As a reputation management pioneer, Nick has the inside scoop on all things Reputation Management. This blog will focus on Reputation, practices, technologies, providers and re-shared content from some of the preeminent players in the industry. We hope you enjoy!

Posts By: Curator

Twitter Outreach for Local Restaurants

Use Twitter’s Advanced Search to get new customers

As a local restaurant owner, you have a lot on your plate. Utilizing a social media platform like Twitter is a time-saving and cost-effective way to attract new customers and build relationships with existing customers.

At least 319 million people are active on Twitter every month, and 85% of those Twitter users report feeling more connected to the small businesses that they follow.

What does this mean for you and your restaurant? It means that Twitter is a powerful platform for getting your business in front of a large audience of people in your area. By using Twitter’s Advanced Search feature, you can cut through the internet noise, find consumers who are looking for a business like yours, and engage in meaningful conversations.

Here are our tips for welcoming new guests to your restaurant:

Update your profile

Before engaging in any conversations on Twitter, you’ll want to make sure that your business’ Twitter profile is fresh and polished. Make sure that you’ve uploaded your best and most recent photos, written a captivating description of your business, and updated any necessary information like your address, business hours, and contact information. Then, you’re ready to start finding tweets and reaching out to new potential guests!

Brainstorm search terms

Not sure what kind of tweets to search for? Ask yourself these questions:

Who is your typical guest?

What kinds of conversations will they be engaging in on Twitter?

What kind of atmosphere does your restaurant provide?

From there, you can begin to look for tweets containing terms that are relevant to your business.

For example, a casual, family-friendly pizza shop in Colorado might search for terms like “hungry,” “pizza craving,” or “#goldenColorado.”

A fine-dining establishment in NYC known for their extensive wine collection would want to search for tweets containing phrases like “date night,” “wine tasting,” or“#nycfoodie.”

Advanced Search

Once you’ve determined what kinds of words and phrases are likely to be used in tweets from your target audience, head to Twitter’s Advanced Search page to start finding tweets that are relevant to your business, your audience, or your industry.

You can search for specific tweets by keyword, hashtag, date, and location — meaning that you have all the necessary tools to find exactly what you’re looking for.

“By combining fields in advanced search, you can tailor your search results in a powerful way. For example, you can search for Tweets containing “New Years” but excluding “Resolution” between December 30, 2013 and January 2, 2014. Or you can search for Tweets in English with the hashtag “#WorldCup” sent from Brazil in July 2014.”  Twitter Help Center


When you locate a promising tweet from a user that appears to fit your target demographic, you should reach out and introduce your business to this potential new guest.

For example:

body[data-twttr-rendered=”true”] {background-color: transparent;}.twitter-tweet {margin: auto !important;}

function notifyResize(height) {height = height ? height : document.documentElement.offsetHeight; var resized = false; if (window.donkey && donkey.resize) {donkey.resize(height); resized = true;}if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var obj = {iframe: window.frameElement, height: height}; parent._resizeIframe(obj); resized = true;}if (window.webkit && window.webkit.messageHandlers && window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize) {window.webkit.messageHandlers.resize.postMessage(height); resized = true;}return resized;}‘rendered’, function (event) {notifyResize();});‘resize’, function (event) {notifyResize();});if (parent && parent._resizeIframe) {var maxWidth = parseInt(window.frameElement.getAttribute(“width”)); if ( 500 < maxWidth) {window.frameElement.setAttribute(“width”, “500”);}}

Twitter user @MaurleeLure clearly loves curly fries and burgers! And, since she has her Instagram and Twitter accounts connected, it’s fair to assume that she enjoys social media and would be happy to hear from your business.

This is a perfect opportunity to reach out on behalf of your local restaurant. Try something like:

“That looks so good! Were you able to finish all of that?”


“That burger looks delicious! Ever tried ours before by chance?”

Even if the person you engage with on Twitter doesn’t immediately make a reservation at your restaurant, they might just click to your Twitter profile, check out your business, and look at what you have to offer! By reaching out and engaging in conversations on Twitter, you’ll add more users to your online community and stay top-of-mind with food-lovers in your area.

Happy tweeting!

