Google Emailing Non-Mobile Friendly Sites

[ZydoSEO]

Not sure if anyone here has seen one (first I've heard of it), but Google has emailed a friend of mine basically telling him that his site was a non-responsive site and that as a result it would do poorly in search results for searches performed from mobile devices.

I wonder if emails will go out about HTTPS as well.

Trying to get a copy of the exact email.

[Swanny007]

I got one of those e-mails, then another a day or two later.

Punish me 'cause I don't have mobile friendly pages? Argh.

[lucy24]

Reasons this page is not mobile-friendly
Text too small to read
Mobile viewport not set
Links too close together

When the Mobile Usability thing first came out (thread next door at [webmasterworld.com...] ) I did some quick experimenting and found that all three of these complaints will almost always go away if you add the single meta

<meta name = "viewport" content = "width=device-width">

and that's all. The remaining two complaints are wide content (width expressed as some large number of pixels) and incompatible plugins.

The site in question, on the e-mail, is a very old site and does not have GWT or GA, AdSense, etc.

Maybe it's time to ask the inverse question: Has the email been received by any site that does have GWT or GA?

[edited by: brotherhood_of_LAN at 2:25 am (utc) on Jan 20, 2015]
[edit reason] fixed link [/edit]

[keyplyr]

I would never add: <meta name = "viewport" content = "width=device-width"> to a site that is not actually responsive to screen size just to pass Google's rating. The hammer may come down with a very unpleasant result.

[aristotle]

Lucy wrote:
When the Mobile Usability thing first came out (thread next door at [webmasterworld.com...] I did some quick experimenting and found that all three of these complaints will almost always go away if you add the single meta
<meta name = "viewport" content = "width=device-width">

They go away because they weren't true to begin with. Google's "Mobile Usability Test" has a bug.

[lucy24]

Font size and tap targets are affected by the device-width meta, since it changes the interpretation of (physical) size.

But now that you mention it, I don't know if the meta by itself has any effect. My shared css already happens to include assorted @media rules, so it's possible your site has to have both (the meta and the @media/max-width styles).

[aristotle]

Lucy -- I started experimenting with Google's Mobile Usability Test today and discovered the problem.

Several years ago I worked out some html code that would make my pages automatically shrink down to fit on smaller screens. I didn't use a viewport, had never heard of it at the time. I didn't try to get down to small phone screens because I wanted to preserve as much image quaiity as I could. But I did make it go down to fit on small tablets.

But the pages without images will shrink down to a very small size. My testing shows that they're perfectly mobile -friendly already. Adding that viewport code has absolutely no effect on how they render on any size screen. But Google's Tester won't pass them unless the code is added. Therefore the Tester isn't working properly, which is why I said that it has a bug.

[CaptClayC]

I got the same email. Ran the test google says to use in one of the links and I am at 58%.
I believe someone said to post copy of the email.

Google systems have tested 102 pages from your site and found that 100% of them have critical mobile usability errors. The errors on these 102 pages severely affect how mobile users are able to experience your website. These pages will not be seen as mobile-friendly by Google Search, and will therefore be displayed and ranked appropriately for smartphone users.

[keyplyr]

Having just completed a 280 page site transformation to mobile responsive I can tell you from experience there are dozens & dozens of things that need to be changed, omitted/added and/or upgraded to work well on the 14 different resolutions & screen sizes, supported on the top 4 OS running on the major selling mobile devices. This is not just a matter of getting things the right size.

[netmeg]

Maybe it's time to ask the inverse question: Has the email been received by any site that does have GWT or GA?

Yep; the old client sites I received notification on have both.

[samwest]

Be careful what Google wishes for...I switched my site to a responsive theme and my sales dropped like a rock because mobile users don't buy our product...ever. Only desktop visitors convert.

Adding a responsive theme AND dedicating the site to HTTPS can be a real nightmare for the uninitiated. Test, test, test!

