Google Announces Page PreFetching (again) - beta

[engine]

Google just announced Instant Pages which works within Chrome (Beta) to load sites almost instantly. Looks like it pre-loads the top query using pre-rendering.


Related:
Banning Google FireFox PreFetching: [webmasterworld.com...]

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 2:11 pm (utc) on Aug 3, 2011]

[Onders]

aak1962 - thanks for the post!

[ken_b]

aak1962, I think you are wrong on this, at least as far as this preloading for Google "Instant Pages" thing goes...

For now at least the Google bot doesn't execute the java script nor do other search bots.

From the report on Search Engine Land [searchengineland.com]...

The pre-load isn't just for the base HTML file; Google downloads all images and external resources, and even executes javascript before the user clicks on the search result.

And that's how I recall it too from watching the whole thing live online. Find the transcript and check it out or watch the video again to be sure.

[mhansen]

Just another cost of being listed in Google... You can pre-read the webmaster guideline coming to address this soon.

[sarc]

* Our users and valued customers expect their content to be served in less than 2 seconds. In order to faciliate this, we require webmasters to allow pre-fetch in their robots.txt or htaccess. Webmasters who choose to block the prefetching of their websites may find that we no longer send them our visitors.

[/sarc]

Truthfully, as long as they don't start counting the fetch as a live visitor and screwing up my own analytics, I doubt its going to be anything but helpful. Who doesn't want their results to load quicker?

This is all just another step to mobilizing the world and getting everything to load faster on the mobile web. Smart phones, tablets, etc etc not tied into the fat pipe.

The next step will be like those Youtube ads that show before every page loads...

- User clicks on SERP result
- 5 Second ad displays, with option to skip it
- Website displays.

Oops... I already closed the /sarc tag... sorry.

MH

[Leosghost]

And that's how I recall it too from watching the whole thing live online. Find the transcript and check it out or watch the video again to be sure.

Yep they said it pre loads everything..great* if you have video or large images , slideshows etc..

*sarcasm

[lc4seo]

If they won't instantly load websites on adwords, aren't they hurting advertisers paying for that position

[J_RaD]

next step, you must host your site on google provided hosting.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

First impression - I love it, good job Google.

The webmaster in me however wants to see under the hood and I have questions.

#1 - Will pre-rendering be tapping resources on MY server or on Google's? I'm not sold on serving up my site to someone who may not even see it because I take pride in making it fast already.

#2 - nope, that's it for now.

next step, you must host your site on google provided hosting.

not necessarily jrad, the next step might be Google creating website content based on what they think the user will want so that they can bypass webmasters altogether. I don't think they'll do it, they would become the ultimate spam network instantly, but some version of that offering "user input" might be on a whiteboard in California.

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 7:03 pm (utc) on Jun 15, 2011]

[J_RaD]

next step, you must host your site on google provided hosting.

i said this over a year ago

Im also wondering if their service would be sort of a walled garden only allowing you to access google as a search engine.

it also seems they are ramping up for a future "googleweb" where you have an goognet operating under googles rules for speed/content/rules and the rest of the internet that google turns its back on because its not "certified google"

Think of something like aol back in the 90s except its cut off from the rest of the internet and only serves google certified content and instead of using aol's dial up client and big front end, you use google ISP, google OS, google chat, google e-mail, google social, google phone, google docs etc etc etc with access to anything not google removed.

sound to far fetched? im sure this is drawn on a whiteboard in mountian view.

[J_RaD]

hm don't know how i double posted there ok anyways

not necessarily jrad, the next step might be Google creating website content based on what they think the user will want so that they can bypass webmasters altogether.

but once they bypass webmasters where would all the good content come from? webmasters would be out of business and we wouldn't create anything..... would the internet just become like the big media TV cable/sat networks? only content they feed you and nothing else but that?

pretty scary, guess we better start working on some kinda backup grassroots internet :-P

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

looks like we're cross posting jrad, the good content would come from "user input" a-la-wikipedia.

The problem with the internet might just be... webmasters? :-)

I'm 99% kidding, I think even Google knows that real human creativity should never be saddled in such a manner. It would be like... tasteless porridge, good for you but every day? yuck.

This new development levels the playing field between slow and fast sites, a good thing. Now lift the hood, Google!