More resources for your local restaurant:

5 Facebook Content Tips for Restaurants

Enhance Your Customer Service on Social Media

Wow Your Restaurant’s Instagram Following: 3 Elements to a Great Food Photo

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram!

Twitter Outreach for Local Restaurants was originally published in Main Street Hub on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Source: Main Street Hub

1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

As you recall, the FTC has taken the position that 1-800 Contacts’ agreement with competitors, via settlement agreements, not to bid on each other trademarks as keywords violates antitrust laws. Prior blog posts:

* FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising
* FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts

This post catches up on some highlights since my prior post:

1-800 Contacts’ Pretrial Brief

The FTC’s pretrial brief was 90 pages. 1-800 Contacts takes 120 pages to respond. The FTC listed 14 lawyers on its caption. 1-800 Contacts lists 10 lawyers of its own. This is a seriously lawyered-up case.

* Poor widdle 1-800 Contacts. Although it says it’s spent a half-billion dollars building its reputation, “1-800 Contacts remains a small player, accounting for only 10% of sales, in a market dominated by ECPs who possess inherent market advantages (e.g., they write the prescriptions required for purchase).”

* 1-800 Contacts admits its prices are higher than its online-only competitors. One of the standout allegations from the FTC’s brief: “1-800 Contacts is consistently the highest-priced seller on the internet, and consumers do not know it.” 1-800 Contacts doesn’t directly respond to this allegation but it tacitly admits it: (1) “1-800 Contacts does not try to compete solely on price with the lowest-priced discount retailers, like Costco and various online-only retailers”, (2) “1-800 Contacts makes substantial investments in customer service and the purchasing experience,” and (3) 1-800 Contacts spends a lot on TV advertising. If you’re a 1-800 Contacts customer, did you know you were paying a price premium? For more on 1-800 Contacts’ higher prices, see the exhibits to this filing.

* Unclear hands. Many keyword advertising plaintiffs have engaged in competitive keyword advertising themselves, trapping them in duplicitous positions. 1-800 Contacts is no exception. Nevertheless, the brief claims that “1-800 Contacts’ consistent policy has been not to bid on its competitors’ trademarks.” Later, the brief says “1-800 Contacts, as a policy, did not select other party’s trademarks as keywords.” Just like Trump’s taxable revenues aren’t from Russia “with few exceptions,” a footnote qualifies this: “On very rare occasions, 1-800 Contacts’ advertisements inadvertently appeared in response to searches for a competitor’s trademark.”


O rly? I’m feeling gaslighted. I remember when the Second Circuit said:

We think it noteworthy that prior to filing its lawsuit against WhenU, 1-800 entered into agreements with WhenU competitors Gator and Yahoo! to have its own pop-up and banner ads delivered to C-users in response to the C-users’ input of particular website addresses and keywords that were specified by 1-800. Included in the list 1-800 provided to Gator, for instance, were the website addresses for several of 1-800’s competitors, including defendant-appellee Vision Direct, Coastal Contacts, and Lens Express.

* Bidding on your own trademarks. 1-800 Contacts makes a big point that trademark owners get higher ROIs from bidding on their own trademarks, e.g. “the other contact lens retailers experienced significantly higher returns on investment on searches triggered by their own trademark keywords than they did for searches triggered by 1-800 Contacts’ trademark keywords….it was significantly less efficient for the other retailers to bid on 1-800 Contacts’ trademark keywords than it was for them to bid on their own trademark keywords.” Is this somehow surprising? Yet it doesn’t remotely prove that someone searching for a trademark ONLY wants the trademark owner.

* Trademark settlements are good things (?). “as settlements of litigation that protect trademark rights, the agreements that Complaint Counsel have challenged in this case are procompetitive twice over.”

Later, the brief says “there is little risk that a trademark owner will try to settle trademark disputes to divide monopoly profits….” But that’s exactly what the FTC say 1-800 Contacts did. The brief adds “the fact that so many online retailers chose to settle with 1-800 Contacts using standard non-use agreements strongly suggests that the settlements here are ‘supported by traditional settlement considerations.’” But elsewhere 1-800 Contacts made a big point about how small competitive keyword ads are in the overall ad puzzle. Everyone seems to agree that the competitors settled to avoid the cost of litigation.

