Some baby bear thinking from Katie Sylor-Miller:
my excitement for Core Web Vitals is tempered with a healthy skepticism. I’m not yet convinced that Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), First Input Delay (FID), and Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) are the right metrics that all sites should be measuring themselves against. I worry that the outsized emphasis placed on Core Web Vitals by including them in SEO scoring will result in developers focusing solely on those three numbers without truly understanding what they mean and, more importantly, what they don’t mean.
Katie is pro-Web Core Vitals because of their correlation with real user experiences, but there is a lot more to think about. If we focus only on these metrics (because we have now an extremely strong incentive to do so) we’re missing out on a lot. They may not be the analytics that matter most to us or that correlate with business goals.
The horse’s mouth says the SEO implications don’t start until May 2021.
I admit I’ve been on the hype train myself a little bit. I like all of Katie’s points but I think I’ll still call it a step forward for web analytics. Robin also mentioned Sentry could do the tracking the other day.
Jeremy mentions the proliferation of initials:
Personally, my beef with core web vitals is that they introduce even more uneccessary initialisms (see, for example, Harry’s recent post where he uses CWV metrics like LCP, FID, and CLS—alongside TTFB and SI—to look at PLPs, PDPs, and SRPs. I mean, WTF?).