Seeing analytics built into AMP makes me laugh. Does that not go against producing the most enjoyable user experience possible?
Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
221–230 of 261 posts
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure Google has no legal obligation to send the traffic to the site, but it is still sort of dishonest. Google convices people to install AMP under the premise that it will help them. Instead, it just allows Google to monetize other people's content, at the expense of the creator. It's hypocrital to bill AMP as an improved mobile experience, while sticking a big button at the top. Also hypocritical to penalize sites…
Well, it does help them -- it promotes their content ahead of those without AMP, and it still allows ads to be served from an approved ad network of the author's choosing [1]. As I wrote before, it's "more of a mutually-consented handholding with small amounts of arm-twisting" [2]. [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12299230
It helps just as much as paying the mafia guys for "protection" helps the shopkeeper.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
but does this work with AMP pages that restrict the javascript?
AMP is "HTML with some restrictions". Speaks nothing of HTTP (otherwise they could've done the right thing and added a "text/html;amp=1" content-type). In theory this should still work: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-... But I doubt that Google's AMP cache will respect existing headers (the very nature of the cache stuff means that they won't, but what they will do to non-cache headers on…
a quick look at an amp page (from google's cache) shows it's being served with x-frame-options:SAMEORIGIN, so looks like the linkis thing won't work with them.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#224"I hope I am not being too hard on Google." -- no, the author is being very, very nice. Google has a strong business interest in users never going to other sites. Between AMP & voice search, the future is going to be very rough for businesses that rely on free search traffic. In practical business terms I would strongly suggest website owners build ultra-light versions of their sites. If you have international aspira…
How do you suggest publishers who are dependent on traffic from Google cope with AMP in the short-term? It seems like there is no way to compete with AMP-enabled content on Google ranking except by adopting AMP.
Stop using amp and find other ways to optimize and minifity their websites for mobile? Foundation has the ability to include only the components you want if you build it using SASS and by including/minifiying the individual Javascript files during your build process.
The more I look at AMP the more I absolutely hate it. This is just another thing to make me not want to use it.
If Google points to a site, they should serve your site. If they're serving from cache, put in a DMCA and tell them hands off your content.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think if you're running a business there's any way to avoid optimizing for Google in the short-term. You simply have to do it, if you want to be seen. Not optimizing for Google won't hurt Google, it'll just hurt you. Because Google can always just promote someone else. But you should also support antitrust legislation and judicial action against Google. Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large don…
As an outsider observing the US election the statement of yours "Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google" strikes me as ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, your logic is correct. But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda. The real solution is to vote fo…
> But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda.
This is funny considering you think "donations" from Google don't have an agenda.
Lets call it what they are without double speak - a fucking bribe.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?
You can get some pretty good images out of almost any image editing software, even GIMP. First, know which format to use, and size your image appropriately. For JPEGs: use chroma downsampling, and don't go above 80% quality unless absolutely necessary. If your software has a preview function, use it. Encode with MozJPEG if you can. For PNGs: compress the hell out of them. There's several tools that can compress them…
Save For Web is a useful plugin for GIMP to this end.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#227AMP in general is rather gimmick and scam. Just normal regular HTML stripped from third party tracking JS--dozen of megabytes--provides pages of the same size. It's only a matter of clean code to make a page mobile friendly.
Introducing yet another additional markup format to serve mobile sites with the only purpose for Google to compete better with Facebook is excessive and additional dev overhead. But it favours Google's interests and Google basically blackmails content providers locking search availability to only those who obey. And additionally it gives Google excuse to serve pages via own domain with backlinking.
There should be just common practices for mobile code simplicity and not another new markup.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, when Congress moves to increase the salary of Congress, the bill tends to pass with flying colors. ;) Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by…
> Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. While the electorate is bickering over distractions like this cycle you are correct. However, limiting special interest influence strikes me as a non-partisan issue, so if the citizens spoke up I think they'd have sufficient influence.. But, then maybe I'm being an idealist. Regardless, your short…
The problem is, it's a non-partisan issue in that almost all our representatives, regardless of political party, are totally comfortable with it. ;) And the reason we're uncomfortable with special interest influence is... that it absolutely freaking works. The power money has on election results is so strong, that almost anyone who isn't accepting it probably isn't getting elected. So the likelihood of gaining a majority of Congresspeople who would move against it is pretty much impossible.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#229AMP in general is rather gimmick and scam. Just normal regular HTML stripped from third party tracking JS--dozen of megabytes--provides pages of the same size. It's only a matter of clean code to make a page mobile friendly. Introducing yet another additional markup format to serve mobile sites with the only purpose for Google to compete better with Facebook is excessive and additional dev overhead. But it favours Go…
I wish they would kill it, personally. It makes sites feel and act weird different.
Re: Google May Be Stealing Mobile Traffic
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I look at a website its shocking how no one even does basic image optimisation using PS on the images. This is such a trivial optimisation it makes you wonder about the level of competency of the average web development company.
Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?
If you are using a Mac I recommend this little known gem: Graphic Converter. It supports hundreds of image formats. First used it on System 7, such a long time ago! It has of course been ported to MacOS X / OS X / macOS.