Originally Posted by trevesty (Post 23006360)

The desktop score really only matters if it's bad.

Originally Posted by dcortez (Post 23006344)

That's good. Then I will focus on my desktop version.

Originally Posted by redwhiteandblue (Post 23006382)

Then you are probably focusing on about one third of your total audience. Mobile users do actually buy porn, especially iPhone and iPad users.

Originally Posted by trevesty (Post 23006360)

Google is a mobile-first index. However, sites with a bad Desktop score will also see a negative impact as of a few months ago. This is because some sites were making mobile extremely user-friendly, then making desktop cancer with a side of herpes and AIDS.



Sort of, but they're still a mobile-first index. Assuming the same site structure, link profile (etc) on a competitor of yours, the one with the higher mobile score will have the better position on both platforms.

The desktop score really only matters if it's bad. What I mean by that is, if your mobile score is say, 94 but you make Desktop super mega cancer and it's a 58, then you won't fare as well against someone who may also be 94 on mobile, but 99 on desktop.

You should've started caring about mobile experience in about 2012. :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Klen (Post 23006420)

Yes that is funny thing what is happening now, before was key question how does site look on mobile but now due somuch focus on mobile a lot of sites looks like a joke on desktop. For example, most popular responsive layout on desktop leaves huge empty space on left and right screen and that look really ugly. Which kind a make responsive design fail and old way of having separate desktop and mobile approach much better.

Originally Posted by dcortez (Post 23006366)

Even with CWV as a significant ranking factor, content and relevance still matter, even for "slow" sites.

According to John Mueller’s response from February 26th, 2021, to a question about the influence of Core Web Vitals on search results:

--
"RELEVANCE IS STILL, BY FAR, MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. So just because your website is faster with regards to the Core Web Vitals than some competitor’s doesn’t necessarily mean that, come May, you will jump to position number one in the search results. ...a really fast website might be one that’s completely empty. But that’s not very useful for users. So it’s useful to keep that in mind when it comes to Core Web Vitals."
--

In my view...

There are many reasons why some websites may score less favourably for CWV - not all reasons necessarily being "poor design" or inferior hosting quality.

While there are various "current popular templates" (the new responsive cookie cutter styles), some web designers balance more than just rapid rendering.

There are intentions of distributing processing burden between servers and client machines to reduce server CPU demands.

There are intentions of sharing highly dynamic components of any given page, by deploying them as a series of separate small payloads. This may result in longer aggregate load times, but not anywhere near as much as any adsense-based or nsa/analytics website often involves.

There are intentions of incorporating multi-levelled obfuscation through design to help protect the rendered pages from being easily scraped. This might not stop attempts to scrape content-rich sites, but it makes these attempts clearly visible in server logs and take enough "sniffing" hits to firewall chronic offenders.

And finally, not all websites are in their "final" design/implementation state. While Rapid Application Development may facilitate blasting out massive infrastructures, when something significant like a core update comes along, development priorities may shift to address urgent deficiencies - or not.

The only efforts that seem to make sense until Core Update 2022 is done, and has settled, is to keep creating rich original content.

:2 cents:

Originally Posted by trevesty (Post 23006739)

No offense, but "your view" doesn't appear to be working for you, otherwise your OP wouldn't say what it says. When I check CrushMyVelvent on Ahrefs, you rank VERY poorly for about 20 long tail keywords and that's it.

So yeah, "your view" is quite obviously very wrong. All that text is really just mumbled bullshit to try and defend your bad choices, IMO. But you do you - if you want to make choices that make you less money because a bunch of excuses, go for it.

Your desktop site is slow as shit, too, mostly because everything seems to be stuck in 2010. Huge JPG files, huge header file - your payload is massive in general. I'm on a gigabit connection and it still took a bit to load and you obviously don't have much traffic, so it's not that.

Anyway, not really sure why you're quoting Mueller from over a year ago in a thread about a Core Update that's currently rolling out and when your site does a ton of shit very poorly anyway. You should probably focus on those things rather than writing a thesis worth of excuses on GFY.

Originally Posted by dcortez (Post 23006393)

I agree with you that by focusing on Desktop I would forfeit a significant market portion - if (re)selling digital porn was my long-term objective.

The demographic that my work is oriented to developing and harvesting is not limited to digital porn buyers. The largest portion of the prospective market I am working towards primarily uses Desktop.

Originally Posted by fuzebox (Post 23006867)

What site could possibly have a desktop demographic in 2022?

Originally Posted by fuzebox (Post 23006867)

What site could possibly have a desktop demographic in 2022?

Originally Posted by sarettah (Post 23006910)

Cam sites.


.

Originally Posted by sarettah (Post 23006910)

Cam sites.


.