Why don't analytics PageSpeed numbers match PageSpeed scores?

Why don't analytics PageSpeed scores match the PageSpeed tool?

According to Google Analytics, the PageSpeed score for the page above is 88/100 but, in reality PageSpeed for this page is 64/100 for mobile users and 77/100 for desktop users. Don't be a sucker for analytics data dung! The only source for accurate up-to-date PageSpeed data is Google's NEW AND IMPROVED PageSpeed Insights tool. PageSpeed data from analytics and other sources is not always accurate or updated.

How fast should pages load?

As Matt Cutts recently pointed out, websites perform differently in different parts of the world. Ideally pages should load faster than the median load time in the country or region they target.

Where do I find the median page load time for my country or region of the world?

2013 Median Page Load Times: North America
- US 2.4 seconds desktop / 2.6 seconds mobile
- Canada 2.4 seconds desktop / 3.6 seconds mobile
- Mexico 3.8 seconds desktop / 4.5 seconds mobile
- Cuba 17.5 seconds desktop / 4.5 seconds mobile
- Bahamas 3.3 seconds desktop / 4.5 seconds mobile

2013 Median Page Load Times: Europe
- Czech Republic 1.6 seconds desktop / 3.4 seconds mobile
- Netherlands 1.8 seconds desktop / 3.1 seconds mobile
- Sweden 1.8 seconds desktop / 3.2 seconds mobile
- Russia 2.4 seconds desktop / 4.8 seconds mobile
- Germany 2.5 seconds desktop / 3.0 seconds mobile
- UK 2.5 seconds desktop / 3.6 seconds mobile
- Poland 2.7 seconds desktop / 4.7 seconds mobile
- Italy 3.3 seconds desktop / 5 seconds mobile
- Spain 3.2 seconds desktop / 5.3 seconds mobile

2013 Median Page Load Times: Asia
- South Korea 1.4 seconds desktop / 1.7 seconds mobile
- Japan 1.8 seconds desktop / 3.0 seconds mobile
- Russia 2.4 seconds desktop / 4.8 seconds mobile
- China 2.5 seconds desktop / 3.7 seconds mobile
- Viet Nam 2.5 seconds desktop /4.5 seconds mobile
- Thailand 3.7 seconds desktop / 5.8 seconds mobile
- Indonesia 7.4 seconds desktop / 5.1 seconds mobile
- India 5.1 seconds desktop / 5.8 seconds mobile
- Saudi Arabia 4.0 seconds desktop / 6.7 seconds mobile
- Pakistan 6.4 seconds desktop / 8.0 seconds mobile
- Iraq 5.5 seconds desktop / 5.9 seconds mobile
- Iran 6.1 seconds desktop / 9.5 seconds mobile
- Syria 8.1 seconds desktop / 9.1 seconds mobile

2013 Median Page Load Times: South America
- Chile 4.0 seconds desktop / 5.5 seconds mobile
- Brazil 4.7 seconds desktop / 7.7 seconds mobile
- Peru 4.3 seconds desktop / 8.5 seconds mobile
- Argentina 5.3 seconds desktop / 7.3 seconds mobile

2013 Median Page Load Times: Australia
- Australia 3.5 seconds desktop / 4.4 seconds mobile

2013 Median Page Load Times: Africa
- Morocco 3.5 seconds desktop / 5.0 seconds mobile
- South Africa 4.8 seconds desktop / 5.3 seconds mobile
- Algeria 5.1 seconds desktop / 7.8 seconds mobile
- Egypt 5.9 seconds desktop / 7.7 seconds mobile
- Kenya 7.7 seconds desktop / 11.4 seconds mobile

The list above provides the most recent median page load times as of 2013 from Google.

How do I compare pages with the same PageSpeed score to see which loads faster?

PageSpeed Insights is a great general purpose litmus test for improving PageSpeed but it only considers the network-independent aspects of page performance. To get down and dirty with respect to network performance and other speed related issues, you need to experience load times from the user perspective. To actually time pages via different browsers from various locations, use tools like WebPageTest.org or Pingdom. For instance, let's compare real load times, PageSpeed and speed index numbers for pages with Google Analytics, an optimized version of Google Analtyics and Google Tag Manager.

