Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

Would you also think of it as a good initiative if the US government demanded the change?

I don't know. To me it sounds a bit like "you can only be in the AppStore if your app meets these requirements".

If Google was pure in its reasoning, they would allow slow pages to still be listed high in search results for people who don't care about page load times.

View on HN

> for people who don't care about page load times.

And I am sure there is an incredibly high percentage of people who love nothing more than slow web sites.

If they are ad-free and tracking-free, then you can give me slow web sites.

For some strange reason ad-free and tracking-free sites are usually faster...

There is an enormous difference between a demand from a government that would be backed up by the threat of violence and anything Google is doing. You are free to ignore Google without any risk of being shot or imprisoned.

Yep, the only possibility is that your business might be destroyed, you might be bankrupt, and your family needs to start again from zero.

It seems like this is the case. There is a link to a more informative article in the Reddit post that has a spokesperson from google who says that if you’re the most relevant, you’re going to still be ranked well.

Article link: https://www.ntara.com/google-core-web-vitals/

Ok, let's extend this. If two pages are equally relevant and equally fast, will they show me the page with the fewest advertisements first?

And why is speed more important than number of advertisements?

Fortunately, speed is almost always inversely proportional to number of ads! So the two mostly go hand in hand, for sites with similar content.

I think the best approach would be to show a small indicator of page load times in the search results so everyone can decide for themelves what they prefer. Then these preferences would influence what is shown on top, creating an optimisation feedback cycle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com