-not-track in Safari. The list of places where Google was wrong is non-zero.

      Google has the "don't be evil" pledge. That's so weak to be a joke. Imagine an unsafe mining company trying to pull that. "We only killed 3 people this week, so we're not so evil." I'd rather they have "don't be corporate". Their governance structure is specially created where they don't have the pressure of the shareholders - all the power is with the founders and super special stock voting rights.

      (An aside - Alibaba could NOT pull the same voting structure in Communist China... the government felt it took away too much power from the shareholder... imagine Google's governance structure being not free enough for Communist China)

      Because of the immunity from those pesky shareholders and their short term view, above pretty much all other large publicly traded companies, they have the power to "don't be corporate", but instead they pull things here and there that prove they're just a big corporation and not the panacea they'd like you to believe.

    9. Re:Instead... by michelcolman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, the sites they should be punishing is those that automatically give you a simplified mobile version of their site without any way of getting the desktop version if you want it. For many websites, I much prefer to get the desktop version and zoom in to the stuff that interests me rather than getting some slimmed down page with missing information and no zooming. Yet they keep trying to "help" me by automatically switching to the latter version whenever they can.

    10. Re:Instead... by supremebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That, and the ad blocker software for Mobile isn't as good, so you have less people blocking ads on that platform.

      You get more accurate location information on a mobile platform thanks to the GPS sensor on the phone/tablet, allowing you to geo target your ads better.

      It seems that Google is less of a search company now, and more of an ad company who dabbles in other areas that bring them ad viewers.

  2. Yet another reason not to use Google search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I completely *dislike* mobile versions of sites. Too often they are crippled, difficult to navigate, lacking in detail, etc..

  3. Why? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't tell you how often I have to tell my browser on my tablet to give me the real desktop site ... because most mobile sites are complete shit.

    Links don't work, you don't have the same information, the layout is terrible, and you can't find anything.

    In my experience and opinion, most mobile websites are written by morons, to satisfy a checkbox defined by marketing, and are generally pretty much useless.

    Since most phones run at the same resolution as a desktop ... WTF is the purpose of a badly written mobile site?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Why? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only time I have ever been aware of hitting a mobile site is when you have that "gah, WTF is this crap?" moment where you can't find anything and the link you followed has been swallowed by the crap which has said :"hey, you're on a mobile, how about we fail to show you what you were looking for?".

      As I said, on my tablet I'm constantly saying "request desktop site", because the mobile website is utterly useless. It's worse than useless, because it's just a redirect to a badly written website with crap content.

      I have yet to see a useful mobile website. And most places now are so damned focused on having their own damned app, which in many cases is not as useful as their website ... but, hey, it's an app so we're cool, right?

      In the mid 90's a friend said to me that "everything as the web" had put user interface design back by 20 years. Mobile websites and many apps seem hell bent on continuing to deliver shitty interfaces.

      For many many sites on my tablet, I don't care about your damned app (because you just want access to too much stuff on my phone and want to embed ads) ... honestly, I'm better off skipping the app and going to the actual website.

      I hope we reach "peak phone" soon, because for those of us who don't spend every waking moment with our cell phone, the shit which is focused around that is kind of tedious.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Worst. Mobile Site. Evar. by mekkab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So big sites will tell some junior developer "make some grimey mobile style sheet. You've got a week." And we'll end up with something on a mobile browser that's worse than the full site? BRILLIANT.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  5. Why the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google are going to promote mobile friendly pages
    vs
    Google are going to punish mobile hostile pages

    Hostile! Not designed for mobile, or not optimized for mobile, but hostile is a little harsh.

    Less tabloidy please.

  6. best relevance not best formatting by sreever · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I want my search results to give relevant results, not what they think might be formatted best.... Besides, I still do most of my browsing on actual computer.

  7. Re:It's a shame... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some websites are even worse. They force you to a mobile website, which then offers a link to their app on an app store as the only content.
    The app will then require you to give them enough permissions to shoot pictures and mail them to all your friends while you sleep.
    I remember one mayor image-hosting website did this. I don't remember which one it was as I neither installed the app nor stayed on their site any longer.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  8. Hey you grumpy cynics... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. The search results are only changing for non-mobile friendly devices IF the search originates from a mobile device, not for everyone.

    2. This has very little to do with ad revenue. Google is always tweaking the algorithms that feed the results page. This does not give any new precedence to paid advertisers at all.

    Basically they want you to bring your site into the 21st century. I see no real issue here. Responsive sites that are designed well (IE, not slashdot mobile), can be useful, and you can always request the full desktop site (if the site honors that request). Content and formatting do not exist independently of each other. Do you want some gopher sites in your search results?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  9. mobile sites are a disease by tuffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point of HTML and CSS is that all this markup are suggestions to the client, who is free to rearrange elements, use different fonts or otherwise handle things differently for the benefit of the viewer. Making an entirely different, dumber, website for the benefit of some particular class of device defeats the purpose of a "world-wide web".

    Make the devices better, not the websites worse.

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.