Load Time / Speed Index / PageSpeed
- empty page .461 seconds / 400 / 100/100
- custom analytics .619 seconds / 600 / 100/100
- standard analytics .808 seconds / 800 / 100/100
- tag manager .881 seconds / 900 / 100/100

Result: All of the URLs tested above have the same PageSpeed score of 100/100. However, from a user perspective the empty page has the best Speed Index score and loaded fastest.

Why are pages with asynchronous JavaScript slower than pages without JavaScript?

1. Not all browsers support asynchronous attributes.

2. When asynchronous scripts arrive during page load, browsers have to stop rendering the page in order to parse and execute scripts.

Even small things, like white space and HTML comments decrease page performance and increase load times. Scripts with ASYNC attributes like social media buttons and analytics tracking codes increase load times from a user perspective. It is always best to avoid including any unnecessary code or scripts even if they include the ASYNC attribute. Asynchronous scripts still impact performance.


Google needs next generation smartphones like the Google Motorola "Moto-X" to help improve paid smartphone conversions and increase CPC not to mention Google ad revenue. Google has always made less money on smartphone ads than ads on PCs / laptops because smartphone conversion rates are much lower. This is a problem because more and more users are searching on smartphones and mobile devices instead of PCs and laptops. In order to increase smartphone ad revenue and meet future Wall Street expectations, Google must increase cost per click (CPC) for smartphone ads. To increase CPC for paid search ads on smartphones, Google must improve the quality of smartphone search results and improve paid conversion rates.

Delivering relevant paid ads to users at the right time on smartphones is difficult. The problem is, smartphone queries currently lack context. In order to accurately discern user intent for smartphone queries and return useful search results, search engines need contextual clues. According to Google, "context is one important key that drives search behavior. User context drives what people search for, and the actions they take." For example, is the user currently at home, walking down the street, driving in a car, out of town, on vacation, at work, in the country or in a major city? In the future, answers to questions like these will help Google return better results and better target ads.

The Google / Motorola "Moto-X" smartphone is the first smartphone to provide the contextual clues necessary for smartphone search. Moto-X includes a vast array of sensors that actually detect its surroundings. These sensors are able to capture all kinds of contextual data. As a result, Moto-X knows when it is in your pocket. It knows when you are driving and operates differently based on the context of your surroundings. According to Motorola CEO Dennis Woodside, "Moto-X is "more contextually aware of what's going on around it and allows you to interact with it in very different ways than you can today with other devices."

Google is not spending $500,000,000.00 to market the Motorola Moto-X because they plan to quit search and sell smartphones. Google needs additional data to improve emerging core products like smartphone search in order to increase smartphone conversions and revenue.

"We live in a world of abundant computing, with multiple operating systems and increasing number of the devices. And it's a very different environment from when Google started. There was essentially one OS, and one device category, the PC. These kind of changes don't happen that often. Once a decade, maybe even less. The shift from laptop to mobiles, from on screen to multiple screens, create a tremendous opportunity for Google. With more devices, more information and more activity online than ever, the potential to improve people's lives is immense. Getting you the right information, just when you need it, creating the tools to make everyone more effective at home and at work, and helping you share and remember the moments that matter in life."
- Larry Page, Google CEO and Co-Founder

Organic search marketers need to be aware of upcoming changes related to smartphone search. Google is expected to start taking actions against problematic smartphone related search issues in the near future. Google does not recommend or "want" websites to offer a different "mobile" version. Instead Google recommends offering one site which is accessible on multiple devices. Finally, keep context in mind when creating content and ensure Schema.org markup is properly integrated into webpages and emails.

For those like me who are interested in the latest smartphone statistics, here is my list. If you have additional interesting stats for 2013 please feel free to share.

