4 ms·
Not pleased. It can cost a lot of money to have a fast site. If you're a neighborhood blog trying to make a go of it, you can't afford a developer to optimize
by brandnewlow 17y ago
Not pleased. It can cost a lot of money to have a fast site.
If you're a neighborhood blog trying to make a go of it, you can't afford a developer to optimize your site and cache the crap out of it. Meanwhile, the local newspaper site, running a tag archive page for your neighborhood powered by Outside.in or some other McLocal scraper app, can do that. You lose every time on the speed front, despite having original content.
- postfuturist 17y agoMany blog engines, even WordPress with the right plugin, serve your pages as static files. Plenty of speed that way.
- eli 17y agoNot disagreeing, but I think it's often a matter of setting up or tweaking your caching strategy, not throwing hardware at the solution.
- brandnewlow 17y agoNot too many writers can "set up and tweak their caching strategy."
- easp 17y agoSounds like a business opportunity to me. If only there were a site where...
- brandnewlow 17y agoExactly. Now it's more expensive to show up in search.
- sokoloff 17y agoIf your end users want a fast site (I would imagine most do), then the faster sites are going to win anyway, with everything else being equal. At worst, Google is just reflecting that reality (in ~1% of searches where it changes the results). Personally, I would prefer to compete in a world where everything relevant is "up for competition". You can compete on content, speed, price, or a myriad of other factors. If your complaint is that you want to compete on all of those things EXCEPT speed because that metric is unfair in your opinion, I don't have sympathy for that point of view.