When Google, Amazon, Walmart, and CDK publish detailed studies showing how even small gains in speed impact conversions, bounce rates, crawl budgets, and revenue, I think it’s worth paying attention.
Yeah, but Google/Amazon/Walmart are MASSIVE sites with millions of pages. Car dealership sites are a completely different animal. If amazon says a 1/2 second of saved load time = 20% more conversions, that ONLY applies to Amazon, not to every site online... that's what i meant when I said those metrics were garbage (not that site speed is garbage)
I definitely see what you’re saying. And I agree that Amazon and Google operate at a different scale than a single-location dealership.
That said, the reason I lean on those examples is because they’ve tested this stuff at the deepest levels and the
principles apply even if the exact percentages don’t translate one-to-one. And it’s not just them:
- Google found that 53% of visits are abandoned if a site takes more than 3 seconds to load.
- SurgeMetrix and Cox Automotive crawled 9,800 dealership websites and found that cutting load time from 8s to 3.8s increased sessions by 1,000/month and added 30+ leads/month.
- AutoJini reported that a 1s delay reduces conversions by 7%.
- Dealer Marketing Magazine says simply optimizing for Google Lighthouse can drive 30 more organic leads/month.
- AutoSweet said reducing load time from 4s to 2s led to 200 extra form fills/month.
So while Amazon’s scale is different, the underlying concept of
faster pages reduce friction, increase engagement, and drive more conversions seems to be absolutely true for dealership sites.
Also,
Google has confirmed that speed is a direct
ranking signal for mobile and desktop, and Core Web Vitals (LCP, FID, CLS) are all part of the algorithm. I’ve personally seen local businesses improve rankings significantly after passing these metrics.
And I’m not obsessing over a score for vanity, I’m optimizing for better indexing, smoother UX, and more engagement. Because as Google, Cox Automotive, and multiple case studies show:
speed influences visibility, leads, and sales and that’s too important to ignore.
and again - speed doesn't influence ranking UNLESS you're in about the bottom 20% of sites in your vertical... and speed doesn't influence crawl rate on a site as small as a dealership. and it won't affect bounce rate unless it's really bad (and bounce rate is a garbage metric anyway). It *IS* important for user experience - so instead of concentrating on coding to achieve a good score on an arbitrary tool that means nothing, concentrate on the user experience. That's all I'm saying...
I completely agree that user experience is critical in fact, I’d say page speed is user experience.
If Google says Core Web Vitals are direct ranking signals, and gives us a tool like Lighthouse to measure them, it’s hard for me to see how optimizing for those metrics isn’t in the best interest of the client.
And it's not just about a score it's about what that score reflects:
- Page load speed affects bounce rate and session duration, both of which feed into Google's engagement signals.
- Google has a crawl budget and crawl rate, and slower-loading sites (especially those with poor First Contentful Paint or Largest Contentful Paint scores) can end up with fewer pages indexed, even for smaller sites.
- Session drop-off rates increase sharply with every additional second it takes for a page to load, especially on mobile.
When you add that up plus data from companies like Koons Automotive reporting a
1,400% increase in conversions simply by speeding up their site, I just don’t see how speed isn’t at the top of the list.
I totally get that not every stat applies equally across the board, but to me, unless we’ve tested it ourselves and proven it false, it seems smart to
give the dealership every advantage we can starting with what Google and industry leaders are telling us speed matters most.
Out of curiosity have you run any A/B tests or speed studies on dealership sites to see how it plays out?
And the arbitrary tool is Google's tool, that they say they use for ranking!
It's EXTREMELY bad for SEO for your site to get indexed if it's "in development" - I saw at least one person point this out already, it's going to cause all kinds of problems that you're getting indexed when you're not "live" yet - so get your provider to fix that... (any provider should know this, it's a bit scary that they don't)
I hear you and I agree that in many cases, you want to avoid indexing a development site. But I think it depends entirely on the context, and it’s not always “extremely bad.”
Here’s how I’m thinking about it:
- There’s no duplicate content issue, because this domain hasn’t been used before and doesn’t share content with the current live site.
- There are no inbound links yet, so it’s not going to outrank or interfere with the primary site in Google’s results.
- If the site does get indexed, and we later 301 redirect it to the main domain, we’d retain any equity (if there even is any by then) and consolidate that into the live site, which can actually help from an SEO standpoint.
- All the contact info routes to the real business, so there’s no user experience or brand confusion.
That said, I’m still planning to put noindex in place!
However I’d argue the idea that this is “extremely bad” or “scary” is overstating the risk, especially given how controlled the situation is.
What worries me more is the idea of
ignoring page speed or Core Web Vitals when we know those affect visibility, crawlability, user experience, and conversions and we’ve got hard data from Google, Amazon, and the auto industry backing that up.
Still, I appreciate the input I’m always open to learning new angles on things.
for being in the footer "by design" - TONS of research has shown that people don't use footer nav links - plus, Google flat out said that lots of footer nav links are a spam signal.
I have no problem adding the about and contact link to the nave however
let’s be accurate with the facts.
“Tons of research has shown that people don’t use footer nav links”
That’s not entirely accurate. While the
footer shouldn’t be the primary method of navigation, users
do scroll and interact with footer content especially when looking for:
- Contact info
- Hours & location
- Legal/Privacy/Terms links
- Sitemap or secondary navigation
Multiple UX studies (like those from Nielsen Norman Group) show that
users routinely scroll, especially on mobile, and often rely on footers as a trust-building and “last stop” navigational tool.
