11 ms·
Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers. So an even more disproportionate amoun
by eli 5y ago
Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers.
So an even more disproportionate amount of site performance work will now be focused just on what makes Chrome happy. Experimental Chrome features that boost performance metrics will be embraced in the name of SEO. Safari and Firefox can't offer that.
It's another way Google uses their control of the search market to cement their browser as the de facto standard.
- dannyw 5y agoI hope the EU competition authority gets Google to change this. At least inside the EU.
- BrianOnHN 5y agoI hope not. Regional based internet could become the next major factor when it comes to inequality. For example, don't hire people from Region A because they can't access the best resources located in Region B.
- wyager 5y agoThis is the future the EU chose when they started imposing EU law on foreign internet companies.
- lwhi 5y agoNo. This the future foreign internet companies chose when they put profits above all else.
- elliekelly 5y agoForeign internet companies aren’t obligated to operate in the EU. If they don’t like the rules they can choose not to participate.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wyager 5y agoIf you choose to conflate “sending packets to the EU” with “operating in the EU”, you are choosing a future where the internet is siloed off and the web ceases to be a global network. I am not passing judgment - merely stating a fact.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoDo the restrictions govern how packets may be sent? Or do they deal with taxes, handling user information, etc?
- wyager 5y agoThe restrictions don't need to directly restrict how packets get sent - if they impose tax/regulatory costs for packets getting routed a certain way, the end result will be the same.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoThis is a bit like complaining about restrictions on "sending atoms to the EU" when they decide to impose tariffs or safety regulations on consumer goods. Businesses shouldn't get to flout regulations just because they happen to be digital.
- wyager 5y agoCool opinion. I’m not disagreeing with it. I don’t care. I’m just explaining that a logical entailment of your opinion is that the internet will be siloed off. Stop trying to convince me that your opinion is right. It’s totally irrelevant whether or not it’s right.
- bruce343434 5y agoIf you serve something in another country, you abide by their rules. Be it a physical product or a virtual one, which includes a website or webservice.
- nzmsv 5y agoThis is not, strictly speaking, an obvious forgone conclusion. Imagine that I call you over the phone, old school style, with voice. Would you or would you not want the governments on either end of the phone line to eavesdrop on our conversation so they can make sure it meets their local laws? What if we communicated by SMS? Email? Posting on a message board? Some people will have an "obviously yes, I want the government to be in charge, are you dumb?" reaction. Others will say "of course I want privacy, are you dumb?" Early Internet chose privacy. Modern internet is increasingly choosing regulation. But this is far from the obvious truth you are claiming it is, if only because the prevailing opinion changed in recent memory.
- Lio 5y agoActually I'd quite like it if my government could block foreign phone calls that attempt to spoof local numbers. If only as a way of stopping foreign criminal gangs from scamming the vulnerable. The main reason this can't happen is because of international agreements that were made long before the internet age or this type of crime became a thing.
- nzmsv 5y agoAnd there are others who, when faced with the trade-off, would choose differently. It's amusing how on another thread the general consensus may be a celebration of Let's Encrypt while over here I seem to come off as crazy (and thus deserving of downvotes simply for saying "not everyone agrees with you").
- bruce343434 5y agoYou are probably receiving downvotes because you're making a non sequitur. The web is, unlike phonelines, encrypted. At best it's a strawman or just a false equivalence.
- fuzzy2 5y agoHm? I think Parent is just hoping Google is required by law not to rank results this way. It would not bar access to anything.
- nicce 5y agoI guess the difference comes, when law requirement happens on EU only, not globally. So the question is, which is worse; not regulate at all or regulated only in one area. It bars access from some point of view, it might not exist if you don't see it from search results.
- buran77 5y agoThere's no question. What you're suggesting is "I shot one leg, might as well shoot the other". There's no reason why it would be better if everyone suffers the same fate rather than about half a billion people having it better. Having to provide a better service for so many users just puts pressure on a company by showing every other user not benefiting yet that it's possible, that they can ask and expect more.
- wil421 5y agoDoes that mean more pop ups to accept?
- fddddd 5y agolol. google is sweeping the entire internet not catering to chrome users under the rug and you're concerned with popups on the top 10 bigger sites
- undfg 5y agoCookie laws have destroyed my web browsing experience much more than amp ever has.
- jeroenhd 5y agoIt's not the laws that have destroyed the experience, it's the reckless and senseless selling of data. Websites don't need to show any popups, they choose to. Honouring DNT should be trivial, no user interaction needed to stop tracking and therefore the need for 99% of these popups.
- gjvnq 5y agoThere is a good solution: force DNT to be honoured.
- speedgoose 5y agoIf you think about the GDPR, it's not about cookies at all but consent for tracking. Many websites prefer to destroy their usability to get your consent in various deceptive ways. You can definitely have technical cookies and no cookies banner.
- _nalply 5y agoIt's the malicious compliance of the laws hat has destroyed our web browsing experience.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jsnell 5y agoHow do you propose they source that data from other browsers? Do you e.g. think Apple and Mozilla would provide them with a suitable feed, at a high enough granularity to be useful? And if they did, what do you think the public reaction would be to such data sharing?
- blowski 5y agoThat's phrasing the problem in a format where the only solution is Google. Re-phrasing it as "What else can a search engine do to stop being gamed?" opens up a lot more options. The real problem here is not 'gamed search engines' but too much centralisation, with Google owning the search engine, the browser, and the ad platform. This solution makes that problem worse, not better.
- ehnto 5y agoThe entire premise of the speed metrics influencing search results is to make sure Google search is a fast experience. A decade ago, it seemed at first that the point was a benevolent attempt to make the web a better place using their influence, but I can't accept that anymore.
- jsnell 5y agoSorry, no. You're moving the goalposts. The criticism from eli was not e.g. that using page speed as a ranking criteria is intrinsically bad. It was that the data was sourced only from Chrome (including the italics). It's like I've fallen into a crazy parallel dimension. For more than *five years* HN commenters have been ranting about how AMP is not needed, and all that's needed is using page speed as the signal. And now when that happens, it's suddenly an outrage.
- forgetfulness 5y agoSo... you're thinking that HN is gaslighting you because you don't see that it's Google controlling the web and publishing that's the issue.
- dado3212 5y ago
- HWR_14 5y agoDamn, I didn't realize that. I assumed it was some Google-bot analysis.