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.

[mcneely]

...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 ...

This ...

.... and because Google is a business, and with consideration to that business, we may find various types and kinds of distortions as they might relate to really what's what in the fields of ads viewing and actual real-time world usage ..

We will look more at how these devices are actually used, their intended purposes, and what demographic might use them the most, rather than pretend that these devices are used for what Google says they are used for.

And with all due respect to you Google, I'm sorry to say that mobile doesn't convert nearly as neatly and as often as you might have us and your advertisers believe ..

There are two devices that convert tried and true, and without question, and these would be the PC and the laptop ... Splitting the hairs with regard to what might be mobile and what might not be mobile is more of an intended distraction for for many webmasters, as Google, for whatever reason, short of a thicker bottom line, tries to convince advertisers that mobile ads are the next pieces of newly sliced bread ..

There's a difference between having toys and tools, and you can't fault Google for trying to exploit the toys end of the field when it comes to ads. I think Google knows what truly converts and what doesn't -- but since it's a business with money to make, I find it doubtful that Google will be letting it's advertisers in on what most of us already know.

I agree that a site should be set up to view across multiple devices - But the message from Google comes across as seemingly implying that your conversion rates would or might go up if you write RWD on the mobile device end.

Your conversions won't increase as they might relate to mobile, but they will increase (hopefully) as a result of your new found higher listing in the SERP's --

I've been doing RWD for a while now and yes, it's a better way to do things from my end - But to think that you'll get more conversions from mobile as a result of writing RWD is absurd ..

[EditorialGuy]

I agree that a site should be set up to view across multiple devices - But the message from Google comes across as seemingly implying that your conversion rates would or might go up if you write RWD on the mobile device end.

Google's actual statement is: "These pages will not be seen as mobile-friendly by Google Search, and will therefore be displayed and ranked appropriately for smartphone users."

The message implies that your search rankings may suffer if your site isn't mobile-friendly. It implies nothing about conversions.

Also, "mobile-friendly" doesn't necessarily mean "has a responsive layout." Responsive design is merely one approach that Google endorses. Whether a site is "mobile-friendly" depends on what the user or bot sees, not on the method used to assemble and deliver the page.

[jrs79]

And with all due respect to you Google, I'm sorry to say that mobile doesn't convert nearly as neatly and as often as you might have us and your advertisers believe ..

Thank you for posting this. I agree wholeheartedly. I am so tired of reading about mobile searches increasing. I mean, of course mobile use is up everyone has a computer in their pocket, and of course people look up addresses and phone numbers, but what about conversions from mobile. Send some of that data my way Google.

[FranticFish]

People have touched on the different ways that different devices are used, and services like iCloud are designed to sync activity across multiple devices (mobile, portable and fixed) that belong to the same user.

Imagine someone on their commute; they use their phone or tablet to search, and if they like what they find they then check out the site in depth once they're home on a bigger screen with a bigger keyboard.

Where did the conversion take place? It's debatable; that's why there's first action and last action conversion tracking.

Apart from that consideration, I'm sure conversions per device type would depend heavily on the niche.

[keyplyr]

...but what about conversions from mobile. Send some of that data my way Google.

After recoding my site to mobile responsive, my overall traffic increased 40% (due in large part to a social media saturation campaign targeted specifically at mobile users) and has stayed at this level for the last several months, increasing now at a slower but consistent rate. Product sales are up 30% and Adsense also up about 30 to 40%. I actually see "High-end mobile devices" and "tablets" competing and often beating "Desktop" in conversions.

[mcneely]

services like iCloud are designed to sync activity across multiple devices

Well of course - Why wouldn't someone come up with this? It just makes perfect sense.

Mobile has performed so poorly for so long that someone had to come along and blur the lines with sync, so that they could tout the effectiveness of presumably doing all of your business on the net through a 2 1/2 to 4 inch screen -- never minding all of the other distractions that serve to show just how totally ineffective a phone (high-end or not) can be ... auto accidents and walking headlong into fountains comes to mind in these cases, along with some very unrealistic commercials of late, with one even showing a ballerina buying 12 sweaters for her boyfriend during a performance.

Big Corp has invested billions into these things, and they'll do whatever it takes (including bribing you with better SERP's) to get that square peg stuffed into that round hole over there across the room.

