Unfortunately, the ratings they measured were very subjective (from to ) and were not based on validator guidelines, nevertheless they took into account a larger sample and independently confirmed the conclusion regarding the length of the content: In addition, mobility was indicated (we did not measure - the effects of the Medic Update could interfere with the Speed Update), the number and size of ads (we measured - not related to the update), the quality of the content (we measured it partially, as spelling correctness and fundamental merits - not related to the update.
Appearance (we did not measure), loading speed (we did not measure), offsite factors (we did not measure), and the presence of the "about us" subpage (we measured partly as the Mexico WhatsApp Number List presence of precise contact details). Certainly, the three factors indicated by us and those proposed by CanIRank do not close the list of elements whose rating has been changed during the update. All indicated regression curves are relatively flat and lack important elements. The quality of the content should definitely be indicated as the basic, most intuitive factor. It is difficult to measure objectively, especially if the goal is to map Google's activities - but you can break down the assessment into smaller elements, such as factual accuracy,
Reference to authorities and sources, use of terminology, dangerous advice, etc. In addition, attention should be paid to changing the weight of individual factors between queries and niches, as well as presenting the results in the context of all others on the first page. We still find short articles (even less than characters) in many queries, which can be explained by the need for a variety of results. Displaying links to very long articles would certainly not satisfy all users. Change for better? The medical supplies industry, at least in Poland.