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.

[EditorialGuy]

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.

On the other hand, I have a number of pages with viewport statements that get a thumbs-down in Google's mobile test. In fact, most of the pages on our site definitely aren't "mobile-friendly" according to Google's definition, yet I have yet to receive an e-mail or a message in Webmaster Tools about our mobile shortcomings. (Maybe the e-mails and messages are being sent out slowly, in batches?)

[keyplyr]

@ RedBar Have a nice day :)

[farmboy]

I just wanted to throw in a perspective from a "Back to the future" observation. You're free to use this as you see fit to help your business efforts.

I am constantly amazed how much time and energy people are using to keep their head buried in their "mobile" device.

It doesn't seem to matter their education level, profession, etc. They can tell you what they read about on Facebook, for example, but are clueless if you mention something that is factual, important, etc.

I just talked with a lady who lives with her face buried in that mobile device, but mention the winter storm impacting the northeast U.S. at 8:18 PM est, right now, and she doesn't have a clue.

It's almost as if people are willingly splitting into have and have-not groups.

There is huge opportunity for those who are awake and take advantage.

FarmBoy

[toidi]

It seems g never checked to see if there were enough responsive sites to fill the serps when they decided to use this as a criteria. Now they are trying to scare us into complying.

[EditorialGuy]

It seems g never checked to see if there were enough responsive sites to fill the serps when they decided to use this as a criteria. Now they are trying to scare us into complying.

Or maybe they're just being courteous enough to give people a "heads up" before they make a major change to their mobile SERPs for the convenience of searchers.

Also, "mobile-friendly" doesn't necessarily mean "responsive."

[toidi]

How stupid of me. I forgot they routinely give courteous notifications before major updates.

[minnapple]

This has been great for my business. Just a mention of Google's email and I have another redesign project. Thank you Google.

[nomis5]

before they make a major change to their mobile SERPS for the convenience of searchers.

Possibly, but as TODI implies that would be unusual for G.

But it does seem indicated that at last something is planned for the mobile SERPS. As far as the motive is concerned I doubt it's for the convenience of searchers. More likely that it is for the benefit of G who are not benefiting fully from their mobile SERPS at the moment.

I'm thinking that if G are serving up the same SERPS for mobile as for tablet / desktop then the ads on non-mobile friendly sites may be low revenue ones when viewed on mobiles. If G can force us to convert our sites to mobile friendly then in all likelihood we will also serve up better ad formats for mobiles.

[EditorialGuy]

But it does seem indicated that at last something is planned for the mobile SERPS. As far as the motive is concerned I doubt it's for the convenience of searchers. More likely that it is for the benefit of G who are not benefiting fully from their mobile SERPS at the moment.

A good user experience is good for the user and the business that's providing the product or service (in this case, Google).

The challenge for Google will be to find the sweet spot between "quality results" and "mobile-friendly results." Is it better to serve up a great page that requires pinching and zooming, or is it better to serve up a so-so page that looks good by default on a smartphone screen? How much weight should be given to "mobile-friendliness" in the mobile search algorithm? If Google can convince enough site owners that mobile-friendly sites are worth doing, there won't be a need to decide between "quality results" and "mobile-friendly results," and everybody will win.

[farmboy]

How much weight should be given to "mobile-friendliness" in the mobile search algorithm? If Google can convince enough site owners that mobile-friendly sites are worth doing, there won't be a need to decide between "quality results" and "mobile-friendly results," and everybody will win.

I guess I sound like a broken record repeating the same thing over again and again, but it sounds like there's a simple problem to solve here.

1. Have a reliable method to determine what is a "mobile friendly" site.

2. Sites that are "mobile friendly" earn x% commission and non mobile-friendly earn a little less than x%.


FarmBoy

[keyplyr]

2. Sites that are "mobile friendly" earn x% commission and non mobile-friendly earn a little less than x%.

Well, that's apparent :)

[farmboy]

Well, that's apparent :)

I meant to say "Make it apparent".

For example, pay that 68% to sites as usual and pay 72% to those considered mobile-friendly.


FarmBoy

[EditorialGuy]

You're talking about AdSense, right?

Dangling a "bigger commission" carrot might encourage AdSense publishers to make their sites mobile-friendly (or maybe not, depending on how mobile has ben performing for them), but it won't have an impact on anyone else.

[keyplyr]

If a site is mobile friendly & it publishes Adsense ads, it *will* earn a greater income than that same site that is not mobile friendly. More traffic, more income... simple math. No additional incentive is needed.

[netmeg]

Won't make any difference to the whole user experience unless they require AdWords landing pages to be mobile (and they don't. they don't even really push it much.)

[nomis5]

If a site is mobile friendly & it publishes Adsense ads, it *will* earn a greater income than that same site that is not mobile friendly. More traffic, more income... simple math. No additional incentive is needed.

It may appear to be that simple but is it really? G obviously believe so but they are looking at a global picture not your situation or mine.

I have seen a large increase over the last 18 months in visits from mobiles and I also have mobile friendly and non-mobile friendly sites (and also pages within sites). I can see no discernible difference in earnings or page views between mobile and non-mobile friendly.

But then again, I'm UK based and all my sites are informational.

If I had Japan or China based e-com sites I'm sure I would see something completely different.

G is pushing from a one-size fits all perspective and it's not always the correct one.

[keyplyr]

It may appear to be that simple but is it really? G obviously believe so but they are looking at a global picture not your situation or mine.

