4 ms·

What about the flow on impact this has for SEO though. Older content is MUCH harder to find because the web service supporting it doesn't support some new stand

What about the flow on impact this has for SEO though. Older content is MUCH harder to find because the web service supporting it doesn't support some new standard from Google and we lose access to a lot of niche sites. Then we also have the challenge that it's harder to crawl and rank new content en masse... Hard to say for sure of this is overall a net positive if you look across a range of different metrics, it's probably never been more debatable about whether Google knows best.

eyelidlessness 3y ago
Core Web Vitals aren’t a standard that sites need to adopt, in the sense you seem to mean. They’re a set of (mostly performance) metrics which quantify specific aspects of a website each with some presumed impact on user experience. Older content doesn’t need any particular action taken to be measured on these metrics, and in many cases may actually perform rather well (based on certain assumptions about said older content). That Google may (and often does) rank older content poorly is definitely a concern in its own right, but it’s probably not a concern relevant to CWV.
- crowcroft 3y ago
  Yes, agreed. I'm kinda conflating the two things. This issue isn't so much 'adoption' of something like core web vitals, but just the fact that doing well on these standards impact ranking (and therefore older content ranks poorly).