Google’s Core Web Vitals initiative was launched as part of its effort to quantify the user experience and rank websites based on performance, interactivity, and visual stability. It was intended to create a more streamlined, user-friendly internet experience, rewarding sites that load quickly, respond smoothly, and maintain a consistent visual structure. But several years into the rollout, it’s clear that the web landscape still suffers from some fundamental issues, particularly with mobile experiences. These issues raise the question: do Google’s Core Web Vitals need rethinking?
Let’s dive into two critical concerns:
1. Mobile Experience: The Web’s Biggest Bottleneck
Google’s emphasis on Core Web Vitals was meant to enhance user experience, especially on mobile devices. After all, mobile internet traffic accounts for over half of global online activity, making it a key metric for Google to track and optimize. However, despite these efforts, the reality is that mobile web browsing still often feels cumbersome and frustrating. Why? Because Core Web Vitals, as they currently stand, do not adequately address several fundamental problems:
Bloated Webpages: A Silent Killer
Many websites today are overloaded with features, widgets, and multimedia elements that might look impressive but ultimately slow down the mobile experience. Although Google’s metrics, such as Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) and Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS), aim to reduce load times and maintain visual stability, they are often not enough to offset the bloated nature of many modern sites. The issue isn’t just technical; it’s strategic. Websites are trying to be everything at once—adding more video content, more interactive elements, and thus more scripts—often at the expense of performance.
Even pages that meet Google’s performance thresholds can still be riddled with poorly optimized images, excessive third-party scripts, or unnecessary elements. Users end up frustrated, waiting for bloated webpages to load and dealing with poor navigation. In many cases, the “optimized” version may pass Google’s tests but still offers a subpar experience due to hidden elements that slow everything down including third party ad networks.
Intrusive Adverts and Dysfunctional Layouts
Another major issue is the aggressive use of adverts and pop-ups that dominate many mobile experiences. Google has tried to penalize sites that use intrusive interstitials, but this approach is clearly insufficient. Despite Google’s best efforts, users still face mobile pages cluttered with pop-ups, auto-playing videos, and overlays that obscure content or disrupt navigation. This results in frustrating user experiences that Google’s current metrics can’t entirely capture.
Additionally, dysfunctional layouts on mobile devices—where content doesn’t scale properly or is squeezed into tiny windows—remain a widespread problem. Core Web Vitals don’t always account for these nuanced design failures. A site may pass Google’s LCP or CLS requirements yet still deliver a poor mobile experience when the layout fails to accommodate different screen sizes or when tap targets (buttons and links) are difficult to access.
What’s the Solution?
Google needs to prioritize the holistic mobile experience beyond just the existing set of metrics. There should be a stronger emphasis on penalising excessive ad clutter and rewarding sites that maintain a balance between monetization and usability. Perhaps it’s time for a new, more comprehensive set of metrics or a refined system that not only measures speed and visual stability but also takes into account overall site cleanliness and ease of navigation.
2. Paywalls and Locked Content: Google’s Blind Spot
Another glaring issue with Google’s approach is its inability to discern when content is locked behind paywalls. This poses a fundamental problem for the user experience and undermines the core goal of driving relevant traffic. When users click on a search result only to find they need to pay to access the information, it’s frustrating and often leads to site abandonment. More importantly, it’s a disconnect between Google’s algorithmic intention and the real-world outcomes users face.
Google’s Algorithm: The Search Mismatch
Google’s algorithm is designed to provide the most relevant and helpful content based on a user’s search query. It prioritizes quality sources, often featuring media sites and publications that, while reputable, have paywalls in place. When users click through and encounter a locked page, it undermines the trust Google has built with its user base. Despite the growing prevalence of subscription-based models, Google’s current system fails to distinguish between accessible and locked content.
From a user perspective, this creates a cycle of frustration—users are misled into believing they’ll receive valuable information only to hit a paywall. Over time, this can degrade the user’s trust in Google’s ability to direct them to open, helpful content.
A Path Forward for Google’s Paywall Problem
Google could benefit from a new approach that integrates an awareness of paywalls into its ranking algorithm. For instance, it could:
- Flag pages with paywalls and display a warning or icon in search results, allowing users to make an informed decision before clicking.
- Promote a balance between free and paywalled content by prioritizing accessible sources, unless a clear user preference for premium information (e.g., subscription-based services) is indicated.
- Work with publishers to develop dynamic preview options or excerpts that give users a glimpse of the content before deciding to subscribe or move on. This would provide users with a better understanding of the value proposition before clicking.
The integration of such indicators would align the search results more closely with user expectations and reduce unnecessary traffic to locked pages. Google must recognize that simply ranking sites based on traditional metrics like content quality and authority isn’t enough if a substantial portion of users can’t actually access that content.
The Bigger Picture: Toward a More User-Centric Web
Google’s Core Web Vitals are a positive step in creating a better web experience, but the current approach is not without its shortcomings. Mobile performance remains a challenge due to bloated designs, intrusive ads, and dysfunctional layouts that Google’s current metrics can’t fully address. Meanwhile, the inability to distinguish paywalled content from freely accessible pages continues to mislead users, creating a disconnect between the promise of relevant search results and actual accessibility.
To truly create a user-centric web, Google needs to rethink and expand its criteria. This might include developing more sophisticated mobile metrics that go beyond speed and stability, addressing advertising balance, and providing clearer signals about paywall content. By refining its tools and focusing on these overlooked areas, Google can ensure that its mission to enhance the user experience doesn’t fall short.
The internet is evolving rapidly, and Google’s methods must adapt to keep up. It’s time for a more comprehensive, thoughtful approach that genuinely puts user experience at the forefront—because a better web isn’t just about faster loading times; it’s about accessible, clear, and frustration-free content.