Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
1–10 of 204 posts
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#2So basically this guy says all of the issues are by design and you can choose not to use amp if you don't like all of it. Google isn't going to penalize non amp pages in search ranking. They are just going to not show your page in the carousel.
I think it's a pretty fair position to take. If you don't like amp don't use it. We'll see if amp catches on over a period of time.
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#3This is a good response and I appreciate Malte's effort to engage publishers, but it doesn't calm my nerves about the biggest publisher complaint about AMP:
Google owns the chrome (top navigation) on all AMP pages. This makes it easy to navigate back to Google (why would you ever want to leave?) and other publishers in the AMP ecosystem, but much harder to navigate to the publisher that created the page in the first place
In essence, this means that what was once a publisher-owned page is now shared property: between the Google and the publisher. By controlling the top navigation, Google more easily controls the content the visitor sees, keeps visitors on Google longer, provides greater opportunity to track visitors, and perhaps most importantly has the opportunity to earn more ad revenue.
Now imagine if this was a requirement for ALL pages served in Google search results. You publish a page and it appears in Google, but when the user clicks on it Google has pasted a new navigation on the top of your page. This is exactly what is happening with AMP.
This is especially troubling in light of all the anti-trust controversies Google is finding itself in, both in the US and abroad. A recent study showed that 49% of all Google clicks go to Google properties of one kind or another (Maps, YouTube, Ads, etc) http://www.slideshare.net/randfish/intro-to-mozcon-2016/24-L...
Does AMP count as another Google property that will push more than 49% of clicks their way? Hard to say, but it's a disturbing trend for a monopoly and a hard pill for publishers to swallow.
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#4So basically this guy says all of the issues are by design and you can choose not to use amp if you don't like all of it. Google isn't going to penalize non amp pages in search ranking. They are just going to not show your page in the carousel. I think it's a pretty fair position to take. If you don't like amp don't use it. We'll see if amp catches on over a period of time.
Yes, accept our platform, design choices, and navigation framing or we won't put you in a competitive position with other search results. While AMP isn't a ranking factor (Google has stated this) AMP results are displayed more prominently. Arm twisting at it's finest.
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#5Previous HN comments on the original story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12722590
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#6Yeah, I was quite surprised how positive a reaction the original complaint got, considering it was long-winded, repetitive, and seemed to go out of its way to misunderstand AMP.
The only valid criticism appears to be how google displays search results using its own URL and this toolbar – it seems to break rather fundamental assumption about http and has the potential to break all sorts of tools that rely on the established structure of the web and open standards, as has already happened with the refer(r)er as mentioned in this response.
I wonder if there's a way to get the same result without rehosting content on their own URL. Couldn't they allow publishers to achieve the same result with a CNAME, possibly for amp..? And do the google servers add anything beyond being distributed caches? Because if not, it seems this level of indirection is redundant for websites already hosted on CDNs.
Regarding the toolbar: yeah, that's a terrible idea. I have no sympathy for publishers who object to it because if it reduces your retention rates there's probably more wrong with the content than the presentation. But as a user, it's the sort of "assisted browsing" that feels intrusive, like resizing the window or a "you need flash" popup (I don't).
Considering their market share in browsers isn't far behind the in search, I wonder why that function isn't just a chrome feature. Funny thing is: it's a feature that exists in Safari ("Search results snapback").
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#7He avoids really hard addressing the only bit that matters
> Guess what happens when the "close" button is clicked inside the AMP view?
And the amount of disingenuous on this just rubs me the wrong way:
> If you are not comfortable with traffic on your AMP pages, please do not publish AMP pages.
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#8So if I built my own personal ad network, I could make a PR and have it be accepted?
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#9As a user I've learned to avoid AMP pages because the UX is horrible:
* back button is broken 1/2 the time
* the bar wastes 1/3 of my screen
* I can no longer see what site I am on in the url
* it's hard to navigate to the / of the site
* I can't forward the link
* being on a good network in US it solves no problem that I have
What I'd really like to see is a way to opt-out of seeing AMP'ed pages in my search results. Or at least a way to navigate from AMP page to its native version.
Further, I noticed that AMP is a signal for low quality content. I am guessing sophisticated publishers are conservative enough to wait and see. And individuals haven't bothered dealing with it. So you get low-end publishers in between.
Re: Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”
#10So basically this guy says all of the issues are by design and you can choose not to use amp if you don't like all of it. Google isn't going to penalize non amp pages in search ranking. They are just going to not show your page in the carousel. I think it's a pretty fair position to take. If you don't like amp don't use it. We'll see if amp catches on over a period of time.
"Gosh, I mean, you have a right to sell oil, sure, but maybe if you play by our rules, you'll have an easier time shipping it on the rail networks we own." It's plainly Standard Oil-style monopoly behavior from Google here.