Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

by JohnFen (#49547295) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

I think you missed my point. The vast majority of sites that are using "responsive design" suck directly because of it. If there are frameworks that lets websites do responsive design that doesn't suck, then they are clearly not using these frameworks. It's either that or the frameworks don't actually make doing "responsive design" easy.

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. And the responsive design puddings are, by and large, horrible eating.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

by JohnFen (#49545201) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

He's saying that if your visitors are primarily coming from search engines, then your site can ignore what search engines want without harm because being downranked by them won't hurt you.

??? If you get most of your traffic from search engines then you can ignore search engines and it won't matter? Say what?

That was a typo. I meant "if your visitors aren't primarily coming from search engines".

Plenty of sites get most of their visitors from regular readers rather than from search engines.

Plenty more don't.

Sites are able to choose not to use Google, by the way. It just takes a small edit to your robots.txt file to get Google to completely ignore your site.

The site discovery process is dominated by the use of Google. What site owners chose to put in their robots.txt file has nothing to do with this reality.

don't think google is a monopoly -- there are lots of other search engines who drive reasonable amounts of traffic. But they are certainly the Big Dog.

We live in completely separate universes. The stats I care about show Bing in second place behind Google with a whopping 2% of Google's traffic. Followed by Yahoo at 31% of Bings pathetic 2%.

Nonetheless, there is a three-way symbiotic relationship here. If Google pushes so hard that sites stop caring about their google rankings, then Google's relevance will fall.

I think if sites stopped caring about their Google rankings then Google's relevance would increase since people would be more likely to find what their actually interested in vs dealing with aftermath of billions locked up in efforts to p0wn google search results.

The way it fails is when Google algorithms make bad decisions based on largely irrelevant criteria.

If enough people find Google to suck more than the alternatives, the Google's relevance will fall.

This I agree with.

Comment: Re: Instead... (Score 1) 355

by JohnFen (#49528399) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

for some reason people seem to assume these decisions were made to be insidious or more infiltrating or all that jazz.

I assume that because it's the only thing that makes sense. If Google just wanted to offer single sign-on for those who like the idea, they could have made it optional rather than mandatory.

Making it mandatory strongly indicates that it was for the benefit of Google, not the users.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 355

by JohnFen (#49523635) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

Their criteria is not "has a mobile site", their criteria is "site doesn't look like shit when rendered on a mobile device".

No, that's not their criteria either. Their criteria is that the site has to adhere to a bunch of little things, like spacing between links, button sizes, etc. None of that has much to do with whether or not the page is shitty on a mobile device.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

by JohnFen (#49523493) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

The problem with G+, as I see it, is not it existing, but the way Google has tried to force everyone into using it. If they'd just offer it as an optional service, it'd be fine

That and the whole "real names" policy. I do believe that if Google hadn't tried forcing everyone into it, it would have been more popular.

But not with me. I used G+ for a while, but gave it up because of endless technical and usability problems.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 2) 355

by JohnFen (#49523013) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

They shouldn't get to dictate how the web works but then you basically say don't like it don't use Google... I'm confused... are sites able to chose not to use Google? What sites gets most of their traffic from a different search engine?

He's saying that if your visitors are primarily coming from search engines, then your site can ignore what search engines want without harm because being downranked by them won't hurt you. Plenty of sites get most of their visitors from regular readers rather than from search engines.

Sites are able to choose not to use Google, by the way. It just takes a small edit to your robots.txt file to get Google to completely ignore your site.

What happens when those rules begin to stray from principals fewer people agree with? Google is more or less a monopoly.

I don't think google is a monopoly -- there are lots of other search engines who drive reasonable amounts of traffic. But they are certainly the Big Dog. Nonetheless, there is a three-way symbiotic relationship here. If Google pushes so hard that sites stop caring about their google rankings, then Google's relevance will fall. If enough people find Google to suck more than the alternatives, the Google's relevance will fall.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 355

by JohnFen (#49522943) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

Yes, I agree. Designers wanting complete control over the page appearance are a plague on the face of the web. Some of the blame goes to CSS as well -- at least the earlier versions of it -- as it made it extremely difficult to have multiple columns without also requiring a fixed page width.

"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all." -- Nathaniel Branden

Working...