Page Load Times Part of Quality Score

[AussieWebmaster]

I just blogged about this and had not know about it before... now we have to really start digging.... who measures it? what processor, what access etc.

[RedFly]

This is pretty significant news of which our reps know nothing about right now.

It also raises questions about flash content and of course Google favoring standards compliant optimized pages. Also, the QS bot location will technically favor geographically closer sites.

Anyone know a host located close to:
29 QS bot street?

[jimbeetle]

Sheesh, if page load time is important enough to be a QS factor G might also want to use it as a data point in determining gmail user satisfaction. ;-)

Okay, kidding aside, the only way I can see G using this is to ding page load times that are truly excessive; I just can't see it awarding quality points for 2 ms, 3 ms, 4 ms, etc., oon some sort of scale.

It seems kind of farcical at first glance, but yeah, if the clicker as to wait an inordinate amount of time -- based on whatever it's based on -- sure, it makes sense.

Though having it virtually inaccessible in the faqs, if as the WMW poster stated is true, is something G has to address.

[jkwilson78]

I made the post over on WMW.

The info is indeed buried in their FAQ only on the page where you can printout the entire Adwords Help documentation.

My theory is that this isn't in effect yet so it has not been added to the searchable FAQ. Plus it states this:

Beginning in February 2008, you'll be able to see a grade for your website's load time in your AdWords account. 'Load time' refers to the amount of time it takes for a user to arrive at your functional landing page after clicking your ad.

Several weeks after your load time grade becomes visible, it will begin to impact your landing page quality and, therefore, your Quality Score. We recommend working to improve your load time during this interim if it's received a low score.

So at this point there is no Landing Page Load Time Grade in my account and it doesn't go into effect immediately.



Also, in the next section in the FAQ there is another heading labeled:

"QH - LPQ Load Time"

And then for the answer it simply says "placeholder" so the documentation seems incomplete.

[beu]

Interesting that load time is now part of quality score since the factor has always been important at Google. After all, load time is one reason why Google's homepage seems so simple. I understand that in the early days, Larry was known to count the number of words on Google's home page daily as well as to check it's speed using a stopwatch. In fact the content at the bottom of the page was added after early user testing because participants sat waiting for the rest of the page to load....

Oh well sorry for the history lesson, I'm a little surprised it's taken this long to be added or "officially" at least. Either way I think this step is great for users.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by jkwilson78

I made the post over on WMW.

The info is indeed buried in their FAQ only on the page where you can printout the entire Adwords Help documentation.

My theory is that this isn't in effect yet so it has not been added to the searchable FAQ. Plus it states this:



So at this point there is no Landing Page Load Time Grade in my account and it doesn't go into effect immediately.



Also, in the next section in the FAQ there is another heading labeled:

"QH - LPQ Load Time"

And then for the answer it simply says "placeholder" so the documentation seems incomplete.

appreciate your joining the discussion given you were my reference

[abbottsys]

I'm not seeing a Load Time Grade in my AdWords account as of yet. Is anyone seeing this?

[AdWordsRep]

Hi all,

I will be posting shortly with some details. Writing it up now, but I keep getting interrupted!

Back Soon.

AWR

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by AdWordsRep

Hi all,

I will be posting shortly with some details. Writing it up now, but I keep getting interrupted!

Back Soon.

AWR

Thank you.... was waiting for your input

[Mel66]

I heard this yesterday at Google's Ann Arbor Summit. We definitely have a few clients who probably need to speed things up a bit, especially for Firefox....

[AdWordsRep]

Thank you.... was waiting for your input

OK, back again.

Full disclosure: this post is very much like the post that I just made in the WMW thread in which jkwilson78 first mentioned the FAQ. In the interest of time, It has been 'modified to fit your screen' here on SEW.

--------------------------------------------------------------

OK here is a bit of clarification and further information:

Before I go into any detail, the key information is that this is a planned initiative that has not yet launched. A precise launch date has not yet been set.

My theory is that this isn't in effect yet so it has not been added to the searchable FAQ.

Correct. What you came across when you printed the entire FAQ (!) jkwilson78 was an outdated FAQ which was loaded into the Help Center in anticipation of a launch which has since been postponed a bit. Inadvertently, this FAQ was not removed.

Here's an overview of what is happening:

* Landing page load time will become an additional factor in determining landing page quality in the near future. An exact date has not been determined.

* A Inside AdWords blog post has always been planned to announce this in advance, to explain why it is occurring and outline the potential benefits to users and advertisers.

* At some point following the blog post, landing page load time will begin to be reported on the Keyword Analysis Page.

* Then, following that, several weeks will pass before load time starts to actually be factored into the Quality Score - so that advertisers will have time to make adjustments to their pages if they wish.

As an aside, now that the page load time initiative has been mentioned in this and other public forums, the Inside AdWords blog post is likely to be posted sooner rather than later - perhaps as early as this week. When it has been published I will link to it here, and perhaps quote the text as well.

