Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

Post by closetohome » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

nonbirithm wrote: post #155

jeffbee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an extreme claim that requires some backing evidence. Mobile search quality is the main metric google uses to judge its search products. The idea that google search is “unusable on mobile” is pretty silly, if you’re literally the only person who ever noticed.

I also don't understand why more people aren't making a firestorm over how user-hostile Google search is at times. They don't even follow their own rules. The "People also searched for" popup causes layout shifts nearly every time you go back to the search page. It's infuriating. I know this is only orthogonal to AMP, but it sounds like the kind of thing Core Web Vitals was meant to disincentivize.

Post by nzmsv » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

bruce343434 wrote: post #98

nzmsv wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there are others who, when faced with the trade-off, would choose differently. It's amusing how on another thread the general consensus may be a celebration of Let's Encrypt while over here I seem to come off as crazy (and thus deserving of downvotes simply for saying "not everyone agrees with you").

You are probably receiving downvotes because you're making a non sequitur. The web is, unlike phonelines, encrypted. At best it's a strawman or just a false equivalence.

Post by HWR_14 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #16

Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers . So an even more disproportionate amount of site performance work will now be focused just on what makes Chrome happy. Experimental Chrome features that boost performance metrics will be embraced in the name of SEO. Safari and Firefox can't offer that. It's another way Google uses their control of…

Post by bcrl » Tue, Jun 29, 2021, 12:35 AM UTC

Fuzzeh wrote: post #187

djtriptych wrote: post #66

I've been working on core web vitals for the better part of a year at a major news outlet. I have seriously mixed feelings. There's probably an hour-long talk about this in me but briefly: - It's really nice and maybe unprecedented to have an alignment of business, user, eng, and seo goals. Google is using it's monopoly to change roadmap priorities across the industry. The web vitals themselves are unquestionably goo…

Core web vitals is a joke. Literally 4 days ago it started bitching to me about breadcrumbs telling me that data-vocabulary.org schema deprecated Google ; New Breadcrumbs issue detected for site xxxxx 24 Jun 2021•Breadcrumbs So I look into it, knowing I'd fixed that ages ago.... Google ; Last crawled : 13 Nov 2019 Triggering stuff because you eventually got round to looking at it 19 months later? and it's all like th…

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Jun 29, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

djtriptych wrote: post #149

WillPostForFood wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* The web vitals themselves are unquestionably good for the user* Fast pages are good, but Google is using their tools like Page Speed to push you to adopt Google’s ideas of fast, like using WebP for images. So now you might have a bunch of cruft in your page to support multiple image types. Also, as user, I hate lazy loading. I can scroll faster than images load. I’d rather everything load in the beginning, and have…

WebP is good iff it improves rendering times (which it does). That's not google's fault really. Any way you can come up with to optimize images is valid under Core Web Vitals. I really don't think any of it is skewed towards Google's solutions except the testing/measurement methodology. I would love open source data collection across browsers for instance. Lazy-loading can be implemented sloppily, but browser-native…