diff --git a/src/content/en/2025/performance.md b/src/content/en/2025/performance.md
index 00d80be6553..096949e5802 100644
--- a/src/content/en/2025/performance.md
+++ b/src/content/en/2025/performance.md
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ The Chrome team [recommends avoiding `unload`](https://developer.chrome.com/docs
   )
 }}
 
-It is interesting to see that unload handler usage decreases consistently as the site rank increases. Among higher-traffic websites (top 1,000 sites), unload handlers are present on 28% of desktop pages and 20% of mobile pages, and this share declines steadily across lower-ranked sites, reaching 11% on desktop and 10% on mobile. At every rank, desktop pages exhibit higher unload handler usage than mobile, suggesting that unload handlers remain more common on larger, more complex sites than across the long tail of the web. Possibly due to top sites relying more heavily on analytics, advertising, and legacy lifecycle patterns that register unload handlers.
+It is interesting to see that unload handler usage decreases consistently as site popularity decreases. Among higher-traffic websites (top 1,000 sites), unload handlers are present on 28% of desktop pages and 20% of mobile pages, and this share declines steadily across lower-ranked sites, reaching 11% on desktop and 10% on mobile. At every rank, desktop pages exhibit higher unload handler usage than mobile, suggesting that unload handlers remain more common on larger, more complex sites than across the long tail of the web. Possibly due to top sites relying more heavily on analytics, advertising, and legacy lifecycle patterns that register unload handlers.
 
 Another common reason for websites to fall in the bfcache ineligibility category is the use of the `Cache-Control: no-store` directive. This cache control header instructs the browser (and any intermediate caches) not to store a copy of the resource, ensuring that the content is fetched from the server on every request.