GOOGLE

Google on Improving Core Web Vitals Score by Blocking Countries

Published

4 years ago

January 8, 2021

Google on Improving Core Web Vitals Score by Blocking Countries

Martin Splitt, in a JavaScript SEO Office Hours video answered a question on improving Core Web Vitals score by blocking countries with slow Internet. The idea is that blocking those site visitors will prevent Google from incorporating those slow Core Web vitals metrics from being used to calculate the final score.

Core Web Vitals Scores

Core Web Vitals are a set of page experience metrics that will become ranking factors in 2021. There are two kinds of Core Web Vitals scores, Field Metrics and Lab Measurements.

Field metrics are actual scores derived from visitors to a site. Lab data are scores generated from a simulated visit through various tools offered by Google.

The purpose of Lab measurements is to give publishers and SEOs a way to test and diagnose site performance in order to identify areas of improvement.

The purpose of field metrics is to provide actual real-world feedback. There are many analytics tools that offer Core Web Vitals as features.

But most importantly, Google uses field metrics in order to generate a score that will be used for ranking purposes.

Google’s Martin Splitt discussing core web vitals and rankings

Manipulating Core Web Vitals Scores

Preventing the Core Web Vitals score from dropping is the concern of the person who asked Martin the question.

The idea is that if Google is using real-world field data, then it’s possible that site visitors who are on a slow Internet connection will negatively skew the Core Web Vitals score, thereby impacting site rankings.

Some countries have slow Internet connections, so the person asking the question wanted to block those users in order to sculpt the Web Vitals scores so that only visitors with fast Internet connections contribute to the final scores.

This is the question asked:

“Does it make sense for an informational site to block all countries out there except the few bigger ones in order to get the best average field score for that speed?

I know I can do that. The question is if I have, for example, low return on investment from countries with slow internet connections with a large population, does it make any sense to cut them from accessing my website since they have a slow connection that hurts my field scores?”

Martin’s answer was split between the pragmatic reality of the futility of trying to sculpt the Web Vitals scores and a recommendation to look at the big picture.

Martin answered:

“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.”

Martin suggested that blocking users will just cause them to use a Virtual Private Network, a service that hides the country and IP address of the user. VPNs typically cause the Internet connection to be slower than a bare Internet connection without a VPN.

Martin continued, this time implying that focusing on just one ranking factor element may negatively impact other more important factors.

He continued:

“The other thing is, Core Web Vitals and Page Experience is one ranking factor out of hundreds of ranking factors.

So you should not overestimate the power of this ranking factor.

It is important. It is not the most important.

And I think if you have useful information and you can get this information to people and get some ROI, you should probably do that.

Because again, there’s hundreds of ranking factors. Speed is not the only thing.

Because if speed would be the only thing, then a blank website would rank really well because it’s really, really, fast. Right? That’s not the point.

Fast is an important quality signal but there are other quality signals that really, really matter, too. So, I would not do that.

Also, that implies a more complex setup, which usually invites more problems.

I would not do that. I don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to do here.”

The last part about a “more complex setup” is a reference to the idea that keeping a site as simple as possible helps eliminate unintended problems. The more complex something becomes the more opportunity there is for something to go wrong.

When a publisher adds layer upon layer of complexity there may come a point where one layer interferes with another one and the site stops working as intended.

Takeaways

Core Web Vitals are important regardless of whether there’s a ranking factor benefit or not. It’s important to get that part right.

But don’t take extra steps to try to manipulate the scores as that might backfire, both by changing the user behavior to create even worse scores for your site or introducing a needless layer of complexity that might impact ranking in a completely different manner.

Finally, there are many ranking scores that are more important than the Core Web Vitals. These more important ranking factors are, presumably, related to the popularity of the site and to the relevance of the content to search queries.

That’s not to say to focus on those factors over Web Vitals, because Web Vitals can indirectly contribute to better popularity signals and also to more conversions and ad clicks.

It’s just an encouragement to take a wide view, to see the forest and not be overly preoccupied with a “laser focus” on one tree.

Citation

Watch Video of Martin Splitt Answering Core Web Vitals Question

Searchenginejournal.com

GOOGLE

Google Warns About Misuse of Its Indexing API

Published

4 weeks 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

8 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