Smartphone penetration statistics 2013: Growth 2011 - 2013:
- Smartphone penetration Q1 2011 31%
- Smartphone penetration Q1 2012 44%
- Smartphone penetration Q1 2013 56%

Smartphone Usage Statistics:
75% of Americans bring their smartphone into the bathroom.
33% of smartphone owners would rather give up TV than their smartphone.
61% of users only look at first page search results on their smartphone.
85% of smartphone users expect webpages to load as fast if not faster than on their desktop.
90% of smartphone owners use their smartphone while at home.
87% of smartphone owners use their smartphone while on the go.
77% of smartphone owners use their smartphone while shopping.
72% of smartphone owners use their smartphone while at work.
68% of affluent Americans use a smartphone.

Smartphone Shopping Statistics 2013:
79% of smartphone owners are smartphone shoppers.
90% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to pre-shop
43% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to browse
77% of smartphone owners have researched a product or service online using their smartphone.
32% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to find specific product merchants.
31% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to get product information.
44% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to compare prices.
61% of men have made a mobile purchase
31% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to check product availability.
19% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to read product reviews.
44% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to get promotional offers.
35% of smartphone users have purchased a product of service on their smartphone
80% of smartphone owners want more information in stores.
89% of smartphone users notice mobile ads
61% of smartphone owners search with their smartphone on a daily basis.
33% of consumers have searched for online coupons via their smartphone.

Smartphone Local In-Store Shopping Statistics for 2013:
58% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to get directions to the store.
57% of smartphone shoppers use their smartphone to get store hours.
84% of smartphone shoppers use their device for research while shopping in a store.
82% of smartphone users use search to research products in-store.
74% of smartphone owners use their device to make offline purchases.
42% of smartphone shoppers use their device for research for more than 15 minutes while shopping in a store.
39% of shoppers that walk out of a store without making a purchase are influenced by smartphone usage.
48% of men use smartphones to research products in-store.
38% of women use smartphones to research products in-store.
26% of consumers have made in-store purchases using a mobile coupon.


According to Google, "everything is going Google+" but, few search marketers truly understand what that means. Here are a few points to help bring everyone up to speed.


Google+ Sign In:

Even though keyword level data for signed in users is "Not Provided" in Google Analytics, Google's goal is to increase the number of signed in user searches.

According to a recent Google Jobs post:

Google+ Signed in users

"The mission of the search growth marketing team is to make that information universally accessible by enabling and educating users around the world to search on Google, search more often, and search while signed-in. Research and analysis has shown that putting Google search access points at the fingertips of users is an effective way of achieving these goals. And the more users that are signed in to Google, the better we can tailor their search results and create a unified experience across all of the Google products that they use."

When users are signed in, Google can better tailor search results and better target ads. Better ads and better search results increase Google's market share not to mention ad revenue. Google+ is one of many programs intended to help increase signed in users.

Google+ Links:

In order to return relevant search results for human users based on what is important to human users, Google needs access to analyze content and links created by humans.

When Google and its "secret sauce" PageRank algorithm were originally developed, the web was a very different place than it is today. At that time, blogs, Tweets and Facebook did not exist. In the late 1990's, content and links tended to be created by humans and both were freely accessible to Google's crawlers. Back then important websites were "likely to receive more links from other websites." As a result, Google was able to leverage the "citation graph" of the internet to measure "importance" based on "people's subjective idea of importance."

Today, content and links tend to be created by software and not by humans. The best place to find high quality human made content and links today is deep within the password protected confines of social media websites. These issues are both problematic for Google because most social media sites prevent Google from accessing high quality content and links.

For all the skeptics, Google does appear to have billions of Facebook pages indexed. That being said, many of the Facebook pages that Google has indexed are duplicate content from Wikipedia, Facebook and other sources. In cases where Facebook pages are accessible to Google crawlers, outbound links are almost always password protected, nofollowed, disallowed via robots.txt or links to internal Facebook pages which cannot be crawled. As a result, Google is limited to extracting only external Facebook content and a few social media signals which can easily be spammed.

Google+ is like the internet used to be before social media websites existed and PageRank ruled the land. Google+ Ripples even provides a visual representation of impact factor like data similar to PageRank. PageRank or not, Google+ is a place where human made content and links are accessible to Google. According to Google, Google+ represents the "unification of all of Google's services with a common social air." This "social air" makes Google+ a place where more important websites are still likely to receive more links than less important websites. Google+ is a new "citation graph" where Google can once again crawl human crafted content and links to measure page importance based on people's subjective ideas about importance.