[explorador]

@ explorador: A fast, free test at Google's "Mobile Friendly Test" site: [google.com...] will tell you why they think the site is not responsive and how to fix.

Thanks @not2easy, G tool reports that site to be mobile friendly (all green), that's what confused me.

aristotle: Adding that viewport code has absolutely no effect on how they render on any size screen. But Google's Tester won't pass them unless the code is added. Therefore the Tester isn't working properly, which is why I said that it has a bug.

I believe that's whats triggering the error on that site of mine, will fix, I'm actually working on a new design

[netmeg]

Be careful what Google wishes for...I switched my site to a responsive theme and my sales dropped like a rock because mobile users don't buy our product...ever. Only desktop visitors convert.

Are you saying the responsive is making your normal sales go away? At worst wouldn't you have the same sales? Presumably the mobile users weren't converting before. Just trying to understand.

[keyplyr]

I switched my site to a responsive theme and my sales dropped like a rock because mobile users don't buy our product...ever. Only desktop visitors convert.

Why would your sales drop because of responsive mobile support? Desktop users still get the same page so why would conversions change?

[aakk9999]

Why would your sales drop because of responsive mobile support? Desktop users still get the same page so why would conversions change?

It could happen if in the process of moving to responsive design the platform/cms/urls change. There could be a ranking drop if mobile redesign was not handled properly. The drop is then because of site redevelopment as such, not and not because of responsive factor.

Back on the topic - I also got a message on a critical mobile usability error. Interestingly, it was for a site that has a separate mobile version. I would imagine that Google should recognise that there is rel alternate in HTML:

<link rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="http://m.example.com/some-page">

and that in that case it would ignore www.example.com version when reporting "critical mobile usability error".

After all, m. ranks on mobile and www. ranks on desktop and m. has canonical to desktop. So why confuse the issue with critical mobile usability error?

[EditorialGuy]

After all, m. ranks on mobile and www. ranks on desktop and m. has canonical to desktop. So why confuse the issue with critical mobile usability error?

I've noticed the same thing. Even if it doesn't cause confusion, the spurious "error" just contributes to clutter in WMT. Let's hope Google will recognize it as a bug and not a feature.

[farmboy]

I'll write this as a formerly dead man and say something that will make some cringe.

When I started AdSense back in 2003, I used something that's now considered an old dead dinosaur. Frontpage.

I know some people never liked it, but for me, as someone with no online experience, it allowed me to teach myself WYSIWYG and HTML.

I now design everything (except for one site) that looks great in mobile or regular version.

Things change. Believe it or not, phones used to have a long wire and you got your "long distance" service from this big company called AT&T.


FarmBoy

[lucy24]

I would imagine that Google should recognise that there is rel alternate in HTML:

<link rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="http://m.example.com/some-page">
...
and m. has canonical to desktop

I should think so too, since that is letter-for-letter their own recommendation [developers.google.com]. Hmph.

[mcneely]

If many people had received the message, we'd be seeing a mass panic by now.

Google probably sent this sort of email to anyone in WMT that had a site that was non responsive -- No big panic probably because these webmasters don't care.

The only panic I see here is Google, worried that their ads won't be delivered to mobile as Google thinks they should be because of an older site write ...

[samwest]

@ netmeg - If 100% of my customers used to be desktop and now 50% of my customers are mobile (mostly iPhone) then my overall sales will be down 50%. That's pretty much what I'm seeing.

Of course it "make(s) my normal sales go away" by simple displacement. The assumption is that those 50% former desktop users are now iPhone users...just so you understand what I was saying.

[netmeg]

And you're saying it's *because* you went responsive? And there's some kind of cap?

[lucy24]

anyone in WMT

Except that the emails have also been going out to sites that are not on WMT and don't have GA or AdSense*. That's what makes it so mystifying. Whom are they trying to reach?


* Have I got this right finally? AdWords is where you pay them, AdSense is where they pay you?

