4 ms·
Which is exactly the point. Use it as a stronger signal and case closed. Web will change the way they want. Always. Right now they want to change it to their wa
by angry-hacker 10y ago
Which is exactly the point. Use it as a stronger signal and case closed. Web will change the way they want. Always. Right now they want to change it to their walled garden.
- fixermark 10y agoIf they've been using it for six years, and it hasn't improved things, what makes you think using it as a stronger signal will (a) actually improve things, (b) not make it trivial to game SEO?
- angry-hacker 10y agoa) It would improve things because website owners, seo's or whatever you want to call them, always listen everything Google says. I'm in the industry. One tweet from Matt Cutts and they are already changing the brand name if Matt tells them so. That is the way industry works. Everyone knows site speed is a weak signal. Google could impose harsh penalties but they don't. b) Google has become really smart nowadays. You could theoretically game everything in this world. They execute the javascript and run the page, they already know how to detect banners, interstatials etc. They also have manual team giving out bans.
- mthoms 10y ago> they've been using it for six years, and it hasn't improved things Citation?
- fixermark 10y agoOn the six years or on the "hasn't improved things?" The six years is the age of the speed PageRank signal, according to the grandparent post. "Hasn't improved things," I had assumed 'the web is getting slower' was common knowledge, but here's an example of the family of articles you can quickly find on the subject: http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2015/07/08/news-sites-take-notice-of-slow-load-times/ http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2015/07/08/news-sites-tak...