Google+ Spam Prevention:

Even if Google's crawlers could access the highest quality human crafted content and links on social media sites, fake content, reviews and unnatural link spam are of little value to Google. Without access to social media user account data, detecting these types of spam can be difficult.

According to anti-spam software experts, 40% of social media profiles are spam and by 2014 as many as 15% of reviews on social media sites are expected to be fake. In order to help address these issues, on March 1, 2012 Google moved to a single unified privacy policy across all Google properties. With this new level of shared data, Google's Spam & Abuse Team (the same team that handles GMail spam) has the most advanced systems in existence at its disposal to fight spam on Google+. Google+ has been designed to provide Google's Spam & Abuse Team with an almost endless selection of potential spam detection signals.

For example and without going into too much detail, Google accounts that frequently send and receive GMail, participate in Google+ Hangouts, watch YouTube videos and that are associated with an Android phone that moves around town, might be considered legitimate. On the other hand, if several accounts are associated with the same IP address and one is used to spam Blogger with duplicate blog posts authored by an associated account, each account could be considered untrustworthy.

It is difficult say for sure which signals Google is currently using, but with Google+ the potential for future spam signals is nearly unlimited. Spam, ranking manipulation, impersonation, deceptive behavior, fake profiles and adding people to circles too aggressively are all violations of Google+ guidelines.

Google+ Identification:

In order for content to be authoritative and trustworthy, its source must be identifiable. At the same time, spammers usually setup multiple accounts using fictitious identities.

Google CEO and Co-Founder Larry Page has stated "It's really important to know the identity of people so you can share things and comment on things and improve the search ecosystem, you know, as you and as a real person. I think all those things are absolutely crucial. That is why we have worked so hard on Google+, on making it an important part of search."

Google+ was initially developed as an "identity service." The success of Google+ depends on users using their real name. Real names are entities and Google can use entity related data to infer additional information. This type of data can be especially helpful when it comes to returning better search results for queries where expertise is required, and for queries about a specific individual where multiple individuals have the same name.

According to Google, "The internet would be better if we knew you were a real person rather than a dog or a fake person. Some people are just evil and we should be able to ID them and rank them downward." In order to set up a Google+ Profile or Google+ Page for business, Google requires your "common name". In some cases, Google may require an image of the user's drivers license, proof of identification and/or references to verify a user's name as well as his/her identity. For an author's picture to appear in Google search results, Google requires authors to provide a "recognizable headshot" photo. Images like these not only help searchers recognize authors, they can also by used by Google facial recognition software in various ways to help fight spam.

For example, in the near future expect to see Google roll out Google+ custom URLs for a nominal fee, paid by credit card. Because credit card transactions are one method for verifying a users identity, this approach allows Google to verify the identities of multiple users in a short time at scale.

Google believes that, "letting authors verify their name helps increase their credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of their readers." In addition to name verification, Google+ provides tools for identity verification that Google can use to combat various forms of entity authentication fraud.

Google+ User Data:

Google can only collect personal information from users who are willing to provide personal information. According to a former Google employee, "Google could still put ads in front of more people than Facebook, but Facebook knows so much more about those people. Advertisers and publishers cherish this kind of personal information, so much so that they are willing to put the Facebook brand before their own."

Google+ allows Google to ask users for personal information that otherwise could not be collected. Without Google+, Google would have no reason to collect personal data like relationship status, employment, occupation, education or places lived. In addition to collecting direct user data, Google+ collects indirect user data from Google +1 buttons. Google +1 buttons have been widely adopted and are currently embedded within billions of webpages. According to Google, +1s provide contextual value when users are in the market for a particular product. It only stands to reason that +1s also allow Google to collect sentiment related data. Once collected, Google can translate this new gold mine of user data into increased ad revenue through targeted ads for signed in users.

As you can see, Google+ is far more than just another social network!

