4 ms·
I have two concerns here.(well 3, but swombat covered that one) 1. If you are going to penalize sites for being "slow" then how about you tell us what slow is?
by vaksel 17y ago
I have two concerns here.(well 3, but swombat covered that one)
1. If you are going to penalize sites for being "slow" then how about you tell us what slow is? Is a site loading in 10 seconds "slow"? is a site with a 5mb index page that loads in 15 seconds "slow"? How about some metrics so that we can optimize properly?
And what will that do to a lot of content rich sites? If you have a lot of images/flash/javascript it sounds like you are going to get screwed for trying to make a better looking user experience.
2. Of course Google search results experiment would affect user satisfaction. You are looking for results, and you want to do a lot of searches. BUT when you are clicking to see the result you like, I think most people would be willing to wait 2 seconds extra to load the more relevant information.
Sounds like this is yet another attempt at boosting big sites, where large sites like eHow and Mahalo get preference in results just because they can afford faster servers.
- pavs 17y agoYou do need faster server to serve more people, but you don't (necessarily) need faster server to make faster sites. There are some exceptions. If you have a site that takes 10 seconds to load even with low traffic, something is wrong with your configuration.
- nostrademons 17y agoSome of the very worst offenders are big sites, eg. cnn.com takes about 2.5 seconds to load close to 100 external resources. Mahalo takes about 2 seconds for about 40 external resources. As for metrics - as a user, I can say that 10 seconds is too slow. So is a 5M index page that loads in 15 seconds (what the hell do you need 5 megs of data on your index page for? That's like a 5 minute YouTube video). I want to see results within 1-2 seconds of clicking on a page; otherwise, you've broken my train of thought and I need to mentally context-switch each time I visit a page.