Martin split offered three tips to the publisher’s core web vital. Who is struggling to win the top spot on the internet? Google’s martin answered a question about what to do about the necessary third-party features in the form of apps and add-ons. And whether Google would give publishers a break from vital data as these apps were created by a third-party part.

Loren baker asked a question discussing the issue of publishers needing marketing and sales capabilities on their sites that tend to slow down the website and contribute to low average web vitals rankings.

The Extremely Low Performance of Core Web Vital:

An example used was a Shopify website that incorporated email lists, reviews, and chat features that contribute to the extremely low performance of key web vitals. But the question applies equally to all third-party applications, themes, and plugins, regardless of platform, including WordPress.

This is an important question because the problem with publishers judging the performance of core web vital is that performance issues generally do not arise from publishers’ errors. The fault for poor performance lies with the creators of applications, themes, and plugins. So it does not seem fair to google to rate a site low for its use of a third-party add-on or application that provides the necessary functionality that users or publishers need.

Loren Baker Asked:

Will the core web vital update give people a break, for example, if they are using a third-party application which results in their site ranking lower than if they had no applications on the page.

Why it should be the focus of good fundamental results of vital web data:

• I understand where they come from. The answer to all these questions is almost the same.
• If there are applications on the site, if there are all the first parts of the site, if you use google analytics or google ads or google tag manager, none of them matter.
•  If it slows down the page, it is bad for the user experience. No matter where the reason comes from, whether it is. Like the first part code or the invalid third part code, everything can be done with less impact on the main web vital elements than is most likely the case this time around.
• What we are trying to do is quantify what makes a user a good one-page experience.
• Not knowing that this is an issue or lack of care or other technical reasons that need to be addressed at some point developers would like to talk about this in technical depth.
•  The internet and what matters in the end.
•  Think about what we are trying to do with the page experience badge.

Which user experience is more important:

Martin acknowledged that many of the features that slow down a website also improve the user experience by doing things like helping them achieve their goals, such as communicating with the company through chat.

Martin Split Explained:

• Sure, I see comments saying that these apps could really improve the user experience, but right. Because if it is oh yes, this app gives us a chat experience yes. But a chat can be implemented in a way that does not make the page slower for anyone who does not interact with the chat or even for those who want to interact with the chat.
• Martin refers to the fact that there are ways to minimize the impact of JavaScript and CSS files on the chat, box by adding elements of elements that allow the code not to interfere with performance. For everything that negatively affects the rating of web vitals, there is a solution, even for third-party ad codes.

For anything that negatively affects the basic ranking of web vitals, there is a solution, even for third-party ad codes.

The problem that is not addressed is that these solutions tend to be outside the scope of many web publishers.

Martin Continued:

It’s not a measure that we should have a chat on our page, yes or no. Yes, if it makes the experience for the user to have a chat. Just don’t build it in a way that really makes the page worse. And that is the point. Publishers are at the mercy of the content management ecosystem.

Core Web Vital Isn’t Perfect:

Martin then admitted that the basic metrics of web vitals are not the best, but he really insisted that they are the best we have now.

Martin explained:

• And we can discuss whether the main vital elements of the internet. Really shape it completely. I would not say. But this is the best approach we have now.
• Both measuring performance and measuring user experience is really very difficult. And we will see an evolving set of metrics as part of the important web life points that evolve over time.

Give Users a Good Experience on the Page:

Martin then encouraged editors to focus on the page experience.

A Martin Split on Delivering a Good User Experience:

• But  In general, the idea is to give a boost to pages that are given a good user experience.
• And I do not think a good experience is if I’m reading something about the item I’m about to potentially buy and then everything I’m reading is moved down because there are some review stars popping up at the top.
• Does that mean you shouldn’t have stars in reviews? No
• Have review stars, but make room for them so that when they appear nothing else moves on the page.

Good Ratings of Web Vital Are Possible:

It may seem overwhelming to solve web vital’s core problems, but martin encourages publishers to keep trying by stating that it’s not an impossible problem to solve. He said good scores can be close at hand.

Martin Split:

• It’s not like it’s impossible to do this. I often get this question with cookie consent banners. So, a cookie consent banner that I must have legal reasons, will drag my CLS?
• Probably yes, if it is implemented in a way that bothers the user. It could actually cause a cumulative shift in the layout.
• If it only causes a small part of it, that’s not even a problem. We’re not saying zero is what you need to target.
• You have to target something that is reasonable, which I think is 0.1, which is the percentage of actual view and the amount of shift that occurs.
• So there is a certain amount of change that can happen without essentially falling below the threshold of what major web vitals consider to be a good experience.
• But if you implement it, let’s lazily call it and go, yes it will be fine, yes it will move everything under once it appears, then it is not a great way to implement it and you may want to reconsider how you implement it.

Ask APP/Plugin Developers to Update Their Products:

Martin Split now provides useful information on which applications to use that provide a negative user experience.

Martin said:

• If you don’t apply it because it comes from a third party, let them know, say hello to the way we noticed your solution. We really like your solution, but we don’t really like the behaviour of our users. So you were thinking of fixing it.
• And there are ways to do it, it just needs to be done.

Three Key Elements for Web Vital:

Martin shared a lot and perhaps a general way to describe them is three points. The following three points are not all you need to know. Martin shared many details.

These Are Three Points That Sum Up What He Said:

1. Check if an application or feature is really needed and if it provides a necessary user experience. If it’s somehow useless, consider getting rid of it.
2. Implement the functionality of the site in a way that does not affect the performance of the page. This may mean modifying the code to add additional functionality. (Such as the slow image loading function or the real =” preload”).
3. When the creators of templates and add-ons get there. They are unfortunately online with the web editor to fix it, whether they like it or not.
4. Contacts application, plugin, and theme developers and ask them to build better applications.