* The “Everyone is doing it” Argument. “1-800 Contacts’ settlements were standard non-use agreements whereby a party agreed not to use the other’s trademark….This form of settlement has frequently been used to settle disputes regarding the use of trademarks in paid search advertising.” (listing 6 cases). The brief also says “courts across the country have issued similar injunctions barring entities from using another’s trademark in the specific context of keyword searches.” (listing 11 cases plus a cf.)

Interestingly, the brief spends virtually no time trying to show that competitive keyword advertising actually constitutes trademark infringement. Nevertheless, this battle is being fought among the experts. More on that in a moment.

* Competitive keyword ads increase search costs (?). “Evidence that most consumers who search for 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks intend to navigate to 1-800 Contacts’ website means that advertisements presented by other companies have the potential to increase search costs and cause confusion for many consumers.”

* A swipe at Dr. Jacoby. Dr. Jacob Jacoby of NYU is one of the FTC’s experts. I believe he has done hundreds of trademark surveys. The brief says “Complaint Counsel retained Professor Jacoby despite the fact that his studies have been entirely excluded in at least four cases, and have been severely criticized or given little to no weight in nearly twenty other cases.” If you do as many trademark surveys as Dr. Jacoby, you’re going to have a bottom X%. I suspect the FTC will respond by showing how he has been deemed a credible expert and praised by judges in hundreds of other cases.

* Is the online contact lens market competitive? “Some of the nation’s largest retailers have entered the online contact lens business….Similarly, with the exception of one unsuccessful online marketer, the settling parties themselves have grown while the agreements were in place.”

Howard Hogan Expert Report

To my knowledge, the expert reports have not been publicized released as a group. Nevertheless, the FTC attached the Hogan and Landes reports as exhibits to its arguments about why Prof. Tushnet could testify in rebuttal on legal matters. Whatever the reason for the FTC sharing the reports, it’s a worth a look.

* It cost HOW much? “1-800 Contacts is paying Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP for my time, at a rate of $1,095 an hour and the time of research staff working on this matter.” This is a 128 page report with over 400 footnotes. You do the math.

* The (Phantom) Policing Duty. The expert report discusses the “policing duty” of trademark owners (paragraphs 27-31), suggesting that 1-800 Contacts had to police against the keyword advertisers or suffer adverse consequences. As I’ve discussed repeatedly on the blog, the policing “duty” is routinely overstated by trademark counsel and sometimes trademark clients as a justification for spending more money even though it usually takes a fair amount of neglect before there are any consequences. Also, the report doesn’t mention the STK v. Backrack case, which said “respondent’s failure to pursue purchasers of “backrack” as a keyword is not evidence of failure to police its mark.” So there’s a significant chance that the policing “duty” is overstated in the competitive keyword advertising context.

* Paragraph 47 invokes the atrocious Brookfield billboard analogy. My 2005 debunking of the analogy. Every time anyone invokes the billboard analogy non-mockingly, another puppy has a bad day (and a law professor makes fun of the invoker).

Also, the report doesn’t mention that the initial interest confusion doctrine has been waning in courts for the past decade.

* Paragraph 48 quotes the risk of searcher confusion from Bihari v. Gross–an opinion from *2000.* Hmm, I wonder if search engine behavior has changed in the intervening 17 years.

* Dilution. “courts agree that trademark dilution claims are viable in the keyword advertising context, and that such claims often cannot be resolved on the pleadings, or even at summary judgment.” Ugh. From FN 31 of this article:

The trademark dilution doctrine does not require consumer confusion, but defendants have routinely defeated dilution claims for competitive keyword advertising. See Allied Interstate LLC v. Kimmel & Silverman P.C., No. 12 Civ. 4204, 2013 WL 4245987 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2013) (referential/fair use of trademark); Designer Skin, LLC v. S & L Vitamins, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 811 (D. Ariz. 2008) (nominative use); see also Nautilus Group, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. C02-2420RSM, 2006 WL 3761367 (W.D. Wa. Dec. 21, 2006) (relying on pre-Trademark Dilution Revision Act provisions); Edina Realty, Inc. v., No. Civ. 04-4371JRTFLN, 2006 WL 737064 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2006) (same). But see Scooter Store, Inc. v., LLC, No. 2:10–cv–18, 2011 WL 6415516 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2011) (bizarrely finding potential dilution in a generic term).