“Google flat out said that lots of footer nav links are a spam signal”
It depends on how those links are used. Google has flagged
keyword-stuffed, manipulative, or irrelevant links in footers like 50+ exact-match anchor links crammed into the bottom of the page.
But
contextual, helpful footer links especially to pages like
About,
Contact,
Privacy, or even blog archives are totally fine and part of modern UX.
That said, I have
no problem adding “About” and “Contact” to the top navigation if it makes the experience more intuitive for users. I'm just trying to strike a balance between clarity and not overwhelming people with too many options up top especially on mobile.
It's not a modern UX princible - Google looks at your menu as part of your digital pattern. Google actually instructs the Quality Raters to look for an "about us" and a "contact us" page in the main menu of every quality site.
What Google Actually Says in the Quality Rater Guidelines:
Google doesn’t
require "About Us" and "Contact Us" to be in the top navigation.
Instead, their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines say raters should
look for clear and accessible contact information, especially for businesses and merchants.
They go on to say that raters should look for “Contact Us” or “Customer Service” links and
if it's not in the top nav, they should try to find it
elsewhere on the site, like in the footer or corporate page.
- Google doesn't say “must be in the main nav.”
- They say it should be clear and easy to find.
- Footer placement is fine especially when supported by contact info in the header (e.g., phone number, location, etc.).
- Many top-performing sites (Amazon, Walmart, YouTube) follow this exact pattern.
plus, again, look at how your customers will use the site. They're not going to say "wow, this is super clean, but i need to contatct them, so i'll check in the footer for a link" - they just bounce and go to another site that's got a better user experience. So - most important for user experience, but also for SEO - you NEED those links in the main menu
Actually, multiple UX studies (including from Nielsen Norman Group) show that users scroll more than ever especially on mobile and routinely use the footer for navigation, trust signals, and to find company info.
The idea that “users won’t check the footer” simply doesn’t hold up when you look at how
real people behave on modern websites.
In fact, the
biggest and most trusted websites in the world including but not limited to:
- Amazon
- Walmart
- YouTube
- Google
- Facebook
- Instagram
- Twitter
- Reddit
- Netflix
- TikTok
- LinkedIn
…
don’t put ‘About Us’ or ‘Contact’ in their main nav. They all put that information in the footer.
If that UX pattern works for companies with billions of users and some of the most sophisticated testing environments in the world, then it's clearly a
proven convention, not a mistake.
And when so many people are using these sites it causes those people to become a custom to looking for the information in the footer.
And again, you say it's focus and flow - but it's not, it's literally making your site harder to navigate - which is bad for both user experience and SEO.
I get what you’re saying, but that’s not entirely accurate.
Several UX studies including those from the Nielsen Norman Group have shown that too many navigation options can overwhelm users and actually make decision-making harder.
It's the concept of
"choice overload" and it is is well documented in both UX and behavioral psychology.
Most modern UX best practices suggest limiting primary navigation to
five or so main links, especially when designing for conversion-focused pages. It’s not about hiding things it’s about
guiding the user’s attention and reducing cognitive load.
The footer exists to provide additional paths without cluttering the primary nav, which is common practice on major websites and e-commerce platforms.
The goal is to balance
discoverability with
clarity and flow.
And it’s not bad for SEO
in fact, it can be good SEO strategy. By controlling which pages are in the main navigation, you’re able to:
- Concentrate internal link equity (“link juice”) on your most important, high-converting pages
- Reduce crawl waste by preventing bots from endlessly following low-priority links
- Create a more intentional internal linking structure that reflects your business goals
This is why many SEO pros recommend
strategic navigation, not just dumping every possible link in the main menu.
You can still get links to the other page through the content, but the main nav should guide users (and search engines) to your key money pages.
Even Google itself says that a clear, hierarchical site structure helps with indexing and understanding page importance.
If your blog is "to increase traffic" - i'm assuming that means you want it to show in search results and attract customers... but if it's only reachable through a footer link, customers won't find it on the site, which means Google will give it less (or no) value, which means it won't show in search results, which means it never gets traffic. If you're using the blog to help answer customer questions and guide them down the path to purchase, it NEEDS to be in the main menu. otherwise it's wasting your time...
Not at all. The purpose of the blog is to drive traffic
to the site not to serve as a primary navigational element for users already on it.
The blog is built for
external discovery through search engines and backlinks. The goal is to rank individual blog posts for long-tail keywords and earn links from other sites. Once a visitor lands on the blog post, then we guide them deeper into the site through
contextual internal links which are far more effective for SEO than site-wide navigation links.
In fact, Google has stated that
in-content links carry more weight than footer or header links, because they signal editorial relevance and intent.
So yes, we want blog content to rank and attract traffic but no, it doesn’t need to be featured in the main nav to do that. We’re focusing on
strategic content architecture, not cluttered menus.
happy to help with thoughts on the VDPs when you get there, just ping me!
Thanks I really appreciate that!
I’ve had a bit of a family emergency recently that’s slowed things down, but I’m planning to tackle the list page and the VDP page early next week, along with the feedback and changes we’ve discussed. I’ll definitely ping you once those are ready your insights have been super helpful.
