Online Marketing

Site Speed: What SEOs Need to Know #AskGoogleWebmasters

We’re going to be answering questions on the topic of speed that were submitted with the hashtag ask Google webmasters on Twitter. So, let’s start off with a question from row Heat: what is the ideal page speed of any content for better ranking on search? Oh you’re, asking me that question okay.

So basically we are categorizing pages, more or less as like, really good and pretty bad. So, there’s not really like a threshold in between it’s just like we are more or less roughly categorizing the speed experience for users and how are we actually doing that? Where do we get the data from yeah? That’s that’s important, so we mostly get data from two places. On the one hand, we try to calculate a theoretical speed of a page using lab data, and then we also use real field data from users.

Who’ve actually tried to use those pages and that field data is similar to the chrome user. Experience report, data cool, so we are having like hypothetical data and practical data, so we don’t really have a threshold to give away. But basically the recommendation, I would say, is just make sites fast for users. That’s what it boils down to that sounds good yeah. The next question comes from Olga and Olga is wondering if a website’s mobile speed is best looked at using the test, my site tool, the GT, metrics tool or PageSpeed insights.

Hmm, that’s a really good question. What’s the most important tool for SEO, we have multiple tools that measure multiple things and I can understand that that can be kind of confusing at times in general. These tools measure things in slightly different ways, so what I usually recommend is taking these different tools. Getting the data that you get back from that and using them to discover kind of low-hanging fruit on your webpages, so things that you can easily improve to really give your page a speed bump how’s that sound.

No, that sounds pretty good and also the tools differently. Like aimed right some some of these tools like test my side is pretty high level, so, like everyone understands roughly, what’s going on there, whereas GT matrix is a lot more technical and PageSpeed insights. I think it’s kind of in the middle of that so depending on who you are catering to who you’re trying to give this report to to get things fixed, you might use one or the other, so figuring out what is the low-hanging fruit and using the tool That gives you the best insight into that for the audience that you’re trying to convince.

Is it a sea level? Is it a other marketer? Is it someone from the tech side like this is a developer? Then you probably take a different tool. Next question comes from owner owner is asking: I am testing an almost-empty page on dev tool audits and it usually gives me minimum results which are 0.8 milliseconds for everything and 20 milliseconds for fij what it’s fed. First, input delay. First, input delay, of course, but sometimes it gives worse results for TTI, FCI and Phil.

Okay, let’s talk about these metrics fit. We have covered first input delay. Tti is time to interactive. That’s when you can first interact with the page and FCI is first cpu idle, which means that there’s no more JavaScript work or other work that needs to be done by the CPU. So it’s the same page same code, different numbers. Why would that happen? Well, first things: first, these measurements aren’t perfect right.

So if it’s between 0.8 milliseconds and 20 milliseconds 20 milliseconds is a lot more than 0.8, but it’s still quite a short amount of time. If you think about it, you roughly have 10 milliseconds for a single frame to draw so yeah 20 milliseconds isn’t too bad, so you will always see some some basically noise in that measurement and also don’t get too hung up on these metrics. Specifically, if you see that there’s a perceptible problem and there’s actually like an issue that your site stays like working on the main thread and doing CPU work for a minute or 20 seconds, that’s what you want to investigate if it’s 20 milliseconds, it’s probably fine! Our next question comes from Drew and drew asks us what is or are best metric or metrics to look at when you want to decide if a page is fast or slow, and why or why not? Would you just look at things like FCP, which is first content full pained FMP, which is first meaningful paint, instead of just the scores that these tools give you Wow? I don’t know, Martin.

You need to tell me some more about that right. Okay, so I guess the question here really boils down to what’s the metric that you should look at and that’s a really tricky one, because I guess it depends on the side. It’s the typical. It depends answer if you have just a website where people are reading. Your content and not interacting as much then I think, first meaningful paint or first content fool paint, it’s probably more important than first interactive delay or, first sorry, first input delay or time to interactive.

But if it’s a really interactive web application, where you want people to immediately jump in and do something, then probably that metric is more important, so don’t try to break it down, and that brings us to the scores. The problem in this course is they’re. Oversimplifying things. Aren’t they yeah, I it sounds like it. I mean all of these measurements sound like they’re, they’re, measuring different things and ultimately trying to understand what what a user would perceive when they access the page, so their score might be.

I guess a simple way to look at it overall, but it’s probably not all of the details that you need. It just gives you a ballpark. Really it’s like how fast is this page 5? What does that mean? It doesn’t really convey me, doesn’t it so, I would say like use that, to figure out how you’re roughly doing and then use the specific insights, the different tools give you to figure out where you have to improve or what isn’t going so well.

