4 ms·

I don't understand how this isn't a rehash of Google's PageSpeed push during early 2010s. I do remember having to do the same kind of procedure to get better SE

by piva00 5y ago

I don't understand how this isn't a rehash of Google's PageSpeed push during early 2010s. I do remember having to do the same kind of procedure to get better SEO: measure against PageSpeed's metrics set and optimise the bad results. This looks just the next step after PageSpeed and I have no idea why Google didn't push this before the whole debacle with AMP, such stupidity but expected nowadays from the tech giants...

jefftk 5y ago
In the 2010s, PageSpeed Insights' metrics compared to your site to how it could be if it was delivered optimally. Did you compress your images? Have you combined your CSS files? Are your static resources longcached? A huge site perfectly delivered would score high, while a tiny site sloppily delivered would score low. They represented how much room for improvement your site had if you didn't want to make deep changes. Search was doing its own thing, and they didn't ever have any public speed metrics. Core Web Vitals is a different approach: pages are compared to thresholds. A huge site perfectly delivered now likely scores lower than a tiny site sloppily delivered. (PageSpeed Insights now reports CWV metrics.) These are the kind of metrics you can use for search ranking, because they are about user experience instead of developer room for improvement (low-hanging fruit). (I used to work on mod_pagespeed, which would automatically optimize sites, and I still work for Google. Speaking only for myself.)
- michaelbuckbee 5y ago
  Thanks for the clarification here, but I wanted to confirm that when you're talking "huge site" and "tiny site" that this referring to the overall page load size and not the number of pages on the site?
  - jefftk 5y ago
    Yes, sorry, I should've said "page" instead of "site"
    - michaelbuckbee 5y ago
      Awesome. Thank you!
mattmanser 5y ago
They've done a stunt like AMP before too, when they tried to get everyone to use their hashbang standard.
r00fus 5y ago
s/stupidity/greed/ You know it's true.

by piva00 5y ago

jefftk 5y ago

In the 2010s, PageSpeed Insights' metrics compared to your site to how it could be if it was delivered optimally. Did you compress your images? Have you combined your CSS files? Are your static resources longcached? A huge site perfectly delivered would score high, while a tiny site sloppily delivered would score low. They represented how much room for improvement your site had if you didn't want to make deep changes. Search was doing its own thing, and they didn't ever have any public speed metrics. Core Web Vitals is a different approach: pages are compared to thresholds. A huge site perfectly delivered now likely scores lower than a tiny site sloppily delivered. (PageSpeed Insights now reports CWV metrics.) These are the kind of metrics you can use for search ranking, because they are about user experience instead of developer room for improvement (low-hanging fruit). (I used to work on mod_pagespeed, which would automatically optimize sites, and I still work for Google. Speaking only for myself.)

michaelbuckbee 5y ago
Thanks for the clarification here, but I wanted to confirm that when you're talking "huge site" and "tiny site" that this referring to the overall page load size and not the number of pages on the site?
- jefftk 5y ago
  Yes, sorry, I should've said "page" instead of "site"
  - michaelbuckbee 5y ago
    Awesome. Thank you!

mattmanser 5y ago

They've done a stunt like AMP before too, when they tried to get everyone to use their hashbang standard.

r00fus 5y ago

s/stupidity/greed/ You know it's true.