GOOGLE

Countries with Slow Internet Can Affect Core Web Vitals Scores

Published

3 years ago

April 16, 2021

In a Google Office Hours Hangout Google’s John Mueller answered if the Core Web Vitals scoring would give consideration to sites whose users come from countries with predominantly slow Internet.

Core Web Vitals Lab & Field Testing

Testing core web vitals with Lighthouse gives what’s called Lab Data. Lab data is an estimated score using a simulated environment.

Field data, which is what’s reported in PageSpeed Insights, is based on real-world data. The real world data is gathered from actual site visitors who have opted into anonymously providing the site download speed information.

Lab data = Simulated
Field data = Actual scores from real people visiting the website

The person asking the question noted that they had updated their site and achieved a score of 100 in the lab testing. But that when the field data was updated they saw that their field scores (based on actual site visitors) as reported in Google Search Console actually went down and were significantly lower than the simulated scores predicted through Lighthouse.

The person asking the question confirmed that he knows the difference between lab and field data and that field data takes time to update.

The heart of the question is, why does the simulated lab data reflect the changes made to improve the core web vitals score but that Google Search Console shows the metrics getting worse.

Mueller began his response by reminding the person asking the question that there is a reporting delay with field data.

The person asking the question reiterated that they understood this and that it had been taken into account, that they had waited over 28 days to see the updated scores and the scores were worse.

Mueller next responded that it’s hard to say about this specific case without looking at the details and this is the point where the discussion became very interesting.

Mueller:

“One thing that I would try to do there is to try to figure out which part of Core Web Vitals is affected by that, if it’s like Largest Contentful Pain or if it’s CLS.

And based on that, try to figure out where it might be coming from.”

Next Mueller lowered expectations on the accuracy of the lab data.

Mueller continued:

“One of the things that generally happens with the lab versus field data is that with the lab data it’s basically an assumption.

It’s an approximation of what our systems think might happen in the field. Because there are just so many unknowns out there that depends a little bit on your users, where they’re coming from, what kind of devices they have… all of that.

Which means that you can use the lab data to incrementally improve but you don’t necessarily see a clear connection between the lab results and the field results. I don’t know if that’s something that might be playing a role there…”

The follow up question inquired if there were considerations for slower Internet speeds in different countries. He wanted to know if there were different scores for countries with slow mobile connections.

He next pointed out that this might put his site at a disadvantage with countries that have a preponderance of users in developed countries with faster Internet connection.

The background to that question is that Core Web Vitals metrics are measured from actual users. If a user is on a low quality cell phone on a low quality data connection then the core web vitals scores will be lower than someone from another country with a faster Internet connection and a higher quality mobile phone.

Mueller responded:

“I don’t know what the final setup there will be.

It is something where we have country information in Chrome User Experience Report data. So it is something where we’d be able to figure out where users are primarily coming from.

But the general idea is still kind of that users should be able to have a good experience.

And if the bulk of your users sees a slow experience, regardless of why, then essentially that’s what will apply there.

So that’s at least from what I know, that’s kind of the general standpoint there.

It’s like if 90% of your users are coming from locations that are slow and essentially 90% of your users have this …sub-optimal experience with your site, then that’s kind of what will be taken into account.”

Block Slow Countries for Better Core Web Vitals Scores?

The idea has taken hold that blocking certain countries might help the Core Web Vitals scores. Someone asked Martin Splitt about in January 2021.

This is how Martin responded about blocking countries for core web vitals:

No. That’s thinking that is laser focused on the Core Web Vitals and that’s really, really risky.”

A, Because people from these countries, if they want to access your website, they will through a proxy or what’s called a “VPN” which really is mostly a proxy for most cases.

And then the speed is even slower, so not helping.

Users From Slow Countries and Core Web Vitals

As John Mueller understands it, he said that there will be no allowances made for sites whose users come from countries where the Internet connection is slower.

The implication and reason for the question is that this seems to put a website at a disadvantage compared to websites with users predominantly from countries with fast Internet.

But in a way that presumption kind of needs a deeper think.

The companies with mostly fast Internet users are not necessarily competing with websites whose user base is predominantly in slower Internet countries, since their user base is from the fast countries.

Expanding the user base to countries with fast Internet is a matter of country code domains (.uk, .in, .jp, etc.), language and other factors like overt hints about International Targeting (and “un-targeting”) in the Google Search Console.

The Core Web Vitals ranking influence is a very small thing and not going to have as much influence as these other more important signals that help Google understand the geographical and language relevance of a website.

Citation

Watch Mueller answer the question at approximately the 2 minute mark in the video:

Searchenginejournal.com

GOOGLE

Google Warns About Misuse of Its Indexing API

Published

5 days ago

September 12, 2024

Max

Google Warns About Misuse of Its Indexing API

Google has updated its Indexing API documentation with a clear warning about spam detection and the possible consequences of misuse.

Warning Against API Misuse The new message in the guide says:

“All submissions through the Indexing API are checked for spam. Any misuse, like using multiple accounts or going over the usage limits, could lead to access being taken away.”

This warning is aimed at people trying to abuse the system by exceeding the API’s limits or breaking Google’s rules.

What Is the Indexing API? The Indexing API allows websites to tell Google when job posting or livestream video pages are added or removed. It helps websites with fast-changing content get their pages crawled and indexed quickly.

But it seems some users have been trying to abuse this by using multiple accounts to get more access.