Wow yeah sounds like speed, is a tricky topic and you kind of have to know what’s what you’re measuring so that you can take action on the right things yep. So would that kind of explain why there is no simple number that Google is just giving yeah? So that definitely explains it because then, if you think about it, you can’t break down speed into one simple number. It is a bunch of factors if I’m painting really quickly, but my app is all about interaction.

It’s a messenger, so I show everything I show the message history, but if I try to answer the message that I just got and it takes me 20 seconds until I actually can tap on the input field and start typing, is that fast not really, but is It so important that I can use the contact form on the bottom of a blog post within the first 10 seconds. Not necessarily is it so? What how would you put that into a number you don’t? So I guess it’s hard speed.

Speed sounds hard. What what do you think will this get easier? I guess it will get easier, but it will never go to a point where you just have a score that you optimize for and be done with it right. It is such a broad topic that it’s really hard to break that down into like one number. Okay, so you imagine, the more advanced people will continue to focus on the the kinda, metrics and counting milliseconds and others will look at kind of a bigger overview picture.

I guess so, and together will try to find ways to improve the speed of the pages overall. I think browsers also doing a lot of work to make things faster in general and easier to understand, but, generally speaking, you will still need to go and do the work of figuring out. What matters to you, your audience and your website right is it interactive. Is it content? Full panes depends that sounds cool yeah.

So I expect more questions on speed on the hash tag. Ask Google webmasters and, as we get those questions, we’ll ask an expert like Marcin, who knows all of these three-letter abbreviations and who can help us figure out, which ones are the right ones. So thanks for submitting all of these questions and hopefully see you again on one of the future episode. Thank you very much for having me and thanks for all the questions.


Online Marketing

La mafia scientifique dont vous n’avez jamais entendu parler – DBY #53

Therefore, here is a article on mafia. I hope that’s! Okay with you Have a great year. Love Excuse me. Can I use you setting N… Hello everyone and welcome in a new episode of “ dirty biology” Today, I’m squatting, the setting of the lads making “ Stupid Economics” a wonderful blog dedicated to the understanding of economics and of the modern world.

I recommend it, but that’s not the topic, we’re here to talk about the biggest science mafia you never heard about. It has such a big impact on scientific research and on the understanding of our world. It is barely known outside of the scientific sphere, and I think it is important to tell you about it, because you are involved in it as well. We won’t start with footstools from laredoute.Fr Obvious product placement, (, no ).

Let’s get started with two persons who fought against this mafia and one of them even died because of it. The first one is Alexandra Elbakyan known for the website: “ Sci-hub” she created. So the thing is, she noticed during her studies and her researches that getting access to scientific papers was hard. So if we observe how research works, researchers ask questions, try to answer to them through experiences or fieldwork, basically observations, and they do statistic, analysis and the whole result of their work is compiled in scientific papers.

It’s basically a PDF and this file. This PDF is generally charged, So Alexandra Elbakyan was like “. Well, I don’t want it to be charged. I don’t want to pay for knowledge”, So she created this website “ sci-hub”. So this is Sci Hub There. You need to put an URL. Alright, I’m looking for a charged scientific article, so I can show you how it works Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. What am I interested in today, Dunno.

.., Let’s type “ Youtube”, to see if there is any scientific article about Youtube. Perfect nice example a scientific article about the article recommendation algorithm on Youtube. So here we have all the authors who worked on the article recommendation system of Youtube and they made a scientific article out of it. If I click on “ get this article”, it charges me 15 $ to read it. Let’s put it that way, I am Alexandra Elbakyan.

I don’t want to pay. I take that url I throw it in here. I have the scientific article, The summary, the introduction, the equipment, the methods In the end. What Alexandra Elbakyan did was quotation marks, give everyone the chance to access research papers using a pirate website. Obviously this didn’t please the people who sell these scientific articles. We will come back to that and she ended up being sued over her head And now she’s staying in Russia so that she won’t have to deal with the lawyers that are asking her millions Alexandra Elbakyan, depending on who you ask, is either a research superhero, because There are people that believe that knowledge should be free And there are other people the people affected by this scientific articles, sellers who see her as a pirate.

That should therefore spend the rest of her life in jail. Another person who is pretty known for having fought against this industry of selling research papers is Aaron Swarts and I will just mention his name, but it’s because I think it’s important. He used to work at the MIT and he was caught uploading. Millions of scientific articles online and ended up with a huge legal procedure which condemned him to pay millions And well under the judicial pressure he committed suicide.