If I sound like I'm against mobile, rest assured, I'm not -- I've got gizmos and gadgets to no end and I love them. But we've got to look at these things for what they are ... or rather ... for what they aren't.

All you'll get by making your site, *mobile friendly* .. is a bump in the SERP's ... that's about it. If you're lucky enough to see a good return on that, then great --

[mcneely]

The message implies that your search rankings may suffer if your site isn't mobile-friendly. It implies nothing about conversions.

um .. a bump up, or down, in the rankings has 'everything' to do with conversions ..

[MikeNoLastName]

>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.

As in <FONT SIZE=5><A ...>THIS IS A LINK</A></FONT>

Some of us still use hand coded html with TEXT links and no CSS.

[mcneely]

Some of us still use hand coded html with TEXT links and no CSS.

pixels, points, in, cm, mm, picas, ems, exs, and % -- pick your poison LOL ... in this case, and considering all of the possibilities, a size 5 could easily be the one size that fits all ...

Not meaning to be too off topic here, but I just can't resist this one ..

[keyplyr]

Mobile has performed so poorly for so long...

All you'll get by making your site, *mobile friendly* .. is a bump in the SERP's ... that's about it.

IMO you would not feel this way if your web interests were mobile friendly.

My users now average:
Desktop: 36%
Tablet: 36%
High-end mobile devices: 28%

Desktop traffic is slowing diminishing, while the mobile is increasing with a significant overall increase.

[Brett_Tabke]

> Mobile has performed so poorly for so long that someone had to come along and blur the lines with sync

It is more than just that. Test a bunch of mobile browsers on Android. Several flavors of Opera and Default Android browsers (especially on Sony and HTC), report generic Agents (no way to tell it is a mobile browser). Many even have settings that allow you to 'set as desktop'. Therefore, alot of analytic date reporting user Agent is going to be under reported on mobile.

[netmeg]

I have no complaints about how mobile is doing on my (responsive) event sites. At times I hit 80% mobile, and that happened very quickly.

On the other hand, my B2B clients are seeing growth in mobile, but it's much much slower. Way more tablets than phones.

It's not there yet for everyone, but it's growing. Quite possibly the device that gets B2B there hasn't even been designed yet.

[jrs79]

keyplyr, thanks for sharing. That is great to hear! I am definitely pro-responsive and mobile websites, but for the users sake and not for SEO which is what I was speaking to in my post.

In my experience people don't do a lot of non-brand organic searches for products and services that they need to purchase online via mobile phones (tablets are a whole different beast). Do you want to show up in the mobile serps for brand name searches? Absolutely. Does this site need to provide a good user experience. Absolutely, but I don't equate that with SEO.

However, as Netmeg (always a source of insight!) indicated as well as others my outlook probably has a lot to do with the fact that I am in B2B niches and this could all change with time.

I do see conversions from mobile from customers or clients on all of my sites which is why I think responsive is so important, but I am not sold on the importance of it for SEO (in this post I am defining the goal of SEO as trying to gain relevant non-brand search traffic from search engines).

[lucy24]

As in <FONT SIZE=5><A ...>THIS IS A LINK</A></FONT>

Some of us still use hand coded html with TEXT links and no CSS.

In that case, why are you even reading this thread? That sounds harsh, but honestly. You cannot possibly not know that <font> is the first thing people think of when they're listing deprecated elements that should not have been used since 2001. Even in HTML 4 there was no excuse for using it, with the rare exception of content to be embedded.

pixels, points, in, cm, mm, picas, ems, exs, and % -- pick your poison LOL

Those are two lists. List one (absolute values): "pixels, points, in, cm, mm, picas". List two (proportional values): "ems, exs, %". This is important.

[EditorialGuy]

It seems to me that the biggest opportunities in mobile will be for organizations that embrace the medium fully and make sites that were designed from the ground up as mobile sites.

In other words, having responsive pages or mobile-friendly versions of desktop pages is all well and good, but sites that work more like apps offer a real chance to stand out in the mobile environment.

[keyplyr]

One can fully embrace mobile design using an existing desktop site, it just takes vision.

[EditorialGuy]

One can fully embrace mobile design using an existing desktop site, it just takes vision.

