4 ms·
Have they? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious because I guess I don't ever see that happening. Whenever I search for something that has a bunch of results,
by CaptSpify 10y ago
Have they? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious because I guess I don't ever see that happening. Whenever I search for something that has a bunch of results, like weather, I end up with 30s loading, JS-filled, nightmare sites that are slow, bulky and don't show the information in a clean format. Yet there are good, simple sites like http://myfreeweather.com/ http://myfreeweather.com/ that are ~8 pages into the results.
I don't pretend to know half of the metrics they use to rank a site, but IME, it doesn't seem like speed is at all relevant.
- accountface 10y agoIt's part of the algorithm, but it's not enough to offset the fact that a bloated site like weather.com gets astronomical amounts of traffic from all sources (direct, paid, organic). It's more like if you had two sites with identical traffic and identical content relevancy the faster site would rank higher... which makes sense. If your site is incredibly popular, it's logical to think that people are finding it useful and therefore it should rank higher. That's less true than it used to be, but it's still valid as one of the primary ranking metrics.
- CaptSpify 10y agoI guess I see it as chicken and egg problem: Is the site popular because it's one of the top results? or is it the top result because it's popular? I've seen too many of the former to believe Google is trying to push the later.