Google new mobile-only search index within months... Gary Illyes

[niku_piku]

[searchengineland.com...]

Mobile algorithm change in 2015..turned out to be dud
AMP pages in 2016. Not sure about the impact.

This one could have an enormous impact because a lot of sites don't have the internal linking and other such things implemented on the mobile site.

[JAB Creations]

This will benefit those intelligent enough to not waste resources creating a second website just for mobile users and instead use CSS media queries. Google is intelligent enough to determine many factors because they're able to automate and use tools like PageSpeed Insights [developers.google.com], are you?

John

[blend27]

@Shaddows ..... There will be pain.

Too bad they always try to inflict it at The most important time - The Holiday Shopping Season. See I already started it(well, it or something..)

[EditorialGuy]

Simply put, does Google say you cannot have the dynamic serving or a separate mobile site but only a responsive site?

No, not at all.

[mack]

I am at the very early stages of developing a new site and this may have re-shaped the design process. My thinking was to simply go responsive for mobile and desktop. I think I will now be going full mobile and full desktop as separate web entities.

Previously I was always concerned about multiple sites being seen as duplicate content. AMP addresses this issue because there is no way an AMP site is designed to be seen on the desktop. In a way this allows developers to go back to basics and go full on for each of their sites. Responsive design has always presented a compromise.

Mack.

[shaunm]

Thanks @EditorialGuy

But I already see speculations doing the round saying 'you don't have to worry as long as you have a responsive design'. Was there anything more info from Gary at the PubCon? Was anyone from the Webmasterworld present there?

It's said your site should be responsive where your URL and HTML don't change across devices. In that case, I even see amazon.com on a red alert.

A few questions:
Scenario 1:
We have a responsive site and targets desktop users. We always underperformed in mobile as far as Google page speed score is concerned. We never give it a try since our target is not mobile. Seriously, does Google think everything can be done using mobile? Leave the cloud solutions, mobile apps, what about desktop software like ours where the business targets only desktop users?

Scenario 2:
I have a dynamic serving site which looks better on mobile and little awkward on the desktop. Should I be happy that Google will use my mobile site (dynamic serving) as the best fit for mobile searches? What's the problem there as people claims?

Is that better to move to responsive design or just wait for more info from Google? Will that be too late?


Thanks!

[mack]

It almost feels as if any action will be a knee jerk reaction. I have just completed a re-design within the past three months to go fully responsive. Now, this may no longer be the best course of action. I may wait a little while before investing more into another re-deployment. Is responsive design enough? Is AMP here for the long run?

Mack.

[graeme_p]

Is responsive design enough? Is AMP here for the long run?

I wish I knew the answer. I hope not - Google setting HTML standards is not a good thing.

[mack]

I wish I knew the answer. I hope not - Google setting HTML standards is not a good thing.

Yea a lot like a journalist creating the news rather than writing about it.

Mack.

[Awarn]

Google was complaining about the huge number of pages to index. If you then specialize mobile sites you will add large amounts to index. Another factor to consider is user experience. Are the mobile sites ready for Apple Pay, Android etc etc and that will just grow. If you are totally focusing that sector on mobile that should all come into play. Standards of what is mobile need clearly defined.

[EditorialGuy]

Google was complaining about the huge number of pages to index.

I don't think they were "complaining." They've said quite clearly that responsive, mobile-only, or dynamic sites are all fine from their point of view, but that responsive is a good way to go (in part because it's less vulnerable to screw-ups).

In any case, if they were really bothered by the idea of separate mobile pages, they wouldn't be pushing AMP.

[graeme_p]

Separate mobile sites create issues when people share links. If you do not add accurate and reliable redirects based on detecting the type of device they are using, user experience is poor.

[shaunm]

They've said quite clearly that responsive, mobile-only, or dynamic sites are all fine from their point of view

That's more convincing since we use dynamic serving and planning to go responsive.

But, as for what Gary said, I'm not entirely sure that's true. Because it gives a different meaning when he mentioned "If the content on your mobile page is the same as desktop, those sites will be fine" which is not mostly the case with dynamic serving and separate mobile sites.

[EditorialGuy]

Separate mobile sites create issues when people share links. If you do not add accurate and reliable redirects based on detecting the type of device they are using, user experience is poor.

But a "mobile first" responsive page can provide a poor user experience, too, if content is dumbed down or stripped down to create a "one size fits all" solution.

Our approach is to use responsive pages for desktop, laptop, and tablet users, with things like sidebars being stripped out automatically for smartphone users. BUT, about 20% of our most popular pages are also available as dedicated, lower-bandwidth mobile pages for smartphone users who may be on slow connections or paying high roaming fees. (These are the pages that Google serves up, when they're available, in mobile search.) IMO, this approach is a win for everyone, even if it requires a little more work on our part.

[blend27]

Recently built(responsive - BT3) site has a piece of JavaScript that outputs height/width in pixels. One of the indexed pages snippet's in Desktop and Mobile search has a string of 1024/1024px(screen resolution that the bot was USING when parsing the page layout) all the way at the bottom. So at this point I can assume that the content is still parsed thru/picked up by and indexed/stored by the same bots. Now the screen resolution of Mobile Friendly tool by Goog is 411/731px.

Some of the sites I work on make use of LazyLoad for images on catalog(ecom) pages below the fold on Desktops. Site is configured for First 10 images base SRC Tag (+15 on EasyLoad following) responsive architecture.

My Question is: Should I alter that to cut down for mobiles?

Thanks.

[Nutterum]

I for one like this change assuming Google will do justice to the website owners who put in the effort to create good responsive versions of their websites. If I have better site than you(content being equal), I should be able to rank higher, simply because I can put a better service for the users. Simple as that. To be honest I am shoked how many websites are still on the mobile search in the top 3, that have UI/UX and designs from 2010. Who cares if they have premium content, when the majority of the users can not consume it properly. And since the majority of the users are now mobile, well you get my point.

[EditorialGuy]

I for one like this change assuming Google will do justice to the website owners who put in the effort to create good responsive versions of their websites.

Again, "responsive" is merely one approach to "mobile-friendly." AMP is a pretty obvious case in point.

I think a more interesting question is "How will this affect desktop search?" Will desktop search be treated like a poor cousin, as the announcement seems to suggest? I find that hard to believe. (It's easier to believe that the announcement was insufficiently clear and detailed.) I can't see Google giving short shrift to desktop search when so many people rely on it and it earns so much revenue.

[MrSavage]

I've never seen a "good responsive" version of any website. I have a 24-inch desktop monitor that is essentially acting like a magnifying glass over a mobile version of a website. I am 100% happy about AMP. The ugly that is responsive can't go away fast enough. What an ugly web right now. If Google ad revenues requires the AMP direction, I'm joining that. Their needs are my needs.

[Nuttakorn]

Google might use signal data from desktop site for evaluate the off-page factors as most of people they don't link back to their mobile site or AMP site.

[Shaddows]

Officially announced
[webmasters.googleblog.com...]