[londrum]

this is a complete non-story for most of us, because unless you're a big brand or an MFA who copies other people's content you're not going to get to number one anyway.

[Leosghost]

#1 - Will pre-rendering be tapping resources on MY server or on Google's?

yours.

this is a complete non-story for most of us, because unless you're a big brand or an MFA who copies other people's content you're not going to get to number one anyway.

Those are not the only ways to be at #1

[true_INFP]

Did they say if/how this can be prevented server-side? We would be affected (#1, authority site) and so would like to avoid the bandwidth and most importantly stats issues.

[netmeg]

Not that I saw.

this is a complete non-story for most of us, because unless you're a big brand or an MFA who copies other people's content you're not going to get to number one anyway.

Ridiculous.

[lexipixel]

Thinking out loud... If the pre-fetch acted more like a cache, (e.g.- goog fetches it, then only does a CRC like check of the content for future fetches), could it REDUCE a website's bandwidth from Google, (e.g. for "snippets" and other data sucking done by goog)?

[Leosghost]

It would if it did work like that ( wishfull thinking )..but based on past performance they'll take it from us each time .."cache" always takes images straight out of your site..they could have used a CRC like process before for "cached pages"and they've never felt inclined to ..

re "how to block them" ..I'm betting it will be , either you let us do it ..or ( block via htaccess )you aren't in serps..

Our way or the highway..as per usual :(

[yaix2]

For websites that get "pre fetched" it will be better, because they load faster. Users will click the first SERP position more often, because they will learn with time that it loads the fastest. So you get more traffic at the end if you are at that position.

And its great for websites with lots of JS libraries and interactivity. All the scripts usually take a long time to finish loading, but only on the first page load (later the JS and CSS is cached). With pre fetch, that first page load will not be noticed by the user.

[Leosghost]

So you get more traffic at the end if you are at that position.

Umm..You get more traffic now if you are in that position..and the "looky loos" and your competitors ( this will be abused..you used to be able to set things up to "bandwidth bomb the competition in the early days of the net ) can't cost you the bandwidth unless they actually click through to you..

[slawski]

Isn't this just Google's 2005-2008 Web Accelerator dressed up in different clothes and forced upon everyone? At least Accelerator was opt-in.

Funny thing is that if you visit Google's (still existing) Web Acccelerator download page, you see this:

"We're sorry, but Google Web Accelerator is no longer available for download."

Hopefully the bug that kept Youtube Videos from playing when people used Web Accelerator has been fixed.

I also remember people receiving cookies they didn't want from sites they never visited because of Accelerator.

Fun times.

[slawski]

There was also a Google Feature that used to be listed on the Google Search Features page called prefetch, which would automatically load the first search result for you when you used FireFox or a Mozilla based browser.

Funny how this is being introduced at a new Chrome-based feature.

[lucy24]

you're not going to get to number one anyway

Number one what? Has google got some pre-determined group of search strings for which it has a cache prepared? Enter something obscure enough, and anything might pop up in the no. 1 position. Heck, I've got pages that are #1 for their search string. They just happen to be searches that only three people a week ever think of ;)

The pre-load isn't just for the base HTML file; Google downloads all images and external resources, and even executes javascript before the user clicks on the search result.

That sounds a bit sinister, considering how much of that javascript involves investigating the user's own computer.

I just re-checked Preview to investigate one of those js questions, and found it's still got some holes. It will happily display polytonic Greek, but UCAS is nowhere.

[slawski]

Here's the WebmasterWorld 2005 thread on Google enabling prefetch for use with Mozilla browsers to prefetch the first search result at Google:

[webmasterworld.com...]

[frontpage]

We are getting to the poin that

Google is vacuuming website content.

Determining what it will show users in the top results.

And now eliminating the need for users from actually visiting those websites as they will be fed pre-fetched cached copies.

Effectively, Google is now your website host.

[Leosghost]

And now eliminating the need for users from actually visiting those websites as they will be fed pre-fetched cached copies.

They will not be "cached"..the scripts and the images, videos etc will be taken from the webmaster's server as the serp is generated..only the page HTML ( and text ) will be cached..if you have allowed "caching" by Google.

They don't cache your scripts or your images, or videos etc now..( if you have anti hot linking on your images etc )..Google don't show them on "cached pages" ..because your site blocks them from being served to anyone who isn't actually on it.

