51–60 of 204 posts
This 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the user coming from a search engine is most likely to want to navigate back to Google than to stay on the page. It might not be benevolent but it is an improvement to the user experience of most people.
Why? The whole purpose of a search engine is to bring you to the result site, not to search forever.
He 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 If you are not comfortable with traffic on your AMP pages, please do not publish AMP pages.
Happy to address the close button: You are on a search page, you go on layer deep by clicking. The close button goes back. I don't see what else it should do. Mind you that I do understand that a link to the origin server would be a good improvement (and I've stated that in the post). I'm not sure what you find disingenuous. AMP are just web pages saying "HEY I A AMP, please use treat me as AMP". You can publish the…
I guess I could use AMP but intentionally break my page's validation so it wouldn't be cached, but then I wouldn't get the special flag on SERPs, which effectively penalizes non-AMP sites.
Yeah, 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 estab…
Since Google search is most likely discovering the AMP page via the tag, they really should just use that URL. The Google servers do add a couple minor things beyond being a distributed cache though. First, there's swipe navigation to other articles if the link was located in the top carousel in search results. Second, if you are on a laptop, the Google servers will redirect you to the full version rather than use the AMP cache.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you agree that the completely standards compliant, well-understood-by-users back button already replicates that behavior perfectly? Why does the close button have to have a different icon for the exact same purpose, if not to deceive?
Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.
I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.
He 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.
Happy to address the close button: You are on a search page, you go on layer deep by clicking. The close button goes back. I don't see what else it should do. Mind you that I do understand that a link to the origin server would be a good improvement (and I've stated that in the post). I'm not sure what you find disingenuous. AMP are just web pages saying "HEY I A AMP, please use treat me as AMP". You can publish the…
No. Just no. The back button goes back. Period.
The close button closes modal windows overlaying the original page and originating from the same site.
I can already hear you countering "But.. since the content is served from google.com due to caching, this pattern is technically correct".
Which is tantamount to saying "We serve the content. So we can add whatever the heck we want"
Very frigging clever Google. Well done. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy to address the close button: You are on a search page, you go on layer deep by clicking. The close button goes back. I don't see what else it should do. Mind you that I do understand that a link to the origin server would be a good improvement (and I've stated that in the post). I'm not sure what you find disingenuous. AMP are just web pages saying "HEY I A AMP, please use treat me as AMP". You can publish the…
Why can't I use AMP but opt out of the AMP Cache? Seems strange that I have to choose between AMP and actually receiving my own traffic. I guess I could use AMP but intentionally break my page's validation so it wouldn't be cached, but then I wouldn't get the special flag on SERPs, which effectively penalizes non-AMP sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy to address the close button: You are on a search page, you go on layer deep by clicking. The close button goes back. I don't see what else it should do. Mind you that I do understand that a link to the origin server would be a good improvement (and I've stated that in the post). I'm not sure what you find disingenuous. AMP are just web pages saying "HEY I A AMP, please use treat me as AMP". You can publish the…
>The close button goes back. No. Just no. The back button goes back. Period. The close button closes modal windows overlaying the original page and originating from the same site. I can already hear you countering " But.. since the content is served from google.com due to caching, this pattern is technically correct ". Which is tantamount to saying "We serve the content. So we can add whatever the heck we want" Very…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.
The banner is needed to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe (to enable pre-rendering). Our native apps do not have this constraint and thus don't have the extra bar. I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.
This 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…
What makes it hard? People click on links to navigate around the publisher's web site, and you can still have links in the AMP landing page.