Sure, but the biggest mobile winners (in my opinion) will be those who think beyond doing mobile versions of what they already do.

That's the way it's always been:

Amazon succeeded because it started from scratch, with a new paradigm. It didn't regard the Web as an extension of brick-and-mortar bookstores, as Borders and Barnes & Noble did.

Ditto for Netflix, which left Blockbuster (hobbled by a video-store chain's view of the world) in the dust.

Same thing with Facebook and Twitter, which weren't repurposed versions of something else.

In terms of sites that benefit from search, I see a fork in the road:

- Mobile sites that are optimally matched not only to phone screen sizes, but also to the devices' capabilities and potential will attract more usage, more links, and (ultimately) higher search rankings.

- Desktop sites that are optimally matched to desktop devices and user behavior (as opposed to being fattened-up versions of "mobile first" responsive sites) will ultimately attract more desktop usage, links, and search rankings.

One size seldom fits all, and focusing on "How do my pages look at 320 x 480?" won't be a guarantee of survival, let alone a formula for success.

[keyplyr]

Sure, but the biggest mobile winners (in my opinion) will be those who think beyond doing mobile versions of what they already do.

I agree. However, just because one has a successful desktop site, does not mean they need to keep that look/feel and just attempt to make it render on a smaller screen. That may be "mobile-friendly" but will likely continue to slowly loose traffic.

When I said it takes vision, I meant the developer should take that successful content and redo it for the mobile audience, which IMO is a younger, more trend & media savvy user.

Use social media interplay, use media streams, use mobile icons, condense content, minify resource hogging scripts & CSS, revitalize themes for current interests. All this can be done using the existing desktop site. What's important is to not only be responsive to device screen-size, but responsive to the mobile user themselves.

[RedBar]

which IMO is a younger, more trend & media savvy user.

Oh dear, user generalities and assumptions therefore I have to assume that you have never attended nor participated in a serious international widget trade exhibition and seen what happens and how companies/people are interacting with technology?

The kiddie/social side of mobile is one thing, the serious business user is another thing altogether and is a massive market and one that can be afforded by companies and one that companies do actually have the time to train their staff in their usage, CEOs downwards.

Of course mainstream will always be the majority of users but do not discard anyone "over 30" as non-tech savvy, many, many older people have grown up with ALL this technology and know how to use it for THEIR purposes and also know what can be, basically, just a load of app crap.

[aristotle]

Amazon succeeded because it started from scratch, with a new paradigm. It didn't regard the Web as an extension of brick-and-mortar bookstores, as Borders and Barnes & Noble did.

Ditto for Netflix, which left Blockbuster (hobbled by a video-store chain's view of the world) in the dust.

Same thing with Facebook and Twitter, which weren't repurposed versions of something else.

People always like to talk about the few big successes, but usually don't mention (or never heard of) the hundreds (or thousands) of failures.

[RedBar]

People always like to talk about the few big successes

However there are many successes that no one ever hears about, just like the failures and business in general.

I am quite surprised in my widget industry just how many of the smaller retail sites have compatible sites whereas most of the global industry leaders do not even attempt to do anything, I am one of the very few exceptions.

Honestly, one of my German clients, the biggest in Germany in the industry, until last year only had a splash site with contact details for their offices. They are a very tech-savvy company yet constantly ask me why I bother with what I do..I try to avoid such discussions!

[EditorialGuy]

Of course mainstream will always be the majority of users but do not discard anyone "over 30" as non-tech savvy, many, many older people have grown up with ALL this technology and know how to use it for THEIR purposes and also know what can be, basically, just a load of app crap.

Anyone who thinks "mobile" is a synonym for "hipster coffeehouse crowd" needs to take a cruise and watch the grey-hair/white-hair/no-hair generation using their smartphones and tablets to do everything from Skyping to monitoring investments to taking photos during shore excursions.

Also, for some topics and situations, different devices are used at different stages of the research/buying/usage cycle. Take travel:

When John and Jane Doe are planning their trip to Widgetonia, they'll probably browse from a computer or a tablet at home or at work. And they'll probably do most of their bookings on a desktop or laptop. Later, when they're in Widgetonia, they'll use their smartphones as a day-to-day travel tool.