Lots of us already don't allow them to "cache" our pages, and don't allow them to hotlink..

Google is vacuuming website content.

This they always did .if the websites allowed their bots to index them..

Determining what it will show users in the top results.

This they always did .from the websites which allowed their bots to index them..

[tangor]

As a Search Kiddie, I'm not sure I'd be happy with this... G loading up the results of the first SERP while I'm in the middle of a search... that won't speed my search at all, in fact, I won't see a difference, but some website out there, which I might or might not visit, has been hit...

As a webmaster, I'd almost hate to be the first in the serps since MANY users these days skip to third or fourth with the thought "anything at the top is commercial/paid" and probably not what I'm really looking for...

One of those improvements we really don't need...

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

After mulling it over a little I dislike this idea more and more.

My main concern is someone intentionally bogging my server down without even visiting my site, how can I possibly block someone that never visits?

Google searches will now affect multiple sites at once? Ick!

I think Google needs to cache data on their super mega humongous big fast servers they tout so highly. Wait, they already do. This makes less and less sense all the time.

[koan]

Here's the WebmasterWorld 2005 thread on Google enabling prefetch for use with Mozilla browsers to prefetch the first search result at Google:

Yup and it was messing up with my sites so ever since, I have these few ligns in my .htaccess:

RewriteCond %{HTTP:x-moz} ^prefetch [OR]
RewriteCond %{X-moz} ^prefetch 
RewriteRule .* - [F]

[true_INFP]

MANY users these days skip to third or fourth

Fortunately, Google was kind enough to give us the first 4 results (+ the "Sitelinks" below the first one), which is recently one of the very few things Google deserves to be praised for. ;-)

Anyway, seriously now, I can't believe they would execute JavaScript when pre-loading the content (even if the user doesn't actually visit the site subsequently). It would, for instance, make Google Adwords advertisers pay for false ad impressions (those ads can be paid either per click or per impression). There must be some misunderstanding.

RewriteCond %{HTTP:x-moz} ^prefetch [OR]
RewriteCond %{X-moz} ^prefetch

What is the purpose of the second line? I'd believe that the first one should be sufficient (without the OR, of course).

[frontpage]

They don't cache your scripts or your images, or videos etc now.

I think you misssed the point of my post.

That is the direction that Google is moving in.

They want to keep eyeballs on Google properties and take content from 3rd parties.

They are conditioning users to use Google and not 3rd party websites.

Example: Google Places.

This effectively removes the importance of a businesses website by place the pertinent phone/address/map/hours/payment methods/reviews/etc on a Google property.

Why bother going to your website?

[Leosghost]

I think you misssed the point of my post.

No ..because you used the present tense "is" throughout the post with the exception of will ( which was used in a sentence with the word now, which makes it into a sort of "conditional imperative" )..ie; still present tense.

And now eliminating the need for users from actually visiting those websites as they will be fed pre-fetched cached copies.

and that sentence is factually untrue..as they are not "caching the entire page" of anybody who knows what they are doing as a webmaster, and has therefore already blocked them from doing so.

I don't approve of what they are doing at all, I don't approve of many things which they do , but accusing them of something which they are not doing ..or saying "is" and "now" when you mean "may do" or "may be" or "as good as" ( which would still be hyperbole ) actually just gives them a "get out", making inaccurate representations of what they are doing now, plays into their hands..because they can rightfully deny the inaccurate allegations..and then maybe ratchet their way up to "either you let our bots do what they want" and "let us pre fetch..or you will not be indexed"..from there it is but a short step to "our way or the high way"..

However I don't believe they would actually wish to host substantially more sites than they do now as the legal problems with regards to the nature of the content would be too great for them ..particularly outside of the USA..

Plus they hardly need to, as many will embrace the new ( actually as is pointed out "re-cycled pre fetch" ) as fervently as they embrace any other Google tech that will bring them some potential income..as Google have found with adsense, the promise of potential money, catches more vassals than outright appropriation..with the exception of their attitude to copyright, which is pure unlicensed appropriation of the intellectual property of others.

facebook use the other side of the coin, the promise of fame and your very own "wall" of fame, and you can count the number of other would be famous,who look at it..

Each of them has their own flavour of beads and baubles, smoke and mirrors.