Google mobile algo to be bigger than Panda / Penguin as deadline looms

[Whitey]

Gary Illyes retweeted
Aleyda Solis @aleyda Mar 17
Zineb from Google at #smx Munich about the mobile ranking update: is going to have a bigger effect than penguin and panda! [twitter.com...] .

In case you know someone who hasn't heard, you might want to forewarn them of the impending intensity of this.

I wonder if the algorithm will allow a quicker reprieve for those that go under, but are mobile friendly afterwards, or, if it makes those who are putting in late changes more vulnerable, as the algorithm might be baking already, as the deadline looms.

Anyone you know not heard / caring ; other thoughts ?

[atlrus]

I'm sooooo happy my websites see no benefit from mobile users!

With Google's Android holding the lion's share of mobile OS market, this is clearly an unfair push for their own benefit, rather than their users. If you read comments of non-webmasters about this, it's apparent that over 90% of the people hate mobile websites (vs. the regular site) and my personal experience supports this wholeheartedly. I have NEVER visited a website's mobile version that offers the same level of functionality the regular site does. I have been forced to use Dolphin browser (and deal with its many shortcomings) on all my mobile devices just so I can get the full experience without having to constantly request desktop versions.

Good luck to all you guys who are forced to deal with yet another round of Google's BS!

[n00b1]

Exactly the same here atlrus. I hate cut down mobile websites. With the size and resolution of screens on many modern smartphones and the responsiveness of the touch screen I much prefer the full experience, thank you.

[ken_b]

@keyplyr (or anyone who knows)
Can you say a bit more about this? Or point me in the direction of where to start? Thanks.

Create mobile attractive images for your pages and use the respective meta tags

[keyplyr]

When someone (or you) post a link to one of your pages at Facebook (FB) one of FB's bots will immediately hit that page and scrape the meta title, meta description & meta og image to be used in the post. You need to allow that bot access to your site & images.

If this bot does not find the meta tag defining the og image, it will use the first image it finds on that page that is at least 200x200 pixels as the image displayed in the post, which may not be to your liking.

IMO you want this post to be attractive to get FB users to click-through the link and come to your page. The advantage of controlling which image is displayed when someone posts a link to your site is significant. This is also the image most mobile apps will use for your page.

In my above post, I mentioned to make "mobile attractive images" for this use, then call them from the HEAD section of the respective web page with this HTML 5 tag:

<meta property="og:image" content="http://www.example.com/image.jpg">

You can verify the image with this FB tool: [developers.facebook.com...]

If the HTML 5 og tag doesn't validate with your doctype, you can use this backward compliant tag:

<link rel="image_src" href="http://www.example.com/image.jpg">

Some social media sites (example: Google+) will use either tag, but if one doesn't work, try the other. Sometimes you'll need to deal with their caching currency and wait until it expires until you can try again.

[edited by: keyplyr at 2:41 pm (utc) on Apr 20, 2015]

[netmeg]

Or is there a way of finding out?

There's some cross device tracking capabilities in Universal Analytics that might give trend information.

this is clearly an unfair push for their own benefit, rather than their users

Since they're struggling to monetize it properly, I'm not sure how you can attribute the rise of mobile to an evil Google plot. Yet, anyway.

If you read comments of non-webmasters about this, it's apparent that over 90% of the people hate mobile websites

Um. What? 80% of my millions of visitors might not agree. It's not like I'm *making* them visit the sites on their phones.

[keyplyr]

I have NEVER visited a website's mobile version that offers the same level of functionality the regular site does.

Then you haven't visited many mobile web sites. There are some awesome mobile sites and they will only get better!

While I agree some so-called mobile sites look pretty bad, this will change as webmasters get better at it. Of course there are those (many here) who will refuse to keep-up with the ever changing internet and its evolving technology, but that's a good thing. Out with the old, in with the new (BTW I'm in my mid 60s.)

With Google's Android holding the lion's share of mobile OS market, this is clearly an unfair push for their own benefit

Google is not pushing anything, it is reacting... and trying to keep-up itself. Mobile is here and is going to stay, in whatever form it morphs into. I read in China there are 8k mobile devices sold for every desktop computer. With cloud computing the average user doesn't need a hard drive for anything.

[EditorialGuy]

If you read comments of non-webmasters about this, it's apparent that over 90% of the people hate mobile websites (vs. the regular site)

Google has a reputation for being a data-driven company, and it's unlikely that it would be making such a dramatic change to its mobile algorithm if user data and market research didn't support the shift.

I like the status quo myself (at least, when it's working in our favor), but sometimes you've got to go with the flow.

[aristotle]

keyplyr wrote:
In my above post, I mentioned to make "mobile attractive images" for this use, then call them from the HEAD section of the respective web page with this HTML 5 tag:<meta property="og:image" content="http://www.example.com/image.jpg">

keyplyr -- Does the image you call have to actually appear in the body of the page? Or could you prepare a special image just for FB, upload it to your server, and call it instead?

[netmeg]

keyplyr -- Does the image you call have to actually appear in the body of the page? Or could you prepare a special image just for FB, upload it to your server, and call it instead?

I'm not keyplyr, but no, it doesn't have to appear on the page. I usually have a default set on the server for it to use on posts where there is no image.

Ideal size is 470 x 246.

[aristotle]

Thanks netmeg
I've also got some pages on my sites that don't have images.

[EditorialGuy]

While I agree some so-called mobile sites look pretty bad, this will change as webmasters get better at it.

I see a lot of annoying mobile sites (including sites with responsive layouts), which seem to have been modeled on old mobile sites designed for feature phones: e.g., with pages where you have to click subheads to read the accompanying text.