[netmeg]

Right, Lucy.

[mcneely]

On the mobile scene ... my 2 cents ..

When going from just desktop to mobile, my traffic jumped, but the leads/business stayed pretty much the same.

People love the gadgets and the toys .. Go into any town and you'll find way over 50% of the gadget set and mobile device users fiddling around with them, visiting their friends, fooling around on social media, and playing games.

This whole increase in sales due to the use of devices might show different results if they didn't lump the phones in with the tablets and notebooks ...

People have got their gizmo's, devices, and other what-nots, but the money, as far as I can see, is staying pretty much in the back yards of the PC's and the laptops ...

[keyplyr]

This whole increase in sales due to the use of devices might show different results if they didn't lump the phones in with the tablets and notebooks ...

Retailers say "notebook" is just another name for "laptop" (Bestbuy, Amazon)

Google Adsense divides platforms into: Desktop, Tablets & High end mobile devices.
In this case, Notebooks/Laptops are seen as Desktop (comparable screen size)
Tablets are Tablets
High end mobile devices are Smart Phones.

I don't know who "lumps phones in with the tablets and notebooks"

[mcneely]

I don't know who "lumps phones in with the tablets and notebooks"

A tablet that has a data contract connection via Verizon/AT&T/Sprint is considered a phone - A tablet that is not equipped with a data contract with a phone carrier and goes strictly wi-fi isn't considered a phone ..

I ran Clear for 9 months last year on a seven year old PC and it was considered a "phone" because it connected via the tower and it had a data contract ...

You're Welcome :)

[MikeNoLastName]

Started getting the WARNINGs about multi-screen compatibility in AdS about 6-8 weeks ago, and decided to work on them. After fixing the major pages specifically mentioned we got the ranking up to 5 blips and a page analysis rating of >85 on the approved pages. Most of the remaining issues were due to AdS ad scripts which we had no control over! The percentage of traffic from mobile DROPPED about 40-50%! Overall I find the ad CTR and RPM from mobile users in general to be considerably lower than tablets/desktop, so they simply tend not to click through ads. On the AdS side they expect your page to be responsive (fit completely) down to a 320 pixel wide screen! And text links, unless they are >size 5 font, are generally considered too close together or not large enough to tap. When "fixing" the pages they render like cr@# even on the mobile but if that is what G considers more usable, I guess WE MUST COMPLY OR DIE.

[keyplyr]

A tablet that has a data contract connection via Verizon/AT&T/Sprint is considered a phone - A tablet that is not equipped with a data contract with a phone carrier and goes strictly wi-fi isn't considered a phone ..

I ran Clear for 9 months last year on a seven year old PC and it was considered a "phone" because it connected via the tower and it had a data contract

... by who? Not Google. It is irrelevant if your ISP thinks you're a phone when you're not. This thread is a Google notifying web site owners about non-mobile support.

[lucy24]

lump the phones in with the tablets

A device of any size whose only user interface is fingertip-touching-screen has to be considered a mobile for any purpose that requires user input. Notably, though not exclusively, ecommerce of all kinds.

text links, unless they are >size 5 font

What does "size 5" mean in this context? Obviously not 5 points, which is what numerical size means to me.

[EditorialGuy]

A device of any size whose only user interface is fingertip-touching-screen has to be considered a mobile for any purpose that requires user input. Notably, though not exclusively, ecommerce of all kinds.

Right, and a BlackBerry with keys is the world's smallest laptop. (Eat your heart out, Macbook Air.)

In the context of this thread, Google's definition of "mobile" is the one that matters:

"By 'mobile,' we mean smartphones, rather than tablets and feature phones."

More details at:

[developers.google.com...]

[netmeg]

(Right, because for AdWords purposes, they moved tablets into the "desktop" classification for ads, frustrating many advertisers into the bargain who know perfectly well that people don't use tablets the same way they use desktops. But I digress)