Slashdot Mirror
Google Search Will Start Ranking Faster Mobile Pages Higher In July (venturebeat.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Google today announced a new project to improve its mobile search results: Factoring page speed into its search ranking. As the company notes, page speed "has been used in ranking for some time" but that was largely for desktop searches. Starting in July 2018, page speed will be a ranking factor for mobile searches on Google as well. In November 2014, Google started labeling sites as "mobile-friendly" to denote pages optimized for phones. The company then spend the next few years experimenting with using the label as a ranking factor, ultimately pushing those changes in April 2015 and increasing the effect in May 2016. The label was removed in August 2016 as the company noted that most pages had become "mobile-friendly." Google now plans to wield that power again to make mobile pages load faster.
Just another reason to stick to Bing.
I have an idea for a real fast page: "Send money here! ..."
Mining coins on pages slows the site down so they should be penalized, or is Google benefiting from the coin craze.
Just another step toward Google's attempt to control behavior on the internet.
They pretend to be a search engine, but are now filtering the results based on what they think you SHOULD be looking at, rather than the content. When I ask for a search term, I want accurate results about the term, not about how fast a page loaded.
I miss 2003 Google. How did things go so wrong?
I don't want to get mobile-focus pages from a non-mobile. Why not just make a google.cell page for searching mobile-friendly content? Too fucking simple? Derp.
You won’t get mobile sites on a non-mobile device and nowhere does this story say you would.
Who cares if your page loads faster in mobile browsers? Does it have the thing I'm looking for or not?
I prefer a page that loads slowly but answers my question to a page that loads fast and by gaming the system using SEO, doesn't have an answer to anything.
It also doesn't say you wouldn't.
no images, just variations on your search term with a "Continue" link that goes to whatever the real page is. ta-da!
As a contract developer, I do very little internet stuff with my phone, But I know I am a real exception in today's world.
;)
In today's world all base rendering of things web should be done with the primary platform being phones and then other platforms as needed.
With the exception being, special case projects.
Just my 2 cents
Thank goodness we have Net Neutrality so the big boys can't just buy their way to the top, right?
I’m sure web pages which are slowed down because they include lots of Google ad content will not be penalized...
#DeleteChrome
Yes, because they don’t need to. This story is entirely about search results on mobile devices as spelled out in the first sentence of the summary. Maybe work on your reading comprehension?
Google today announced a new project to improve its mobile search results
Not all "mobile" devices get the same treatment simply by virtue of being mobile. Maybe work on your breath smelling of penis?
Mobile search results are coming up on 3rd party browsers that are aren't mobile. Maybe you don't know everything.
You're a fucking idiot.
Then that seems like the fault of your browser. Use a less shitty browser.
Also direct from Google showing that this is not for non-mobile devices:
Although speed has been used in ranking for some time, that signal was focused on desktop searches. Today we’re announcing that starting in July 2018, page speed will be a ranking factor for mobile searches.
https://webmasters.googleblog....
Ugh! Pages are too slow! Just get me the content! Pages that do this should be penalized!
Google Search Will Start Ranking Faster Mobile pages Higher
Ugh! Google is so evil! Just tell me which page it is! Don't restrict what pages can do!
all the crap a site loads from somewhere. especially all those that load stuff from apis.google.com and so on.
DuckDuckGo? Is there some reason that I should not be using DuckDuckGo - some reason that I don't yet know about?
This creates an interesting neutrality conundrum. A provider offering a "fast lane" will result in faster load times, so I can in essence pay my ISP to get a better Page Rank.
Most phones are big enough that people just press 'show me the desktop site' before the mobile page has loaded.
So is the timing in time before the user first gets too read initial content and interact? Or is it only after every image on the page has finally populated...
Even though this move is obviously meant to drive all the sheep into the AMP corral, I still don't think it's a bad idea because then maybe even non-amp sites will make some serious effort at reducing load times.
I do wonder though if this will amplify the placement much of those annoying sites that repeat some tiny bit of content from something like StackOverflow and don't have anything else goin goin besides ads... they often load quickly as they are very simple, but they are also worthless.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And where does it say that people who want the existing search results even on a mobile can opt-out of the new mobile ranking?
They are too busy telling you what they believe you should want rather than giving you specifically what you asked for. The total results for each search and relevancy has been significantly scaled back to their preference. The search result quality is about as bad as infoseek when they started to be overtaken by Google. They did the same thing and lost their market share to Google. I would say it is an Ideal time for a competitor.
For total web search I have been forced to use Bing more and more but for resolving tech problems their results are limited but not as bad as Google. For programming and tech stuff it has gotten so bad now I considered rolling my own.
This will benefit their AMP bullshit more than anything else.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Nowhere, but that has nothing to do with what you originally claimed.
As I understand it: Unlike Google Search, DuckDuckGo doesn't track your search history to infer your interests. Therefore, it can't stick you in a filter bubble.
Google's Pagespeed analysis gave the site a "yellow" 79% result and tells me to "leverage browser caching" and avoid render blocking CSS and Javascript above the fold. The site practically renders instantly. It's completely static except for a little client side scripting, doesn't load third party resources and an entire page load is less than 60kB (that includes pictures, CSS, scripts, everything). Yellow. 79%. Let's just say I don't trust Google with deciding what site is fast and what site is slow.
I don't even want mobile sites on mobile devices...
And I get mobile sites all the time on my desktop, because people send/share mobile URLs, which was a dumb idea to begin with and now is infesting the entire web.
Google's disdain for truth becomes clearer every day.
That's because the finished loading your entire 60kb page before it responded to the first paint command, maybe 100ms. A modern page loads a single pixel and a script that loads the rest of the page. Sure, it takes like 3 times as long to get the page, requires people to load 3rd party javascript (or any JS), lets Google track you (although that's part of the plus for them.)
It's also, obviously, letting them pimp AMP and punishing the people who decline to use it.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If I end up in a browser that uses google. Google will see exactly one search for 'duckduckgo'.
saying "faster" to google means ones that return AMP pages to the google spider. This is just googles way of saying it will punish sites that don't use it's walled garden.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If I click page two and click back to page one.
THE RESULTS MOVE BETWEEN PAGES!!!!
It's a major annoyance at this point.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Yes, mobile URLs are bad, that's why the way to do things now is Responsive, where you get a mobile layout with the same URL
page speed "has been used in ranking for some time"
Yeah, because the speed of a page is much more important to me than its relevance to what I'm searching for or the quality of its content. No wonder it's getting harder and harder to get decent, relevant search results. But, I guess nothing succeeds like pandering to the lowest common denominator...
Wouldn't it be cool if somebody came out with an unbiased search engine that caters to those with analytical capability and the will to use it? I'd be happy to pay a subscription fee for such a thing. And I'll bet some of its most frequent users would be Google employees!
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.