That doesn't mean all mobile sites and pages are lame, though. Many are plenty good enough or, in some cases, more attractive than their desktop counterparts.

[ken_b]

keyplyr & netmeg,

Thanks for the explanations. That helps a lot!

[MrSavage]

I'm doing a last minute cram session here. Do I need a major overhaul, or for example, when Google says "text too small", can I not make my text larger? I'm wondering whether I need to have 2 separate displays going on. My question is, can I not mold my current non mobile design into a friendly design but not having to uproot everything? I've changed my css to 16px, but I still get "text too small" issue. I can't seem to rid these issues in the google test. Last week I was adding viewport, but the tool still said I had no viewport. I have a zero for two success rate here. I'm guessing I can go 20px text size and the error will still show. Advice anyone? If I get really pissed off with this, then I will just go wordpress and risk traffic loss. At least that way I can "go mobile" almost instantly. Is there a delay in the tool to identify my changes? A caching issue?

[keyplyr]

keyplyr -- Does the image you call have to actually appear in the body of the page? Or could you prepare a special image just for FB, upload it to your server, and call it instead?

I'm not keyplyr, but no, it doesn't have to appear on the page. I usually have a default set on the server for it to use on posts where there is no image.

Ideal size is 470 x 246.

As netmeg says, no the image used for posts does not need to display on the page.

Personally, I have a different image assigned for every page. Since every page is different, I use a different image. Some of these are just the main image that actually does display on the page, but I use the tag anyway so I can easily switch to an alternate image if I choose to. Other images I have created just for the purpose of social media posts. These images do not display on the page itself, but instead are better at targeting my specific audience. They may contain text, example "click here" or "read more" since the image will be automatically hyperlinked in the FB post.

Not sure I would agree with netmeg on the "ideal" size, but you'll want something that displays well on mobile. Many mobile apps will use the og image meta tag to find the image for your page.

[Bluejeans]

Increasing the text size will not solve the problem. In my case, solving the "content too large for screen" issue solved the text size issue. You can usually mold into a friendly design without uprooting everything if you get intimately acquainted with @media queries. Hide some elements for mobile, hide others for desktop.

[netmeg]

Not sure I would agree with netmeg on the "ideal" size, but you'll want something that displays well on mobile. Many mobile apps will use the og image meta tag to find the image for your page.

Actually what you want is something that displays well on Facebook (both in the app and for desktop) If you use the 470 x 246, then you'll use all the space available, with your post underneath. If you use a smaller or non standard size, you risk FB making a much smaller thumbnail out of it (and/or cropping the top or bottom)

Here's a good guide to social media images (and fairly recent, too)

[thenextweb.com...]

[keyplyr]

Thanks for the link :)

I also consider mobile apps which do better with square-like dimensions. I have tools developed to run specifically on mobile devices which I have created a series of tiles similar to the apple-touch-icons to be used on mobile home screens when the user links directly to my page.

[Whitey]

Barry Schwartz þ@rustybrick · 15h15 hours ago
@methode we still on schedule tomorrow? #Mobilegeddon
Gary Illyes @methode
@rustybrick [twitter.com...] to the best of my knowledge yes. Keep in mind that the rollout may take weeks so you might not see an immediate effect. #april21
[twitter.com...] ; [seroundtable.com...] .

@rustybrick - thanks for the heads up from Google, Barry.

[Pudders]

Anyone seeing any changes around the world as of now?

[olias]

No sign of any major changes so far in the UK. Although my non mobile friendly competitor is ranking slightly better this morning on one of my test searches!

[Nutterum]

The calm before the storm. This is what I am seing.

[keyplyr]

Update is in force from So California. Just did a Google search from my mobile phone using my main one-word term.

Top 3 were Google places local business grouped together, which included my site (business.) That's nothing new for my business in local search, mobile or desktop.

Next was Wikipedia,

Then 3 news related featured links grouped together.

Then my top page, then another of my related pages (all my pages are "mobile friendly")

This is a huge boost for me. For the same one-word search on desktop that top page is listed in the middle of page 2, and that other related page is not in the top 10 desktop SERPs.

[edited by: keyplyr at 8:06 am (utc) on Apr 21, 2015]

[Andem]

@keyplyr: Hmm, I'm not seeing anything substantial here in So Cal myself.

[keyplyr]

Looks like my regular competition on desktop has fallen off with mobile. I'm not seeing any of the usual suspects, some of which I know to be mobile friendly. This gives reason for me to think the update is not a done deal yet. Probably more Google dance in the mix.

Anyone know if local is being given more weight with this mobile update? That might be filtering out some of the desktop results in what I'm seeing.

[sem4u]

I am not seeing any major changes in the UK at this time.

[fathom]

Wow ... like waiting for International Space Station to fly overhead for the first time!

[docbird]

The Register has a wry article on the change, dubbing it Mobilegeddon, and with headline noting "Your site could lose PENNIES"

[jimbanks]

Any search with the word "app" and you won't see any serps on the page for several scrolls. That's what I am seeing in the UK at least.

[jimbanks]

And fwiw I don't get why webmasters are working so hard on this now. MOST sites are at over 50% mobile/tablet/phablet traffic so this update should not be an attempt to be "Google friendly" it should have been "user friendly" and should have been done several years ago.

If mobile phone networks ever make unlimited data at 4G or above a reality then I can see most people scrapping a desktop at home for 90% of their activities.

[fathom]

'Mobilegeddon' seems to be everyone's headline - economist.com, theguardian.com, businessinsider.com, gizmodo.com, searchenginewatch.com, theregister.co.uk, cnbc.com, zdnet.com.