Several competitive keyword advertising dilution claims have failed because the trademark lacked the requisite fame, defined as “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A) (2012); see v. Yahoo, 996 F. Supp. 2d 933 (S.D. Cal. 2013); Jurin v. Google, Inc., No. 2:09–cv–03065–MCE– CKD, 2012 WL 5011007 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012); S & L Vitamins, Inc. v. Austl. Gold, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Google, Inc. v. Am. Blinds & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. C 03-5340 JF, 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007).

* “Some of Bing’s own internal documents also seem to indicate that a significant percentage of consumers have been confused by Bing’s keyword advertising program. According to these Bing reports, when trademark owners do not bid on their own mark for keyword advertising—thereby placing sponsored links to other companies as the top search result—40% of users click on the non-owner advertiser’s link. If the trademark owner does bid on its own mark for keyword advertising—and thus competes with other advertisers to be placed as the top search result—only 9% of user click on the non-owner advertiser’s link. This evidence appears to indicate that as much as 31% of Internet users who search for a particular brand can be induced to instead click on a link for a competing advertiser simply because the search engine is paid to place that advertiser in the top spot.” But is any of this relevant to harms protected by trademark law? Or is this just fair competition where consumers are researching alternatives?

Dr. William Landes Expert Report

I don’t have many comments on this report. It’s a fairly typical economist’s exposition on trademarks and search costs. The thing that stood out most to me was Landes’ rate: $1,500/hour. Whoa. At least his report was shorter than Hogan’s.

Prof. Rebecca Tushnet Slides

This slide speaks for itself:

Tushnet Slide

Dr. Evans’ Slides

A few snippets of his report are included in the slides.

Source: Eric Goldman Legal

College Esports: 21st Century Scholarship Opportunities

college esportsCurrently, 34 U.S. colleges support varsity esports programs, compared to only 7 a year ago.  That number will most likely double — if not triple — over the next couple of years as schools scramble to find a seat on the college esports train.

Varsity Esports

In the United States, varsity esports is new. As such, there’s no go-to blueprint for creating and managing clubs.  Some esports teams are run by athletic departments, some by academic departments, and others by the office of student affairs.

That said, collegiate esports squads operate similarly to traditional teams: outstanding players earn scholarships, clubs pay coaches, and corporate sponsorship deals help supplement programs.

“Most of these are small schools,” said Kurt Melcher, who developed the first college esports program at Robert Morris University Illinois in 2014. “But I can promise you that somewhere on Notre Dame’s campus, somewhere on Northwestern’s campus, they’re asking how they can get involved.”

Move Over NCAA, Esports Has Its Own Collegiate Association

Until recently, college-level esports didn’t have a governing body and the NCAA wasn’t interested. So, last year, interested parties created the nonprofit National Association of Collegiate Esports (NACE).  Currently, 31 U.S. college esports teams are members of NACE. That figure is likely to grow now that NCAA Division I schools are making room for esports programs.

The most recent member to join NACE is Stephens College, an all-women’s school in Missouri.  They will have a 12 player squad, run by the IT department, set to compete in a collegiate Overwatch league.  Additionally, all the players will receive partial scholarships.

College Esports Scholarships

Analysts estimate that the annual esports scholarship pool will rise to $7 million by 2018.  From an academic standpoint, this is great for schools because the majority of cyber athletes focus on sciences, engineering, and math. In other words, by attracting gamers, they’re attracting brainy students.

NBA and NFL franchises are developing esports rosters as well, which raises the question: As leagues become more established, will gamers be drafted from colleges and universities, just like traditional athletes?

“The evolution of esports on college campuses is squarely on our radar,” said IMG College President Tim Pernetti. “There is a very real similarity in the passions that college sports fans and esports enthusiasts have for their schools.”

Got Questions For An Esports Consultant? We’ve Got Answers.

Kelly / Warner maintains an esports law division. Our team helps professional gamers with everything from contract negotiations to team disputes. Get in touch today to begin the conversation.

The post College Esports: 21st Century Scholarship Opportunities appeared first on Kelly / Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law.