BUT....Three months later, when John and Jane are driving on Interstate 80 from Chicago to Denver (where their kids and grandkids live), they may do all their travel planning on smartphones, because they're on the road and making decisions as they go. ("Honey, it's almost suppertime and Ft. Kearney is 80 miles ahead. Can you find us a motel for the night?")

[netmeg]

True, I'm like 150 years old and I was a WAY early adopter on mobile.

[keyplyr]

Oh dear, user generalities and assumptions therefore I have to assume that you have never attended nor participated in a serious international widget trade exhibition and seen what happens and how companies/people are interacting with technology?

The kiddie/social side of mobile is one thing, the serious business user is another thing altogether and is a massive market and one that can be afforded by companies and one that companies do actually have the time to train their staff in their usage, CEOs downwards.

Of course mainstream will always be the majority of users but do not discard anyone "over 30" as non-tech savvy, many, many older people have grown up with ALL this technology and know how to use it for THEIR purposes and also know what can be, basically, just a load of app crap.

You really get all that out of what I said? Did you think I was calling you old?

[CaptClayC]

I am still trying to figure out the motive behind the email. Why email someone like myself that has a website in a very small niche that provides a service? I checked around 30 sites mostly web designers in my area and every one of them failed the google speed test for mobile devices same as mine that was mentioned in the email. None of my competitors (we are all friends) in the same service received the email. Some of them failed the test worse than my site. How am to hire someone to fix my site when every design in my state own website is no better at their test than mine which is in many ways archaic.

[netmeg]

Well first of all, don't take it personally. It was a mass mailing. They don't know or care your niche or your competitors. They just picked a bunch of sites with a certain profile and mailed to 'em.

[RedBar]

You really get all that out of what I said? Did you think I was calling you old?

Yep:-)

This is what I find as far too generic.

the mobile audience, which IMO is a younger, more trend & media savvy user.

The "younger" crowd do use mobile a lot and a lot of what they use it for is crap, crap games, crap apps, crap lottsa things, for many, not all, their phones are simply an extension of their home-based gaming machines. They're not more tech-savvy, they're simply using similar programmes on a different platform using, let's be honest, very simple apps and platforms, that's not tech-savvy.

They're using the systems sold to them by tech companies who are selling them Billions of Dollarsworths of added-on extras, just check the phones of most over the age of 30 and you'll see them, in general, using phones for completely different things, usually the more important things in life such as work and family.

Ask 99.99% of the younger ones to write a programme or do something really constructive with their smartphones and they wouldn't have a clue...like 99.99% of most of Joe Public...whereas at WebmasterWorld there are loads of people in their 40/50/60/70s who can probably do more than most kids coming out of university supposedly qualified for something in IT.

Yes, the kids do latch on very quickly to new programmes and trends however it doesn't take the older ones very long to adopt IF it is any good, whatsapp for me is probably the best example, I do not have a single regular contact who does not use it after I had shown them it.

Mobile is and will be more increasingly important for many however forgetting the silver surfers and one is denying one's access to a massive market. Do you really want to miss out on that?

[Dymero]

One quibble: A site or page doesn't have to be responsive for Google to consider it "mobile-friendly."

It's a little weird. I tested it on my personal site, which is currently not designed responsive, doesn't use dynamic serving, and doesn't have a dedicated mobile site, and it reports as "mobile-friendly."

It does have a mobile viewport set (I was going to work on responsive, but haven't yet gotten to it), so maybe that's why.

[keyplyr]

The "younger" crowd do use mobile a lot and a lot of what they use it for is crap, crap games, crap apps, crap lottsa things, for many, not all, their phones are simply an extension of their home-based gaming machines. They're not more tech-savvy, they're simply using similar programmes on a different platform using, let's be honest, very simple apps and platforms, that's not tech-savvy.

Now see, that sounds like a generalization to me. I was talking about my customers. Don't know what you're talking about.

[RedBar]

Now see, that sounds like a generalization to me.

It is and it is meant to be, I know of no one or company that has any accurate data that anyone could definitely rely upon.

I was talking about my customers.

Do you know every customer and have them sign-up with a birth certificate or official ID?

As you well know, there are lies, damn lies and statistics and many "official statistics" I have seen have often been extremely inaccurate generalisations issued by Jobsworths.