Timeline for After a significant site change should a Google drop in rank be expected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3 at 16:22 | comment | added | Richard | Don't get me wrong - I am grateful for your help. I just disagree about the sites aesthetics. Which I maintain are spectacular! | |
| Jul 3 at 16:07 | comment | added | Mike Ciffone | I'm not interested in debating this. I tried to help and offered my advice. That is the best I can do. | |
| Jul 3 at 8:56 | comment | added | Richard | I disagree entirely - there's nothing to those sites that makes them look 'modern' IMO. For a site that's mostly documentation - rgraph.net is extremely good imo. | |
| Jul 3 at 0:27 | comment | added | Mike Ciffone | All of those sites have very clean and modern UI's and the typical aesthetic you see in development niches these days. Though, canvas js looks a tad old school which I credit mostly to it using system font for it's main headings | |
| Jul 2 at 8:00 | comment | added | Richard | What exactly makes you look at the site and think it's dated? chartjs.org looks far more simple IMO and that's at the top of the SERPs. The following sites in the SERPs don't have a particularly 'spectacular' or 'complex' design either: canvasjs.com, w3scools.com, logrocket.com, apexcharts.com, wearedevelopers.com, sitepoint.com. | |
| Jul 2 at 6:46 | comment | added | Mike Ciffone | The site is dated. I'm not wrong about this, and Google looks at it. I wouldn't have spent 35 minutes answering last night if I didn't care. | |
| Jul 1 at 15:02 | comment | added | Mike Ciffone | @Richard Your speed is fine, that's not your issue. Slap a modern design on it (remember what I said about ~35-year-old product managers shaping what Google sees as "Good UX"), and refresh your homepage content, I think you'll start to see things move. | |
| Jul 1 at 10:28 | comment | added | Richard | .... Also, these questions from the Page Experience article: Do your pages have good Core Web Vitals? Pretty good Are your pages served in a secure fashion? Yes Does your content display well on mobile devices? Yes Does your content avoid using an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content? Yes - no ads on the site Do your pages avoid using intrusive interstitials? Yes - no interstitials Is your page designed so visitors can easily distinguish the main content from other content on your page? Yes - main content is very clear. | |
| Jul 1 at 10:26 | comment | added | Richard | Incidentally, I just ran Lighthouse and got the scores: (mobile) Performance: 100, Accessibility: 73, Best practices: 96, SEO 92 And for desktop: Performance: 100, Accessibility: 73, Best practices: 100, SEO 92. Not bad (aside from accessibility perhaps) if you ask me! ... continued... | |
| Jul 1 at 9:01 | comment | added | Richard | Thanks for the response - I've added some info to the question that I found in the QRG guidelines about using copied images. According to my own, AJAX based, stats logger I get around 300 page views on a (good) weekday. Less than peanuts! Personally I don't see how Google can class my site (aside from that image) as low quality. It's fast, responsive, full of really good information and pleasant to look at. In comparison chartjs.org is ranked as number 1 for the search "javascript charts". Which IMO is quite basic design-wise. PS Glad you like the software! | |
| Jul 1 at 0:30 | history | edited | Mike Ciffone | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added relevant links
|
| Jul 1 at 0:20 | history | answered | Mike Ciffone | CC BY-SA 4.0 |