4 ms·

> Can they just penalize slow/large file size sites in their index? Well, that would be bad for the independent web, wouldn't it? I mean, you'd be penalising s

> Can they just penalize slow/large file size sites in their index? Well, that would be bad for the independent web, wouldn't it? I mean, you'd be penalising sites with large amounts of content, that aren't on a CDN. Large images or videos, for example, might be the entire point of the page in the first place. I don't want to be directed to to a webpage about an artist (for example) that has the crappiest, smallest and fastest loading images, I want the one with the best images.

whb07 7y ago
well no, not really? Perhaps you could imagine a world where it default loads a smaller file and right underneath there is a link to a larger file? This used to be a more common thing...
- sergiotapia 7y ago
  This is _literally_ what people do to game the paint speed of websites for Chrome Lighthouse tests. They render a <p>Loading</p> so it gets a paint score of 100, then when their behemoth js app finishes loading+parsing it removes this dom element.
  - rstupek 7y ago
    This is literally every WIX site on the web. 100% javascript rendered site.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
Html <img> and <picture> elements already have the ability to serve larger or smaller images (srcset) based on your browser's perception of your network performance. I agree with the other comment here replying to you. In the olden days people had to explicitly link to larger content. Isn't that was AMP does anyway?
URSpider94 7y ago
The reason Google has penalties for page weight and loading time is that they have extensive user research on customer behavior related to loading time. If a flat page studded with a few dozen giant PNG’s takes a minute to load, most people are going to click the back button. It’s worth spending some time optimizing your landing page so that it loads fast and renders cleanly on mobile, if you want people to see your content. That doesn’t mean it has to use JS, or AMP.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > The reason Google has penalties for page weight and loading time is that they have extensive user research on customer behavior related to loading time. If a flat page studded with a few dozen giant PNG’s takes a minute to load, most people are going to click the back button. Why is then basically every single page created by Google is a bloated monstrosity with multi-megabyte Pangs routinely embedded in them and loading megabytes of shitty JS?
C1sc0cat 7y ago
That's a very edge case - its more that front end design and developers need to get their act together and design and build for speed! Don't use complex but nice images designed for print on the web and not just copypasta god knows what js library.
- thejohnconway 7y ago
  Are you saying good, clear pictures are an edge case? I just can't agree, as I find them hugely relevant to a large number of subjects. I don't think images are the problem, megabytes of third-party javascript is.
Andrex 7y ago
Crawlers are smart enough to measure various types of slowness; images/video are non-blocking so although they're bandwidth-heavy, adding a bunch to your site is probably less "damaging" than a slow initial server response or first paint. > I don't want to be directed to to a webpage about an artist (for example) that has the crappiest, smallest and fastest loading images, I want the one with the best images. There are several technologies available for progressively-enhanced images, and Chrome is experimenting with lazy-loading all images[1]. This argument does not exist in practice. [1] https://web.dev/native-lazy-loading/ https://web.dev/native-lazy-loading/
JohnFen 7y ago
> Well, that would be bad for the independent web, wouldn't it? Google already effectively omits most of the independent web anyway. It strongly favors the large commercial websites instead.

whb07 7y ago

well no, not really? Perhaps you could imagine a world where it default loads a smaller file and right underneath there is a link to a larger file? This used to be a more common thing...

sergiotapia 7y ago
This is _literally_ what people do to game the paint speed of websites for Chrome Lighthouse tests. They render a <p>Loading</p> so it gets a paint score of 100, then when their behemoth js app finishes loading+parsing it removes this dom element.
- rstupek 7y ago
  This is literally every WIX site on the web. 100% javascript rendered site.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

Html <img> and <picture> elements already have the ability to serve larger or smaller images (srcset) based on your browser's perception of your network performance. I agree with the other comment here replying to you. In the olden days people had to explicitly link to larger content. Isn't that was AMP does anyway?

URSpider94 7y ago

The reason Google has penalties for page weight and loading time is that they have extensive user research on customer behavior related to loading time. If a flat page studded with a few dozen giant PNG’s takes a minute to load, most people are going to click the back button. It’s worth spending some time optimizing your landing page so that it loads fast and renders cleanly on mobile, if you want people to see your content. That doesn’t mean it has to use JS, or AMP.

dmitriid 7y ago
> The reason Google has penalties for page weight and loading time is that they have extensive user research on customer behavior related to loading time. If a flat page studded with a few dozen giant PNG’s takes a minute to load, most people are going to click the back button. Why is then basically every single page created by Google is a bloated monstrosity with multi-megabyte Pangs routinely embedded in them and loading megabytes of shitty JS?

C1sc0cat 7y ago

That's a very edge case - its more that front end design and developers need to get their act together and design and build for speed! Don't use complex but nice images designed for print on the web and not just copypasta god knows what js library.

thejohnconway 7y ago
Are you saying good, clear pictures are an edge case? I just can't agree, as I find them hugely relevant to a large number of subjects. I don't think images are the problem, megabytes of third-party javascript is.

Andrex 7y ago

Crawlers are smart enough to measure various types of slowness; images/video are non-blocking so although they're bandwidth-heavy, adding a bunch to your site is probably less "damaging" than a slow initial server response or first paint. > I don't want to be directed to to a webpage about an artist (for example) that has the crappiest, smallest and fastest loading images, I want the one with the best images. There are several technologies available for progressively-enhanced images, and Chrome is experimenting with lazy-loading all images[1]. This argument does not exist in practice. [1] https://web.dev/native-lazy-loading/ https://web.dev/native-lazy-loading/

JohnFen 7y ago

> Well, that would be bad for the independent web, wouldn't it? Google already effectively omits most of the independent web anyway. It strongly favors the large commercial websites instead.