4 ms·
> switching from JPG to WebP (a change with no real-world SEO value) to try to help SEO. Nitpicking, but it _will_ have SEO value once Google rolls out Core We
by brtkdotse 5y ago
> switching from JPG to WebP (a change with no real-world SEO value) to try to help SEO.
Nitpicking, but it _will_ have SEO value once Google rolls out Core Web Vitals this summer. Not massive, but it’s a very easy way of scoring a few perf points.
- lrem 5y agoThat's shaving half a hair, isn't it?
- brtkdotse 5y agoHence the initial “nitpicking” in my post
- ______- 5y agoThere are other ways of getting traffic besides Google. Sure, tweak your site to please their algorithm and achieve better SEO, but always be scouting for other traffic sources.
- snowwrestler 5y agoWebP offers basically no advantage over good ol’ JPG in lossy compression of photos, which was the use case for this site. I hear you on Core Web Vitals, but most sites will have a long list of more impactful changes to make before they could expect to see any measurable rank improvement by switching from JPG to WebP for photos.