Good point & my above statement assumed that previously unharvested mobile traffic would now stick when mobile support is added (instead of immediately bouncing once they saw a bad display.) As you indicate, there are other factors involved.

Since going mobile, I made a huge push toward bringing in social media traffic. The Facebook referral traffic has been about 50/50 desktop to mobile (phones & tablets) but Twitter & a couple others is 90% mobile phones from apps, links & mobile search.

Also since I added mobile support, not only did mobile & tablet conversions increase, but desktop Adsense income also shot up. Not quite sure why, but one scenario could be that users who found me on mobile are now visiting from their desktop machine at home/work.

[EditorialGuy]

maybe it's time to split the AdSense portion of this thread into a new thread on the AdSense forum? The conversation is interesting, but a lot of AdSense publishers might fail to see it if it's buried in a thread on this forum.

[keyplyr]

I don't think we need to split anything here since this thread is not about Adsense. Adsense is just a good marker since user platform is given in daily reports.

[Brian]

I've had this, and I'm unsure what to do. My site was built with Dreamweaver, and I'm faced with the challenge of potentially having to rebuild the whole site.

While I'm not confident that any rebuild is future-proof, what I'm wondering now is whether there is some kind of half-way house by which I rebuild maybe a dozen index and sub-index pages in with some new, responsive, software (which would take me a week to learn), and keep the Dreamweaver-set content until another time.

[farmboy]

I guess this is an obvious question, but why doesn't Google develop a web-building tool that creates what they say is best?

Or endorse one that already exists?

FarmBoy

[farmboy]

Speaking of AdSense, I notice "Recommended ad formats" always seems to include "non-mobile friendly" formats/sizes.



FarmBoy

[EditorialGuy]

While I'm not confident that any rebuild is future-proof, what I'm wondering now is whether there is some kind of half-way house by which I rebuild maybe a dozen index and sub-index pages in with some new, responsive, software (which would take me a week to learn), and keep the Dreamweaver-set content until another time.

Or you could simply build mobile-friendly versions of the pages that matter most in terms of traffic, and use this Google-recommended technique:

[developers.google.com...]

We did this with about 300 of our most popular pages, and it's working fine.

Also, if you do choose to go the responsive route, consider downloading a trial version of Dreamweaver CC, since you're already familiar with Dreamweaver and might find the newer CC version (which has "responsive layout" features) more convenient than an altogether different approach.

[Brian]

Thanks for the advice EdGuy. My brain hurts already with the thought of it!

[minnapple]

Brian,

Many of my older clients sites were built in Dreamweaver 4.
I have been rebuilding them in Dreamweaver CS6.

It's been a learning curve, but there wasn't really anyway to get around doing it.

Now I really enjoy all the new options I have available in building.

Take the leap bud! If you ever need any help in building a responsive site that works for desktop and mobile, feel free to message me. No charge.

minnapple

[Brian]

Thanks minnapple. I'll give it a go.

[Robert Charlton]

minnapple - Not to take this very far off-topic... I've also recently been dealing with clients with old Dreamweaver sites, and I'm wondering whether to go the Dreamweaver route, or whether to move to a CMS like maybe WordPress or wait for the new Drupal. Is there a continuum between the older Dreamweaver and CS6, or am I starting over. I've watched a few Adobe demos online, and it seems fairly user friendly... and I think I have a conceptual handle on responsive, which doesn't mean I'm facile with it.

We're also considering shaping up the old Dreamweaver site for RWD until we can move into, say, a full ecommerce version on, eg, Drupal, but the extra step of expense makes us all hesitate. I haven't budgeted it out.

I myself wouldn't be doing the coding in any event, but I'd be looking at code. At least, I'm thinking, with CSS I'd no longer see Dreamweaver's notorious nested font tags. ;) And is CS6 still available at a reasonable price compared with the infinite subscription model?

[guarriman3]

I did receive that email as well. Two questions:

1) Would I be SEO penalized if I change the design from scratch to make it 100% responsive? I suppose not, since I was warning to fix mobile issues.

2) The previous HTML+CSS design of my site was created in 2007, and I am not keen on web design. Should I use a CSS Framework like Bootstrap or PureCSS? I am considering this last one, since it is very light.

Any tip is welcome. Thank you very much.

[EditorialGuy]

Would I be SEO penalized if I change the design from scratch to make it 100% responsive? I suppose not, since I was warning to fix mobile issues.

You wouldn't be penalized, but that doesn't mean your rankings couldn't be affected for better or worse.

Change is always a crapshoot. (That isn't why I went the "separate pages and URLs" route for desktop and mobile, but on reflection, it probably wasn't a bad idea: Many of our pages rank extremely well in Google, so why mess with a good thing?)

[guarriman3]

So, as far I understand, from the three configurations proposed by Google:

- Responsive Web Design (the configuration I was considering by using PureCSS for all the pages)
- Dynamic Serving
- Separate URLs

you state that the last one (separate URLs) works ok for you, with excellent ranks.

Additionally, I assume that this solution may be as easy to implement as the first one, since I must to create the same HTML+CSS code for my pages (with PureCSS or similars).

The only two extra implementations would be:
- the annotation of the HTML pages ("link rel=alternate" or "link rel=canonical")
- the redirection of these webpages, depending on the type of device (desktop or mobile), by using 302 redirects.

Is there any risk with the duplicate content? There would be two different URLs with the same content ('m.mysite.com/foo' and 'mysite.com/foo').

Thank you very much, EdGuy :-)