3 ms·
I wrote the article, let me clarify. Imagine you're a newspaper. You spend lots of money and time optimising your site. More people visit and your search ranki
by edent 7y ago
I wrote the article, let me clarify.
Imagine you're a newspaper. You spend lots of money and time optimising your site. More people visit and your search ranking increases because Google takes page speed into account.
Your rival newspaper doesn't do any of this. But one day they switch to Google's proprietary language. They now get featured at the top of Google's results page.
All your work was for nothing and you have to spend more time + money on an AMP solution. It's no faster than your previous one, and no improvement on user experience. But you have to otherwise you don't get the top spot.
There is nothing you can do to differentiate your site from a performance point of view.
So, yes, all sites are now fast. That might be good for the users. But it also means that you don't get the free market benefit of optimised sites attracting more users. Which, of course, lowers the quality of content for the user.
- skybrian 7y agoThanks! Yes, I can see how it would be unfortunate for them. In the long term, though, not competing on performance (because it has become good enough, for everyone) means that the competition switches to other things like quality journalism. (Or more cynically, clickbait headlines?) It's not clear that competing over milliseconds like the high-frequency traders do is something we should want.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago> It's no faster than your previous one Impossible. You cannot beat preloaded+prerendered.