He basically became an icon of this movement of liberation, of scientific articles of liberation of knowledge. Okay, so now we’ve set up the basics. Basically, on one side, we’ve got a business that makes a lot of money. We’ve got people fighting against that business, using processes that are sometimes illegal, such as Sci-Hub And actually most of the scientists. I know use sci-hub every day because it is extremely useful, But now what I would like to explain to you is how this whole system works and how it impacts the lives of everyone, including yours.

So I already told you that scientists work on their researches and then make a scientific article out of them. Okay, This research is usually financed by the governement meaning by your taxes, So these scientists, once they’ve written their article, need it proofreaded, meaning that there needs be other scientists independant without conflict of interest that proofread and check the quality of the research.

That was done. If the methods are adapted, etc, This process is called “ peer, reviewing”, which really is the cornerstone of research quality. It’s what makes today’s research quality so good To get this proofreading process, Scientists send their scientific articles to what we call editors. Those editors are people that gather articles and forward them to other independant volunteer scientists.

Those volunteering scientists that have been chosen will proofread the thing and send back the corrected version to the editor. So basically, the editor is a coordinator that gathers articles that need proofreading, sends them to proofreaders and then gets them back format them. All of that is pretty much automatic And it puts them online on the website like Nature Science, whatever The thing that really grinds people’s gears is that once the editor puts that article online? Well, he sells it, Meaning that the editor gathers content that was produced thanks to government money.

He gets it proofread by volunteers, and then he sells this product, And this is where there is a huge problem. Many scientists believe that this should be a public scandal, But the thing is, since it comes from the research world, it’s pretty hard to transmit it to the public world *scratch scratch*. Most people don’t even know how research works. So imagine talking about the process of scientific publishing, it’s.

.., So there’s a report from 2005 from the Deutschbank that was talking about this publishing system as being a very weird system of triple payment, The government finances the research pays, the salary of the most part of The people that check the quality of the research and then buy most of these products Because most of the scientists that buy those scientific articles from other scientists, Well, they buy it with government money too.

So basically, the country pays three times for the same research. So that’s why I’m saying this affects you too, Because if you’re paying taxes or if your parents do well, you are actually paying thoses editors three times in a way, This very weird publishing system has consequences and one of them the craziest, is obviously that somebody is Making a lot of money out of this, There are several businesses that are into scientific publishing and one of them, the most famous, the one that gets the most criticism is called Elsevier.

It’s a business that made a margin of 37 % in 2017. That has a turnover of approximately three BILLIONS dollars and is therefore earning a shitload of money on research that is mostly payed for by public agents. It obviously causes some teeth-grinding *baby laughing*. The other consequence of this way of paying Is that… Research is not available to anyone In countries in which little money is invested in research.

A researcher that need a specific piece of information will need to pay 40 bucks if ever he wants access to it. Therefore, this system causes large inequalities because, as time goes by less and less money is invested in research in France, it is a huge problem that will probably be dealt with latter on this blog. Consequently, research organisms have to pay very costly. Subscriptions are starting to say “.

Actually, we don’t have the money anymore”. Therefore, if searchers had to rely only on the legal way to get access to other’s research. Well, they couldn’t, And that is why most searchers use “ Sci Hub” in the end And that system that can seem very weird, is here because of the matter at stake’s history. In other words, we carry this 140 years old luggage with us When we actually needed to send mails and we needed papers to be grouped in magazines we receveived by mail in that time.

Yes, this system absolutely made sense Nowadays with the internet. It does not anymore. Another consequence is that… Well, some journals have a better name than others and, for instance, publishing in’Nature’ or’science’ will have a greater impact. Litteraly called “ the impact factor” than publishing in the “ Journal of the Canadian arctic life”. I don’t know if this particular one exists, but there are tons of small research journals like this very local and that have absolutely no impact For a researcher managing to be published in “, Nature” or “.

Science” has a huge impact, But this hierarchy has a tremendous impact of the world of research. Every searcher is individually trying to be published in a journal with as much impact as possible. Well, you may try and make your results a bit more attractive in order to enhance your career evolution. Also, few are the ones that will tend to duplicate results from toher searchers, because there is no prize for the second one.

It is the first to make the discovery that will be gratified funded and get better jobs most likely, But being the one that repeats the result and proves that it works well…. Therefore, the whole system of searchers credibility, which is crucial for their careers, is strongly correlated with these private enterprises that make a ton of money in this process. Still, let me moderate a bit. I stay convinced that research is the best tool.

We have to understand the world and it works, But there is a soft bias because of those private companies and in a perfect world they wouldn’t exist, And that is why I use the word mafia. It is an intermediary that is unavoidable and that spoils public funds Put this way, searchers really look like bullied kids And that get bullied by a private company that is making them work for free And…. That’s pretty accurate *laughs*.

