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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
Watch Mueller answer the question at approximately the 2 minute mark in the video:
Google to pay $391.5 million settlement over location tracking, state AGs say
Google has agreed to pay a $391.5 million settlement to 40 states to resolve accusations that it tracked people’s locations in violation of state laws, including snooping on consumers’ whereabouts even after they told the tech behemoth to bug off.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said it is time for Big Tech to recognize state laws that limit data collection efforts.
“I have been ringing the alarm bell on big tech for years, and this is why,” Mr. Landry, a Republican, said in a statement Monday. “Citizens must be able to make informed decisions about what information they release to big tech.”
The attorneys general said the investigation resulted in the largest-ever multistate privacy settlement. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, said Google’s penalty is a “historic win for consumers.”
“Location data is among the most sensitive and valuable personal information Google collects, and there are so many reasons why a consumer may opt out of tracking,” Mr. Tong said. “Our investigation found that Google continued to collect this personal information even after consumers told them not to. That is an unacceptable invasion of consumer privacy, and a violation of state law.”
Location tracking can help tech companies sell digital ads to marketers looking to connect with consumers within their vicinity. It’s another tool in a data-gathering toolkit that generates more than $200 billion in annual ad revenue for Google, accounting for most of the profits pouring into the coffers of its corporate parent, Alphabet, which has a market value of $1.2 trillion.
The settlement is part of a series of legal challenges to Big Tech in the U.S. and around the world, which include consumer protection and antitrust lawsuits.
Though Google, based in Mountain View, California, said it fixed the problems several years ago, the company’s critics remained skeptical. State attorneys general who also have tussled with Google have questioned whether the tech company will follow through on its commitments.
The states aren’t dialing back their scrutiny of Google’s empire.
Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was filing a lawsuit over reports that Google unlawfully collected millions of Texans’ biometric data such as “voiceprints and records of face geometry.”
The states began investigating Google’s location tracking after The Associated Press reported in 2018 that Android devices and iPhones were storing location data despite the activation of privacy settings intended to prevent the company from following along.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich went after the company in May 2020. The state’s lawsuit charged that the company had defrauded its users by misleading them into believing they could keep their whereabouts private by turning off location tracking in the settings of their software.
Arizona settled its case with Google for $85 million last month. By then, attorneys general in several other states and the District of Columbia had pounced with their own lawsuits seeking to hold Google accountable.
Along with the hefty penalty, the state attorneys general said, Google must not hide key information about location tracking, must give users detailed information about the types of location tracking information Google collects, and must show additional information to people when users turn location-related account settings to “off.”
States will receive differing sums from the settlement. Mr. Landry’s office said Louisiana would receive more than $12.7 million, and Mr. Tong’s office said Connecticut would collect more than $6.5 million.
The financial penalty will not cripple Google’s business. The company raked in $69 billion in revenue for the third quarter of 2022, according to reports, yielding about $13.9 billion in profit.
Google downplayed its location-tracking tools Monday and said it changed the products at issue long ago.
“Consistent with improvements we’ve made in recent years, we have settled this investigation which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago,” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said in a statement.
Google product managers Marlo McGriff and David Monsees defended their company’s Search and Maps products’ usage of location information.
“Location information lets us offer you a more helpful experience when you use our products,” the two men wrote on Google’s blog. “From Google Maps’ driving directions that show you how to avoid traffic to Google Search surfacing local restaurants and letting you know how busy they are, location information helps connect experiences across Google to what’s most relevant and useful.”
The blog post touted transparency tools and auto-delete controls that Google has developed in recent years and said the private browsing Incognito mode prevents Google Maps from saving an account’s search history.
Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees said Google would make changes to its products as part of the settlement. The changes include simplifying the process for deleting location data, updating the method to set up an account and revamping information hubs.
“We’ll provide a new control that allows users to easily turn off their Location History and Web & App Activity settings and delete their past data in one simple flow,” Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees wrote. “We’ll also continue deleting Location History data for users who have not recently contributed new Location History data to their account.”
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.