Source: Kelly Warner Law

Reputation Management Tools

There are many different tools that can be used to help you manage and track your reputation online. Below is a list of software that we recommend:

SerpWoo – This tool is used to track the SERPs (Search Engine Ranking Positions) for your online reputation management campaign and helps you to visualize where the negative results have moved to over time. You can also export reports and send to clients.

Hootsuite – The ultimate way to manage all of your social media profiles and see who is tweeting and talking about you or your brand all in one consolidated space.

AHREFS – An SEO tool more so than an ORM tool but this software allows you to see all of the backlinks that are pointing to a given domain or specific webpage. This allows you to size up the strength of the page and to determine how much work will be needed to defeat the webpages you are trying to outrank.

SEM Rush – This software allows you to see all of the keywords that a domain is ranking for. Excellent to use and see what terms are showing up for your brand and notice where the unwanted press is ranking.

Google Alerts – Automatically receive an email with the blog or website that has recently posted something with your name in it.

Looking for the best Reputation Management tools that will benefit you? Well there are over 500 helpful sites that range from alerts that will show you when your name is written about and it comes live online to tools that will show which social media sites have been taken with your name and which variations are still available.

The problem is that just knowing the names of these websites and tools are great but it doesn’t benefit you if you don’t know how to use the ammo so to speak.

Our best advice is get a free reputation management consultation courtesy of the Profile Defenders team call now at 866-664-6178 and learn how our proprietary methods can outdo any of the online software available. We are able to remove webpages from over 200 different websites and repair your reputation today with different methods and connections that are proprietary to our firm.

Source: Profile Defenders

Faster Sites: Beyond PageSpeed Insights

Posted by BenjaminEstes

Google’s PageSpeed Insights is an easy-to-use tool that tests whether a web page might be slower than it needs to be. It gives a score to quantify page performance. Because this score is concrete, the PageSpeed Insights score is often used as a measure of site performance. Similarly to PageRank years back, folks want to optimize this number just because it exists. In fact, Moz has a popular article on this subject: How to Achieve 100/100 with the Google Page Speed Test Tool.

For small sites on common CMSes (think WordPress), this can be accomplished. If that’s you, PageSpeed Insights is a great place to start. For most sites, a perfect score isn’t realistic. So where do we start?

That’s what this post is about. I want to make three points:

  • Latency can hurt load times more than bandwidth
  • PageSpeed Insights scores shouldn’t be taken at face value
  • Improvement starts with measurement, goal setting, and prioritization

I’m writing with SEO practitioners in mind. I’ll skip over some of the more technical bits. You should walk away with enough perspective to start asking the right questions. And you may make better recommendations as a result.

Disclaimer: HTTP2 improves some of the issues discussed in this post. Specifically, multiple requests to the same server are less problematic. It is not a panacea.

Latency can hurt load times more than bandwidth

A first look at PageSpeed Insights’ rules could make you think it’s all about serving fewer bytes to the user. Minify, optimize, compress. Size is only half the story. It also takes take time for your request simply to reach a server. And then it takes time for the server to respond to you!

What happens when you make a request?

If a user types a URL into a browser address bar and hits enter, a request is made. Lots of things happen when that request is made. The very last part of that is transferring the requested content. It’s only this last bit that is affected by bandwidth and the size of the content.

Fulfilling a request requires (more or less) these steps:

  1. Find the server
  2. Connect to the server
  3. Wait for a response
  4. Receive response

Each of these steps takes time, not just the last. The first three are independent of file size; they are effectively constant costs. These costs are incurred with each request regardless of whether the payload is a tiny, minified CSS file or a huge uncompressed image.

Why does it take time to get a response?

The factor we can’t avoid is that network signals can’t travel faster than the speed of light. That’s a theoretical maximum; in reality, it will take longer than that for data to transfer. For instance, it takes light about 40ms for a round trip between Paris and New York. If it takes twice that time for data to actually cross the Atlantic, then the minimum time it will take to get a response from a server is 80ms.

This is why CDNs are commonly used. CDNs put servers physically closer to users, which is the only way to reduce the time it takes to reach the server.

How much does this matter?

Check out this chart (from Chrome’s DevTools):

The life of a request, measured by Chrome Dev Tools.

All of the values in the red box are what I’m considering “latency.” They total about 220ms. The actual transfer of content took 0.7ms. No compression or reduction of filesize could help this; the only way to reduce the time taken by the request is to reduce latency.