Google started rolling out Google+ custom vanity URLs to a limited number of verified and pre-approved Google+ accounts last week. According to Google, Google+ custom URLs are a short and easy way to remember web addresses for Google+ profiles and pages. In fact, Google+ vanity URLs are similar to existing profiles.google.com URLs, only shorter. Did you know that when Google+ Custom URLs are activated, in many cases profiles.google.com URLs stop working? Either way, here are a few things you should probably know about Google+ Custom URLs.

Google+ Custom URL: Customization

Believe it or not, Google+ Custom URLs allow for further customization because they can be used along with various Google TLDs and even domain names.


TIP: Unfortunately Google+ custom URLs are not currently accessible via G.co or Goo.gl however, you can probably expect to see a similar but shorter paid service like this in the future.

Google+ Custom URL: Deep Linking

Google+ Custom URLs allow for deep linking to "posts," "about," "photos," "videos" and "plusone" pages by simply adding the page name after the trailing slash in custom URLs.


TIP: even though you can add "posts" as a deep link, that is not be necessary when "posts" are the same as the default page or when "posts" pages specify the default URL as the canonical.

Google+ Custom URL: Speed

Google+ Custom URLs take considerably longer to load than the actual page. When tested with WebPageTest.org using the default test, my custom URL took more than a second longer to load than the actual page. This issue is caused in part by the multiple redirects put in place by Google. (In fairness however, the default test used by WebPageTest.org originates from Dulles, VA using IE 8 via DSL.)

TIP: Technically capitalization does not matter for Google+ Custom URLs. At the same time, not capitalizing first letters in names of profile page URLs often results in the need for an additional redirect which slows page load speed even more.

Google+ Custom URL: Canonicals & Duplicate Content

Google+ custom URLs are short, easy to post, more recognizable to users and search friendly in some ways but not others. With Google+ custom URLs there is little need to worry about canonicalization, duplicate content or custom URL content appearing in organic search results. Behind the scenes, Google is using a series of 301 and 302 redirects in conjunction with the rel=canonical attribute to help ensure that preferred content and vanity URLs both appear in organic search results. The down side for PageRank fans, usually 302 redirects do not pass PageRank or link equity signals. That said, Google can treat on-site 302 redirects as 301s if it chooses.

Google+ Custom URL: Process

Google pre-assigns one unique and individual custom URL per user or organizations. Custom URLs should reflect real names and must be 6 characters long or more. Even though it is possible to appeal Google's pre-assigned custom URL, not everyone is currently eligible for this service. Currently you can only claim Google+ custom URLs via a desktop computer. Mobile devices and pads are not supported.

Google+ Custom URL: Invites

In order to claim a free custom URL for Google+, users and business accounts must be verified and enabled for this service by Google. Currently there is no way to enable custom URLs manually. As a result, there is no way to request an invite for Google+ Custom URLs and no way to invite others. Google will be rolling out Google+ custom vanity URLs over the next few weeks and months. For now, checking your Google+ profile regularly and monitoring your email for an invite are about all you can do. Either way, GOOD LUCK and please be sure to follow Google.com/+BrianUssery

Search engines have focused on simply "matching keywords to queries" for years. This approach is slightly problematic however, because it disassociates keyword meanings for multiple keyword queries. For example, search engines might interpret the query [Paris Hilton] (a proper noun and named entity) as simply a request for instances where the words "hilton" and "paris" appear within a page. With a large enough set of data, fortunately it is possible to make statistical inferences about the intent of a user's query. As a result, Google has relied on statistical inference for uncertain data queries like [Paris Hilton] and [b&b ab] (bed & breakfast in Alberta) for years.

In 2010 Google purchased Metaweb Technologies, Inc. which was the company behind Freebase. Freebase was/is an "open, shared database of the world's knowledge". Before being acquired by Google, Metaweb was in the process of identifying millions of "entities and mapping out how they're related" via Freebase. In addition to entity mapping, Freebase also looks at what words other sites use to refer to entities. In May 2012 Google launched "Knowledge Graph," a “graph” which is built in part on Freebase. According to Google, Knowledge Graph can "understand real-world entities and their relationships to one another." Google hopes Knowledge Graph will improve search results and provide more immediate answers to user's questions in search results pages.