Impact of the Update Google is now closely watching how people use the Indexing API. If someone breaks the rules, they might lose access to the tool, which could make it harder for them to keep their search results updated for time-sensitive content.

How To Stay Compliant To use the Indexing API properly, follow these rules:

Don’t go over the usage limits, and if you need more, ask Google instead of using multiple accounts.
Use the API only for job postings or livestream videos, and make sure your data is correct.
Follow all of Google’s API guidelines and spam policies.
Use sitemaps along with the API, not as a replacement.

Remember, the Indexing API isn’t a shortcut to faster indexing. Follow the rules to keep your access.

GOOGLE

This Week in Search News: Simple and Easy-to-Read Update

Published

3 months ago

June 30, 2024

Entireweb News Bot

This Week in Search News: Simple and Easy-to-Read Update

Here’s what happened in the world of Google and search engines this week:

1. Google’s June 2024 Spam Update

Google finished rolling out its June 2024 spam update over a period of seven days. This update aims to reduce spammy content in search results.

2. Changes to Google Search Interface

Google has removed the continuous scroll feature for search results. Instead, it’s back to the old system of pages.

3. New Features and Tests

Link Cards: Google is testing link cards at the top of AI-generated overviews.
Health Overviews: There are more AI-generated health overviews showing up in search results.
Local Panels: Google is testing AI overviews in local information panels.

4. Search Rankings and Quality

Improving Rankings: Google said it can improve its search ranking system but will only do so on a large scale.
Measuring Quality: Google’s Elizabeth Tucker shared how they measure search quality.

5. Advice for Content Creators

Brand Names in Reviews: Google advises not to avoid mentioning brand names in review content.
Fixing 404 Pages: Google explained when it’s important to fix 404 error pages.

6. New Search Features in Google Chrome

Google Chrome for mobile devices has added several new search features to enhance user experience.

7. New Tests and Features in Google Search

Credit Card Widget: Google is testing a new widget for credit card information in search results.
Sliding Search Results: When making a new search query, the results might slide to the right.

8. Bing’s New Feature

Bing is now using AI to write “People Also Ask” questions in search results.

9. Local Search Ranking Factors

Menu items and popular times might be factors that influence local search rankings on Google.

10. Google Ads Updates

Query Matching and Brand Controls: Google Ads updated its query matching and brand controls, and advertisers are happy with these changes.
Lead Credits: Google will automate lead credits for Local Service Ads. Google says this is a good change, but some advertisers are worried.
tROAS Insights Box: Google Ads is testing a new insights box for tROAS (Target Return on Ad Spend) in Performance Max and Standard Shopping campaigns.
WordPress Tag Code: There is a new conversion code for Google Ads on WordPress sites.

These updates highlight how Google and other search engines are continuously evolving to improve user experience and provide better advertising tools.

AI

Exploring the Evolution of Language Translation: A Comparative Analysis of AI Chatbots and Google Translate

Published

7 months ago

February 26, 2024

Max

A Comparative Analysis of AI Chatbots and Google Translate

According to an article on PCMag, while Google Translate makes translating sentences into over 100 languages easy, regular users acknowledge that there’s still room for improvement.

In theory, large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are expected to bring about a new era in language translation. These models consume vast amounts of text-based training data and real-time feedback from users worldwide, enabling them to quickly learn to generate coherent, human-like sentences in a wide range of languages.

However, despite the anticipation that ChatGPT would revolutionize translation, previous experiences have shown that such expectations are often inaccurate, posing challenges for translation accuracy. To put these claims to the test, PCMag conducted a blind test, asking fluent speakers of eight non-English languages to evaluate the translation results from various AI services.

The test compared ChatGPT (both the free and paid versions) to Google Translate, as well as to other competing chatbots such as Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini. The evaluation involved comparing the translation quality for two test paragraphs across different languages, including Polish, French, Korean, Spanish, Arabic, Tagalog, and Amharic.

In the first test conducted in June 2023, participants consistently favored AI chatbots over Google Translate. ChatGPT, Google Bard (now Gemini), and Microsoft Bing outperformed Google Translate, with ChatGPT receiving the highest praise. ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance in converting colloquialisms, while Google Translate often provided literal translations that lacked cultural nuance.

For instance, ChatGPT accurately translated colloquial expressions like “blow off steam,” whereas Google Translate produced more literal translations that failed to resonate across cultures. Participants appreciated ChatGPT’s ability to maintain consistent levels of formality and its consideration of gender options in translations.

The success of AI chatbots like ChatGPT can be attributed to reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), which allows these models to learn from human preferences and produce culturally appropriate translations, particularly for non-native speakers. However, it’s essential to note that while AI chatbots outperformed Google Translate, they still had limitations and occasional inaccuracies.

In a subsequent test, PCMag evaluated different versions of ChatGPT, including the free and paid versions, as well as language-specific AI agents from OpenAI’s GPTStore. The paid version of ChatGPT, known as ChatGPT Plus, consistently delivered the best translations across various languages. However, Google Translate also showed improvement, performing surprisingly well compared to previous tests.

Overall, while ChatGPT Plus emerged as the preferred choice for translation, Google Translate demonstrated notable improvement, challenging the notion that AI chatbots are always superior to traditional translation tools.

Source: https://www.pcmag.com/articles/google-translate-vs-chatgpt-which-is-the-best-language-translator