Google’s John Mueller answered a question on Reddit that expressed skepticism of Core Web Vitals as a ranking factor. Mueller affirmed the importance of CWV as a ranking factor and noted that it is far more than just a tie breaker.
Back in the early 2000’s Google used ranking factors tied to keywords to understand what a web page was about. Anchor text, number of links, keywords in headings and titles all helped web pages rank at the top of the Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs).
So just because your website is faster with regards to Core Web Vitals than some competitors doesn’t necessarily mean that …you will jump to position number one in the search results.”
Google published a Core Web Vitals FAQ that also lowered expectations of the CWV ranking factor.
The FAQ stated:
“Page experience is just one of many signals that are used to rank pages.
Keep in mind that intent of the search query is still a very strong signal, so a page with a subpar page experience may still rank highly if it has great, relevant content.”
Skepticism of Core Web Vitals Ranking Factor
Thus it’s not surprising that today there are some who express skepticism of the power of CWV to influence search rankings.
This is what was published on Reddit:
“Anyone else not buying Core Web Vitals?
I just find it hard to believe that this actually becomes a greater part of the ranking algo. Has anyone seen dramatic gains or decreases based on it so far?”
Someone else observed:
“I believe Google admitted it’s basically just a tie breaker.
If two pieces of content are equally high quality and relevant to the search term and all the other ranking factors are equal, but one site has better core web vitals, it will rank higher.
I imagine it’s quite rare for two articles to be equal on all other factors so I think that’s why we don’t see much impact from it.”
Given Google’s recent history of lowering expectations of achieving top rankings with a high core web vitals score, it’s not unreasonable to hold the opinion that the CWV ranking factor is a minor and lightweight ranking signal.
CWV Ranking Factor Is More than a Tie-breaker
Google’s John Mueller replied that affirmed that core web vitals should not be dismissed as a ranking factor.
He insisted that it could be felt more strongly in some sites than others.
“It is a ranking factor, and it’s more than a tie-breaker, but it also doesn’t replace relevance.
Depending on the sites you work on, you might notice it more, or you might notice it less.
As an SEO, a part of your role is to take all of the possible optimizations and figure out which ones are worth spending time on.
Any SEO tool will spit out 10s or 100s of “recommendations”, most of those are going to be irrelevant to your site’s visibility in search.
Finding the items that make sense to work on takes experience.”
CWV Has Value Beyond Being a Ranking Signal
Mueller next stated that CWV has value that extends beyond a ranking signal, rightly pointing out that speed related user experiences can affect how much a website earns.
He pointed out the self-defeating nature of promoting a site to the top of the SERPs only to have the earnings never reach their potentials because of low page speed experiences.
It’s a good point!
“The other thing to keep in mind with core web vitals is that it’s more than a random ranking factor, it’s also something that affects your site’s usability after it ranks (when people actually visit).
If you get more traffic (from other SEO efforts) and your conversion rate is low, that traffic is not going to be as useful as when you have a higher conversion rate (assuming UX/speed affects your conversion rate, which it usually does).
CWV is a great way of recognizing and quantifying common user annoyances.”
Core Web Vitals is Important
Mueller expressed that Core Web Vitals is stronger and more important than a tie-breaker. He also pointed out how speed and page experience are important for monetizing a website to the fullest of its potential.
Mueller mentioned conversion rates but page speed can also improve ad impressions because there will be less people backing out of the site when it has a quality page experience.
Once upon a time, Microsoft Office ruled the business world. By the late ‘90s and early 2000s, Microsoft’s office suite had brushed aside rivals such as WordPerfect Office and Lotus SmartSuite, and there was no competition on the horizon.
Then in 2006 Google came along with Google Docs & Spreadsheets, a collaborative online word processing and spreadsheet duo that was combined with other business services to form the Google Apps suite, later rebranded as G Suite, and now as Google Workspace. Although Google’s productivity suite didn’t immediately take the business world by storm, over time it has gained both in features and in popularity, boasting 6 million paying customers, according to Google’s most recent public stats in March 2020.
Microsoft, meanwhile, has shifted its emphasis away from its traditional licensed Office software to Microsoft 365 (formerly Office 365), a subscription-based version that’s treated more like a service, with frequent updates and new features. Microsoft 365 is what we’ve focused on in this story.
Nowadays, choosing an office suite isn’t as simple as it once was. We’re here to help.
Google Workspace vs. Microsoft 365
Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 have much in common. Both are subscription-based, charging businesses per-person fees every month, in varying tiers, depending on the capabilities their customers are looking for. Although Google Workspace is web-based, it has the capability to work offline as well. And while Microsoft 365 is based on installed desktop software, it also provides (less powerful) web-based versions of its applications.
Both suites work well with a range of devices. Because it’s web-based, Google Workspace works in most browsers on any operating system, and Google also offers mobile apps for Android and iOS. Microsoft provides Office client apps for Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, and its web-based apps work across browsers.