Sheesh, if page load time is important enough to be a QS factor G might also want to use it as a data point in determining gmail user satisfaction. ;-)

What!? Hey, jimbeetle, my gmail is pretty darned fast. Is yours not?

It seems kind of farcical at first glance, but yeah, if the clicker as to wait an inordinate amount of time -- based on whatever it's based on -- sure, it makes sense.

[...] I'm a little surprised it's taken this long to be added or "officially" at least. Either way I think this step is great for users.

I'm very glad to hear of this sentiment, actually. It may be a particular quirk of mine (although I suspect it is not unique to me) but pages that take more than a second or so to load make me kind of crazy. When I'm Online, I expect things to be faster faster faster. When they are not, I'm ready to move on.

Though having it virtually inaccessible in the faqs, if as the WMW poster stated is true, is something G has to address.

Right. And I am glad to be doing that right now.

Finally, my apology for the confusion caused by the FAQ which should have been deleted, but wasn't.

Oh, and thank you, jkwilson78, for even considering reading the entire Help Center. I once printed the entire thing myself (I think it was 'only' 165 pages at that time) - but I choose not to mention how well it served as night-time reading.

AWR

[abbottsys]

Thanks AWR. And as a benchmark test I'll be running an ad that uses a blogspot landing page. Let's hope the load times are ok

[AdWordsRep]

Thanks AWR. And as a benchmark test I'll be running an ad that uses a blogspot landing page. Let's hope the load times are ok

Abbottsys, you crack me up. I think I may have actually laughed out loud while simultaneously snorting just now.

(Fortunately for me, there are not too many others sitting nearby at the moment.)

AWR

[jkwilson78]

Oh, and thank you, jkwilson78, for even considering reading the entire Help Center. I once printed the entire thing myself (I think it was 'only' 165 pages at that time) - but I choose not to mention how well it served as night-time reading.

It took me a few days to make it through... :-)

[AussieWebmaster]

I don't remember it being 165 pages... it has been a while and even then I skipped some repetitive parts

[jimbeetle]

What!? Hey, jimbeetle, my gmail is pretty darned fast. Is yours not?

It might be fast in Google Headquarters. Don't want to take away from the conversation here, but Frank started a thread a couple of weeks ago (of course I can't find it now), about this exact subject -- Gmail is slow, very slow. In fact, G now has the brass ones to blame my connection speed with a new error message ("this seems to be taking longer than it should"), while I can still click, click, click through to anywhere else I want.

That's all off topic. If AW can come up with the thread you can direct the concerned folks over that way.

Back on topic: Yeah, the sell page should be a sell page (within G's guidelines); you really don't want to overwhelm anybody with a lot of bells and whistles that take a long time to load.

But, at the same time, the only thing I would question here is using the load time as a factor and not simply the conversion rate. If a page converts it's good, regardless of the load time; if it doesn't, heck, it's bad. I guess in the long run I'm questioning G's intervention at the load time point. It makes a lot of sense in many ways, but is that only because G has more usable data at that point than at the actual conversion point, with which the advertiser might be quite happy?

[Jazajay]

Yeah totally agree Jim I only got the HTML version the other day for about 2 days and my home connection is as fast as you can get in the UK.

Any way....

I bet the none programmers amounst us are wishing you are now.

My home page at 356k, on a 1mb connection, a 3 gig computer with 500mb RAM, will download in 2.4 secs unprimed and 0.546secs primed.

Just to give you some ideas to what is possible if you think outside the box, and why you shouldn't be worrying, well if you are me any way.

Spot on AdWordsRep good idea in my book, I'm with you, I hate pages that take ages to load.

Bare in mind the average UK connection is 6mb, unless you live next to the ISP then you may push 8.

Jaza

[abbottsys]

Originally Posted by AdWordsRep

Abbottsys, you crack me up. I think I may have actually laughed out loud while simultaneously snorting just now.

(Fortunately for me, there are not too many others sitting nearby at the moment.)

AWR

LOL!!! Don't worry, this will be one of my more modest tests. I mean, I'll run an ad with a blogspot.com landing page to measure Google's own load times. But I will not, you know, I will not go to the next logical step

[AdWordsRep]

Just swinging by for a quick update. Earlier I wrote:

As an aside, now that the page load time initiative has been mentioned in this and other public forums, the Inside AdWords blog post is likely to be posted sooner rather than later - perhaps as early as this week. When it has been published I will link to it here, and perhaps quote the text as well.

So, I am posting again to let you know that the Inside AdWords blog post that I mentioned above was just published a few minutes ago. It's entitled Landing page load time will soon be incorporated into Quality Score.

I am just going to mention it, rather than quote it (as I previously said I would) - because I think it would lose all the links in the copy/paste - and they are useful.

AWR

[beu]

DOGGONEIT! AWR you beat me to posting it Either way, great job to you and the entire AdWords Team. As I said before, I think this is great news for users.