I'm presuming the negative results they saw from "rendering with JavaScript" meant, specifically, they moved certain page rendering tasks to the client side vs. server side. (It wasn't explicitly clear that was the case, but implicitly so).
If so, that's a big reinforcement of the importance of server-side rendering for SEO purposes or, for you JavaScript fans, isometric applications.
I know this is talked about a lot anecdotally, but it's interesting to see it so starkly laid out in an experiment by a major site.
I'd love to hear about that experiment in more detail. People often cite Google's Understanding web pages better[1] as evidence that it's now OK to render everything with JS, but this is the first time I've seen someone publish actual evidence.
Comments
I'm presuming the negative results they saw from "rendering with JavaScript" meant, specifically, they moved certain page rendering tasks to the client side vs. server side. (It wasn't explicitly clear that was the case, but implicitly so).
If so, that's a big reinforcement of the importance of server-side rendering for SEO purposes or, for you JavaScript fans, isometric applications.
I know this is talked about a lot anecdotally, but it's interesting to see it so starkly laid out in an experiment by a major site.
I'd love to hear about that experiment in more detail. People often cite Google's Understanding web pages better[1] as evidence that it's now OK to render everything with JS, but this is the first time I've seen someone publish actual evidence.
[1]: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/05/understan...