It’s accurate but…,… Searchers have reacted to this Among their reponses. There has been a kind of boycott of Elsevier’s products. As I said, Elsevier is the most criticised because they are the one making the most money But they’re, not the only one. There are much more, And one of these boycotts was entitled, “ the cost of knowledge”, and the idea is to stop purchasing scientific articles from them A manifest was signed, etc, and in 2016 a study trying to evaluate the impact of the boycott actually showed that.

.. 40 % of the manifest’s signatory that engaged themselves to boycott Elsevier had stopped this boycott and bought articles from Elsevier or even published in Elsevier news papers, Because actually we can’t do without That, really is the thing we need to remember. Private scientific editors became an essential intermediary. There really are ideas out there to change the publication system. Some are arguing for “ Open Acess”, which means that every publication is available for free.

The idea is to make knowledge free and researchers must pay to be published. There is also the “ Preprint” system, the researcher uploads his paper on a free access server before sending it to an editor. The point is, people are looking for alternatives, but for now it doesn’t seem to freak scientific publication. Industry out And companies like Elsevier, keep margin as hell and make a shitload of money.

So the thing is, researchers depend on this system for their own credibility. They need it, so they embrace it even if they despise the system they keep on participate. Just as in the prisoner’s dilemma, a psycology experiment, Two persons are locked up in two different cells and can’t communicate with each other And they’re told “. If you give the other one up and he doesn’t you’re free to go and he get a maximum sentence,.

” “ You give each other up, you both get maximum sentence” and if non of you give the other up, you get both of your sentences reduced And What happens most of the times is that each one gave the other up, But if they could organized if they could communicate, none of them would give the other one up and they would be released earlier In this case. As long as everyone plays the game, there will be a voluntary servitude and the system will keep going on “ Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed” Etienne de La Boétie I like quotes.

They make me, look smart,…, Nope And that’s the point. I’m trying to make Scientific research is the first thing we need to understand the world In general. Historically speaking, it works. We should keep in mind that, after all, this is a human world And there are mafias, thieves and people fighting them. There is people kinda passive, there are pirates, etc. Anyway, this is a truly interesting sphere, even from a sociological persective.

Actually, Here you go. That’s pretty much all I had to say about that and suscribe to “, Stupid Economics” blog. They talk about economy and modern world using plain language. I personally recommend it. It’s… I < 3 them Suscribe. This episode was sponsored by NordVPN, a private network that encrypts your data online. It allows you to be anonymous on the internet And I use it a lot. Of course it all connected with what we just talk about: Science, paper, piracy, etc.

Sometime, you do stuff on the internet and you don’t necessarily want people to know about, Or when you connect on a public network. You think it would be great if your data was encrypted. Nordvpn provides this service on six devices. At the same time, Like chrome, your cell phone, etc, And as I’m advertising, they offer you a 66 % discount for two years. Just you to nordvpn.Com/dirtybiology, then suscribe to their services.

You can cancelled the service at any time and get a refund. So I highly recommand trying And whether you’re interested or not I’ll, see you later for a new episode. Bye,


Online Marketing

Multiple H1 Headings: How to Handle Them for SEO & Accessibility? #AskGoogleWebmasters

Today’s question is from Marcus Chaepelli Marcus is asking. Can we have a clear answer to the question how to handle headings and accessibility? I see a lot of multiple H1’s ( all, but one are usually hidden ) out there on the web. Everybody treats it differently and stuff like the tag. So this is a pretty common question and it’s pretty straightforward.

Our systems don’t have a problem when it comes to multiple H1 headings. On a page, That’s a fairly common pattern on the web. We use headings to better understand the context of different parts of a page Having clear semantically. Understandable headings is useful in understanding any given page. However, We have to work with the web as we find it and a lot of it isn’t semantically structured at all For users.

The difference is minimal. Both kinds of pages can be extremely relevant to a question that they have In turn. Our systems aren’t too picky and we’ll try to work with the HTML as we find it, be it one H1 heading multiple H1 headings or just styled pieces of text without semantic HTML at all. In Short, when thinking about this topic SEO shouldn’t be your primary objective. Instead think about your users, If you have ways of making your content accessible to them, be it by using multiple H1 headings or other standard HTML constructs, then that’s not going to get in the way of your SEO efforts.

I hope you found this answer useful And, if there’s anything else, we can answer for you. In short, article form, please send us your questions using the # AskGoogleWebmasters hashtag on Twitter, so that we can include them in one of the future articles To stay in the loop make sure to subscribe to the blog and see you next time.