There's a cutoff built into browsers in the form of a KeepAliveTimeout. A longer load time could have a valid reason, that's not for search engines to decide.
Also your example of a year is obtuse. It's like saying you should drive BMW because you will get killed in a Tesla if you crash at a million mph.
What Google's page speed factor does is differentiate between 1.5 and 2.5 seconds loading time. That has nothing to do with the quality of a page.
What's up with all the angry comments here? The article is about the influence of social media. People here take it as an assault on Trump supporters.
Relax.
I remember this being discussed a decade ago. The irony was that in most cases it was abandoned because migrating cost more than the annual IT budget. And since no politician ever plans a decade ahead, here we are.
I'm trying to come up with a situation where loading a 199kb css file would make a difference. Maybe websites that target an audience that is expected to have a slow connection (banks etc.) but this kind of rules them out by not supporting IE.
He didn't say what they did was simple. He said it's a simple explanation for what they did. Google created a great search engine at the right place and time. Since then Google's products have been a hit but mostly a miss by a company with endless money.
Hot topic in The Netherlands right now is the threat of a hostile takeover of Akzo Nobel, a chemical company with 50,000 employees, by a US company. The government is discussing putting the same protective regulations in place that Trump is threatening with. The US isn't "losing" jobs to Germany, they are trade partners. If Americans want to stop trading then both sides lose.
>publishers don't exactly have a good track record of treating their user well
That's an overly broad and vague statement to excuse entitlement. I'm fine with downloading content that's publicly available, but not because "they had it coming."
>publishers don't exactly have a good track record of treating their user well
That's an overly broad and vague statement to excuse entitlement. I'm fine with downloading content that's publicly available, but not because "they had it coming."
I agree with icebraining that it's not necessarily dumb for a business to advertise on less known or even irrelevant websites. It's the same difference between an ad flashing on a video wall on Time Square, or a billboard along a busy highway, or a poster hanging in a mall. Each has a different reach and purpose and with that comes a different price.
Google gives you the choice where you want your ads to be displayed; whether it's within the Google search results, or on websites like yours, or there are programs like Google Doubleclick where you can chose which websites you want to display your ads.
I think most of the criticism here doesn't so much reflect the ignorance of advertisers like the parent comment says, but ignorance of the people commenting how advertising works.