4 ms·

"some arbitrary set of performance standards"? Less than 3s load time, reasonable DOM size, and low FID are all widely accepted as a "good UX". Just another ve

"some arbitrary set of performance standards"? Less than 3s load time, reasonable DOM size, and low FID are all widely accepted as a "good UX". Just another veiled article criticizing Google's dominance rather than a technical one.

Spivak 5y ago
Look, you're right that this is essentially Google making everyone eat their vegetables but isn't it a little wild that this single company has so much control over the internet that they can basically make sweeping decrees like this?
- rchaud 5y ago
  No, I don't think so. There are hundreds if not thousands of unique domains for nearly every single query. Very few of those are providing first-hand, unique information. Take Apple product announcements; there are hundreds of high-traffic blogs basically creating identical content rehashing a press release or writing posts about newly announced products. There has to be a way of prioritizing some of these sites over others. Same goes for sports, celebrity/gossip, news, etc. That would be most of the open web right there. Google also moved to mobile-first indexing some years ago. Was that unfair to mom-and-pop shops that didn't have a responsively designed site? Perhaps, but if the website is something that brings you business, it's a tool that should be sharpened when dull, and replaced when its rusty.
  - pradn 5y ago
    You're absolutely right that UX should have precedence for equal info. There's a reason why I like going to the slickly-made Verge instead of every other site for routine news like what was announced at a particular company's event. That, and I like their short summary videos.
    - rchaud 5y ago
      I like their summary videos as well. Unfortunately I'm less of a fan of the website. The design is messy; they're trying to do the "website as magazine" style, but they're dependent on Google Ads so the experience feels disjointed.
      - pradn 5y ago
        I can see that. It's still a far cry from a website with interstitials and auto-playing video, but perhaps I'm setting the bar too low by comparing to like CNN.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > There has to be a way of prioritizing some of these sites over others. Those that display fewer ads and trackers? Many people would like that but somebody would really not.
    - rchaud 5y ago
      You will need to use millionshort.com or a similar niche-based search engine for that. Otherwise, it is the equivalent of asking Apple to let you filter out apps that use Facebook SDK; completely futile. The overwhelming majority of websites being created today include some kind of tracker, even if it's a single analytics script. And knowing the HN audience, that's still one tracker too many.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        Yes, it is, especially if a user doesn't want to be tracked. Flag the website as malicious and the problem would go away quickly. It doesn't serve any purpose anyway. Companies as advertising consumers just want to be on equal footing.
- wpietri 5y ago
  I think that's a fair point. I'd love to see more of this done in coalition. Google doing solo not only can bend the web toward Google's corporate interests, but it undermines the growth of other social structures (e.g., citizen movements, nonprofit advocacy groups, regulators, governments) to solve problems like this.
tomjen3 5y ago
3s load time is crazy high. You need to get below 0.1 second before it feels instant, which would be a huge upgrade compared to most websites (it should still feel instant if you load the ads after that, just so long that you don't change the layout on the page at all). I have a gigabit connection, so it is not a question about not downloading fast enough, I can browse wikipedia this way. It is a matter of not using so much javascript.

Spivak 5y ago

Look, you're right that this is essentially Google making everyone eat their vegetables but isn't it a little wild that this single company has so much control over the internet that they can basically make sweeping decrees like this?

rchaud 5y ago
No, I don't think so. There are hundreds if not thousands of unique domains for nearly every single query. Very few of those are providing first-hand, unique information. Take Apple product announcements; there are hundreds of high-traffic blogs basically creating identical content rehashing a press release or writing posts about newly announced products. There has to be a way of prioritizing some of these sites over others. Same goes for sports, celebrity/gossip, news, etc. That would be most of the open web right there. Google also moved to mobile-first indexing some years ago. Was that unfair to mom-and-pop shops that didn't have a responsively designed site? Perhaps, but if the website is something that brings you business, it's a tool that should be sharpened when dull, and replaced when its rusty.
- pradn 5y ago
  You're absolutely right that UX should have precedence for equal info. There's a reason why I like going to the slickly-made Verge instead of every other site for routine news like what was announced at a particular company's event. That, and I like their short summary videos.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    I like their summary videos as well. Unfortunately I'm less of a fan of the website. The design is messy; they're trying to do the "website as magazine" style, but they're dependent on Google Ads so the experience feels disjointed.
    - pradn 5y ago
      I can see that. It's still a far cry from a website with interstitials and auto-playing video, but perhaps I'm setting the bar too low by comparing to like CNN.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > There has to be a way of prioritizing some of these sites over others. Those that display fewer ads and trackers? Many people would like that but somebody would really not.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    You will need to use millionshort.com or a similar niche-based search engine for that. Otherwise, it is the equivalent of asking Apple to let you filter out apps that use Facebook SDK; completely futile. The overwhelming majority of websites being created today include some kind of tracker, even if it's a single analytics script. And knowing the HN audience, that's still one tracker too many.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Yes, it is, especially if a user doesn't want to be tracked. Flag the website as malicious and the problem would go away quickly. It doesn't serve any purpose anyway. Companies as advertising consumers just want to be on equal footing.
wpietri 5y ago
I think that's a fair point. I'd love to see more of this done in coalition. Google doing solo not only can bend the web toward Google's corporate interests, but it undermines the growth of other social structures (e.g., citizen movements, nonprofit advocacy groups, regulators, governments) to solve problems like this.

tomjen3 5y ago

3s load time is crazy high. You need to get below 0.1 second before it feels instant, which would be a huge upgrade compared to most websites (it should still feel instant if you load the ads after that, just so long that you don't change the layout on the page at all). I have a gigabit connection, so it is not a question about not downloading fast enough, I can browse wikipedia this way. It is a matter of not using so much javascript.