4 ms·
The replacement they're whining about is "core web vitals" IE the metric you can view at[1]. This is what AMP should have been in the beginning and I was surpri
by swiley 5y ago
The replacement they're whining about is "core web vitals" IE the metric you can view at[1]. This is what AMP should have been in the beginning and I was surprised they did something else, it made Google search unusable on mobile.
[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9205520?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9205520?hl=en
This means that your hand-coded-in-vim static pages will rank near the top.
- jeffbee 5y agoThat’s an extreme claim that requires some backing evidence. Mobile search quality is the main metric google uses to judge its search products. The idea that google search is “unusable on mobile” is pretty silly, if you’re literally the only person who ever noticed.
- swiley 5y agoYou probably did what I did and mostly missed what was happening the past couple years by using duckduckgo the whole time. I formatted my phone at some point last year and the search engine reverted to google, it really was unusable but not something people who wouldn't know better would get too upset about.
- swiley 5y ago(by last year I mean 2019.)
- nonbirithm 5y agoI also don't understand why more people aren't making a firestorm over how user-hostile Google search is at times. They don't even follow their own rules. The "People also searched for" popup causes layout shifts nearly every time you go back to the search page. It's infuriating. I know this is only orthogonal to AMP, but it sounds like the kind of thing Core Web Vitals was meant to disincentivize.
- closetohome 5y ago> The "People also searched for" popup causes layout shifts nearly every time you go back to the search page I've also noticed that particular bit of irony. In fact it's the longest-running CLS issue I've seen anywhere.
- HWR_14 5y agoWhen Google first announced their metrics, people showed how most Google sites failed pretty hard.
- klodolph 5y agoThere is one metric where hand-coded-in-vim pages tend to do poorly, and that's cumulative layout shift. If you have images on your page (a reasonable assumption) and just stick <img> tags in there, you can get dinged on cumulative layout shift because the layout will shift as images get loaded. I use a somewhat hand-coded-in-vim approach, but there's some post-processing that adds width/height attributes to <img> tags which mitigates this particular problem. Edit: Not sure why everyone is telling me to add "height" and "width" attributes, because that's what I wrote in the comment, above. Just to explain how this works--the width and height attributes describe the "intrinsic size" of the image.
- thehappypm 5y agoI would imagine it's best practice to define height and width attributes for <img> tags, no?
- klodolph 5y agoYes, it's just tedious to do by hand, which is why, in practice, people who write HTML by hand often don't do it.
- thehappypm 5y agoI think it's one of the more elegant styling things in HTML, you don't need to use the more verbose style=, it's just plain Jane height= and width=. I've never left it out, and I've written a few HTML pages by hand.
- Tomte 5y agoInclude height and width attributes to your <img> tag and the layout shift problem is solved. Those are used to determine the aspect ratio, so even when resized via CSS the browser knows how much space to reserve in the layout.
- klodolph 5y agoThey are used to determine the intrinsic size. The aspect ratio is also affected by the CSS rules, and doesn't necessarily equal the aspect ratio of the intrinsic size.