First: I find it worrying that Google has enough power to dictate the direction of the internet is such profound ways. Remember when people would get up in arms when Microsoft created de facto standards?
Second: Doesn't this change only effect 'mobile searches' ? Reading the blog post [1] that is how I interpret it. I think the article could make this more clear.
This is what happens when your search engine monopoly also has a mobile OS.
Frankly, I hate most mobile sites. For most sites I just use an app or deal with the desktop site. On a 5" android phone, desktop browsing isn't bad. Its a shame companies with great mobile apps but non-mobile sites will be punished by this, yet half-assed responsive design sites will be rewarded.
I wish google would use its muscle for good once in a while. How about lowering the rank of sites that have all those in-page pop-ups? Or refuse content until you log in with a facebook or similar account? That's stuff real people complain about. The mobile stuff seems to have been taken care of for the most part and, frankly better, via Apple's approach of convincing everyone to buy an iphone and sites having to either serve them via apps or via mobile themes via customer demand.
Google's heavy-handed approach is pretty concerning. If users and the market aren't dying for mobile sites, why is google unilaterally forcing them down everyone's throats via the completely unrelated pagerank system? If sites are of poor quality, people won't link to them, and pagerank will work as designed. Google is just making modifications to help sell its Android product.
Sadly, this won't lead to some mobile renaissance (we already had one and its working fine). We're just going to get a lot of "SEO-optimized" crappy responsive design that will be a checkmark on a list of requirements no one really gives a shit about. Good mobile sites are hard. Get ready for the cookie-cutter mobile half-assery that will limit content, break functionality, etc just because everyone is chasing that precious pagerank value.
Not to mention, its not 2008 anymore. Everyone has a mobile site. Those that don't probably just can't afford one, like very small business and other edge cases (applications that are only used on desktops for niche needs and have no need for mobile). Google is just pissing on those least able to move swiftly in an ever changing technological world.
Google didn't create the switch to mobile, they are years late to the party. Apple initiated the mobile smartphone revolution. Now billions of people are coming online, many of whom never ever had a desktop with internet, especially in developing companies.
This is a disruptive change, and it is undeniable reality. Even if Google didn't change the mobile search ranking, eventually non-mobile ready sites would lose traffic from frustrated users picking alternatives that are mobile optimized. What would happen is, mobile users would say "man, Google Search sucks, every time I search for a site, it gives these horrible, slow to load, hard to use sites on my phone" At some point, a competitor, possibly even Apple, would release a mobile-ranked search engine.
Maybe they'll be a button to get the desktop results even on mobile, or maybe "Request Desktop Site" in the mobile browser will give you Google Desktop search. But to blame Google because you're going to eventually be forced to update your site is just laziness.
It's not Google who brought this on, it's your customers. They've changed their access patterns, and if you want your business to thrive, to you need to follow your customers. Sometimes that even means native apps in app stores.
I'd say this is a good wakeup call and really, Google took way too long to seriously target the mobile Web. Chrome only recently got Add to Home Screen and Push Notifications, two of the biggest things missing. We're now 8 years post iPhone (2007). The fact that Search ranking is just now, almost a decade later, targeting mobile friendly means Google was seriously lagging the usage patterns of most of the world.
I find it very hard to believe that people are blaming content on search engines. If a site doesn't look right, I blame the site. I also find it hard to justify that even if they did, that somehow Google has a responsibility to unilaterally police the web via pagerank punishments.
It's not that people blame Google for the site looking crappy, but they do blame Google if the top search results aren't useful -- and that includes the site being unusable. Google also makes a huge amount of its revenue off of pay-per-click display advertising, and if it's referring customers all day long (through organic search) to sites that don't convert, then it's bad for everyone.
This is nowhere near the first pagerank modifier based on site performance -- it's well-known that Google penalizes sites that are slow to load, because users click away from those sites more frequently.
> Or refuse content until you log in with a facebook or similar account? That's stuff real people complain about
Outside of the HN bubble, I've not seen (m)any people complain about this. Its not something most people care about really, as long as they can still access the content "for free"[1]
Internet is one big case of Stockholm Syndrome. I'll leave the web developers love affair with crappy tech for another discussion; in case of users, I'm astonished by how much crap people are willing to tolerate because they think "it's how things are". Ads, more ads, crappy/spam sites, SEO, clickjacking... There is a huge market failure here, the signal about people being frustrated doesn't really travel upstream so everyone keeps pumping out even more crap.
You could argue that, in a sense, Google already punishes sites with annoying features like in-page popups and mandatory Facebook logins, in the same way it punishes all sites with annoying features - if you load a page and then hit the back button within a few seconds, Google knows the site it sent you to probably wasn't very useful and that will affect the page's rating. Add that to myriad other signals they use to detect whether you got value out of the site or not and I'd say they do a good job of punishing sites that people genuinely don't like.
What's probable though is is that although we don't like those things, other people aren't so bothered by them and still find utility in sites that use them, so Google doesn't punish them too much.
> I find it worrying that Google has enough power to dictate the direction of the internet is such profound ways. Remember when people would get up in arms when Microsoft created de facto standards?
They're playing catch-up, not dictating. Mobile-friendly has been the rule not the exception for web developers for years.
How well did that work out? I mean, really? YouTube just completely switched from Flash, many other video sites are still pushing Flash or sometimes even Silverlight, HTML5 gaming has still yet to really take off the way Flash gaming did. All Apple did was push these interactions to native apps instead of on the web.
It's been what, 8 years since the iPhone was released, and Flash is still around. I didn't notice a huge decrease in Flash usage when Jobs made the announcement. It doesn't hurt that they have strong competition and Android can still to this day play Flash content if the user wants.
It's sort of been replaced by mobile apps, but there's still a lot of Flash out there. Kongregate is still a thing. Browser-based games are currently in this weird limbo state where the old tech is out of favor, but the new hotness (WebGL) really isn't ready yet.
The WebGL exports you currently get from Unity and UE4 are typically huge, slow, and often completely broken. I have no idea where the blame lies, but it's not pretty.
Do you actually play on Kongregate? I check it on occasion and have noticed that it hasn't really changed over the last five years. 90% of the games I see at a glance aren't any different.
So we waited eight years for Flash to die to the point where it is today. Meanwhile sites are changing now for Google's new algorithm. I don't think it's comparable at all.
First: I find it worrying that Google has enough power to dictate the direction of the internet is such profound ways. Remember when people would get up in arms when Microsoft created de facto standards?
Second: Doesn't this change only effect 'mobile searches' ? Reading the blog post [1] that is how I interpret it. I think the article could make this more clear.
[1] http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/findin...