Don’t we need to make a lot of requests to load a page?

It’ll take more than one request to load all of the content necessary to render a page. If that URL corresponded to a webpage, the browser will usually discover that it needs to load more resources to render the page. These could be CSS, JavaScript, or font files. It must recursively go through the same steps listed above to load each of these files.

Fortunately, once a server has been found (“DNS Lookup” in the image above), the browser won’t need to look it up again. It will still have to connect, and we’ll have to wait for a response.

A skeptical read of PageSpeed Insights tests

All of the PageSpeed Insights evaluations cover things that can impact site speed. For large sites, some of them aren’t so easy to implement. And depending on how your site is designed, some may be more impactful than others. That’s not to say you have an excuse not to do these things — they’re all best-practice, and they all help. But they don’t represent the whole site speed picture.

With that in mind, here’s a “skeptical reading” of each of the PageSpeed Insights rules.

Tests focusing on reducing bandwidth use


Skeptical reading

Optimize images

Unless you have huge images, this might not be a big deal. This is only measuring whether images could be further compressed — not whether you’re loading too many.

Enable compression

Compression is easy. You should use it. It also may not make much of a difference unless you have (for instance) huge JavaScript files loading.

Minify HTML

Will likely reduce overhead only by tens of KB. Latency will have a bigger impact than response size.

Minify CSS

Will likely reduce overhead only by tens of KB. Latency will have a bigger impact than response size.

Minify JS

Probably not as important as consolidating JS into a single file to reduce the number of requests that have to be made.

Tests focusing on reducing latency


Skeptical reading

Leverage browser caching

Definitely let’s cache our own files. Lots of the files that could benefit from caching are probably hosted on 3rd-party servers. You’d have to host them yourself to change cache times.

Reduce server response time

Threshold on PSI is too high. It also tries to exclude the physical latency of the server—instead looking only at how long it takes the server to respond once it receives a request.

Avoid landing page redirects


Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold content

A valid concern, but can be frustratingly difficult. Having zero requests on top of the initial page load to render above-the-fold content isn’t necessary to meet most performance goals.

Prioritize visible content

Actually kind of important.

Don’t treat these as the final word on site performance! Independent of these tests, here are some things to think about. Some aren’t covered at all by PageSpeed Insights, and some are only covered halfway:

  • Caching content you control.
  • Reducing the amount of content you’re loading from 3rd-party domains.
  • Reducing server response time beyond the minimum required to pass PageSpeed Insights’ test.
  • Moving the server closer to the end user. Basically, use a CDN.
  • Reducing blocking requests. Ensuring you’re using HTTP2 will help here.

How to start improving


The screenshots in this post are created with Chrome DevTools. It’s built into the browser and allows you to inspect exactly what happens when a page loads.

Instead of trusting the Pagespeed Insights tool, go ahead and load your page in Chrome. Check out how it performs. Look at what requests actually seem to take more time. Often the answer will be obvious: too much time will be spent loading ads, for instance.

Goal setting

If a perfect PageSpeed Insights score isn’t your goal, you need to know what your goal will be. This is important, because it allows you to compare current performance to that goal. You can see whether reducing bandwidth requirements will actually meet your goal, or whether you also need to do something to reduce latency (use a CDN, handle fewer requests, load high-priority content first).


Prioritizing page speed “fixes” is important — that’s not the only type of prioritization. There’s also the question of what actually needs to be loaded. PageSpeed Insights does try to figure out whether you’re prioritizing above-the-fold content. This is a great target. It’s also not a perfect assessment; it might be easier to split content into “critical” and “non-critical” paths, regardless of what is ostensibly above the fold.

For instance: If your site relies on ad revenue, you might load all content on the page and only then begin to load ads. Figuring out how to serve less is a challenge best tackled by you and your team. After all, PageSpeed Insights is a one-size-fits-all solution.


The story so far has been that PageSpeed Insights can be useful, but there are smarter ways to assess and improve site speed. A perfect score doesn’t guarantee a fast site.

If you’re interested in learning more, I highly recommend checking out Ilya Grigorik’s site and specifically this old-but-good introduction deck. Grigorik is a web performance engineer at Google and a very good communicator about site speed issues.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!

Source: Moz