The concept behind Freebase and Google's use of graphed entities is pretty interesting but, I would like to know more about what is really going on under the hood of Google Knowledge Graph. Since Knowledge Graph launched, I have spent hours trying to break it, find bugs, discover issues and/or to identify abnormalities. Remarkably I must say, until last week I had found very little. Then as they say, "it happened!" Last Thursday, while looking for a good example of Google Knowledge Graph results to use in a presentation, I got the search result below.

SERP for Matt Cutts


Suddenly it dawned on me, Matt did not go to UNC Law School!


Matt Cutts SERP

I clicked on "University of North Carolina School of Law" in Matt's Google's Knowledge Graph result under his bio from Wikipedia but, it returned search results for another entity [university of north carolina at chapel hill]. From that result, I searched for [unc] and was returned this result.

Just to be sure what I was seeing was correct, I deleted all cookies, signed out of Google and restarted my browser. After refreshing all of my settings, I searched for [unc founded] and was returned this search result.

At that point, I realized UNC's founding date even seemed off? I checked and according to the University of North Carolina Planning Department, UNC was founded in 1793 not 1789. To be sure this was not the date UNC's Law School was founded, I checked the UNC School of Law website. According to the site, the first law professor did not arrive at UNC until 1845. Then went back and checked Wikipedia's page for UNC and it did not contain any text being displayed in Google's Knowledge Graph search results either.

With the suspected smoking gun already in hand, I went to Freebase.com and searched for [UNC]. You guessed it, Freebase.com's first result for [UNC] was exactly what had appeared in Knowledge Graph results "University of North Carolina School of Law". It turns out Matt is not alone, all UNC graduates listed in Freebase.com are listed as UNC School of Law graduates even if they did not attend the UNC School of Law. At that point it was clear, Google Knowledge Graph "thinks" UNC and UNC's School of Law are a the same or a single entity because that is what Freebase.com is "telling" Google Knowledge Graph.

Because Freebase data appears in Google Knowledge Graph search results and Google's main search results this issue also means results for 100+ notable figures are potentially incorrect. For instance, according to Google Knowledge Graph results US President James K Polk graduated from UNC's School of Law but UNC's School of Law was founded when he was already in office.

Knowledge Graph Results for James K Polk

In addition to Matt Cutts and President Polk, search results for [Michael Jordan college] in Google's main search results are also incorrect due to this issue.

Knowledge Graph Results for Michael Jordan

Other UNC School of Law alumni according to Freebase and potentially Google Knowledge Graph, include Alge Crumpler, Lawrence Taylor, Andy Griffith, Rick Dees, Roger Mudd, Vince Carter, Jerry Stackhouse and even Thomas Layton, the former CEO of Metaweb.

This issue is potentially due at least in part to the fact that only a shell page for UNC (UNC being the parent University of UNC Law School) existed in Freebase.com until yesterday. To hopefully help improve the quality of Google Knowledge Graph results, I added an image, description, UNC's correct founding date and other information from UNC.edu to UNC's Freebase page yesterday.

With fingers crossed that Matt's wild and crazy UNC Law School days are not his best kept secret, that my site won't vanish from Google tomorrow and that the US Secret Service won't show up at my door, I removed "Law School" from both Matt's and President Polk's profiles in Freebase. As a result, Matt Cutts and President Polk are now the only non-Law School students / graduates in UNC's Freebase page. It will be interesting to see how long these changes take to appear in Google's Knowledge Graph search results.

Google Knowledge Graph is really interesting and seems to be working pretty well despite a few bugs. This is yet another edge case but a situation you should know about. Instances where different entities have the same or similar names are problematic. Instances were multiple keywords are similar to multiple keyword entities are also problematic. Google may already be using Knowledge Graph data based on Freebase.com to determine whether on not content falls in or out of scope. For all of these reasons and others, it is important to ensure you keep an eye on Knowledge Graph results that relate to you. If you notice issues, click on "feedback" just below Knowledge Graph results on the right hand site of Google search results pages.