Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 247 posts

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#141

Post by fixermark »

tracker1 wrote: post #131
bsimpson wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If browsers detected AMP pages and treated the address bar accordingly: Cached from: nbcnews.com/some-article Would you feel better about it?

I would love that.. beyond that, a link that says "go to " for that article, or some such, that would help too. I have mixed feelings about it myself, as it isn't always obvious you're seeing content from website.com not google.

That link is often provided by the content providers (check bottom of page or under a dropdown menu).

It's annoying that its location isn't standardized.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#142

Post by fixermark »

angry-hacker wrote: post #109
tiffanyh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case your not aware, since 2010 Google has in fact PageRanked higher faster web sites. https://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-actually-impacts-sear...

Which is exactly the point. Use it as a stronger signal and case closed. Web will change the way they want. Always. Right now they want to change it to their walled garden.

If they've been using it for six years, and it hasn't improved things, what makes you think using it as a stronger signal will (a) actually improve things, (b) not make it trivial to game SEO?

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#143

Post by fixermark »

liquidise wrote: post #69
maverick_iceman wrote: post #25

I think HN crowd doesn't fully appreciate the benefits of AMP to people having slow connections. In third world countries still on 2G networks AMP has been an absolute boon. Additionally, lot of these users have limited data packs so they're better served by pages which are light in data consumption. This is true even for a lot of low income neighborhoods in the US. Making AMP opt-in would defeat the purpose as a lot…

I think you are missing the disagreements with AMP entirely. Google, with less effort, could have released a series of requirements for a page to be considered "AMP"ed: (examples) 0 blocking script requests, less than 500KB in total page load, page loads in under 1s, etc. Once your pages meet these requirements, they gain the AMP moniker. Instead, google built an entirely new presentation method itself. This engineer…

What you're describing has already been done.

https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/

https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/

It didn't work.

And given that the solution to Google "stealing" a site's AMP traffic is that site just stops supporting AMP, the "stealing" argument doesn't hold a lot of water. If I'm a small publisher, Google caches taking page hits on popular topics instead of my server is a boon, not a hindrance.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#144

Post by brainfire »

asdfologist wrote: post #125
zorked wrote: post #47

Contrarian view: I love AMP and I find myself clicking AMP links far more often because I can get the information I want much faster. And this is on LTE. AMP should be supported by CDNs and toggleable in the browsers though.

I thought I'm the only one. It's really fast and easy to use. I don't understand all the hate here.

Site operators are mad that they can't ruin our experience as thoroughly any more.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#145

Post by gcb0 »

fixermark wrote: post #136
franze wrote: post #95

I implemented AMP on my own project and we implemented it at some clients ... all regret it. The bounce rate, time on site, average page views of AMP pages is always worse than on the responsive version. And as we now have responsive webpages + an AMP version to maintain the overall project costs got higher. Additional the AMP pages are already falling behind as devs and management just hate them. And outside of the…

Question: Why do you not then just switch off the AMP support and stick with responsive pages? It sounds like you just generated an A/B test with some pretty easy-to-interpret results.

because nobody used amp because they assumed it was a good idea. it's 100% because google gives better seo position if you use it.

so no test needed to know it's garbage. everyone already knew.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#146

Post by fixermark »

tracker1 wrote: post #134
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but Google can offer tooling and best practices to push people in a certain way, like they do with everything. The best way to encourage people to move to new technology on their own is to change the search algorithms to provide positive incentives to implement those changes. Look at SSL. A lot of people don't care about encryption, but they care about SEO improvements more. Google's AMP policy has been aggress…

They could easily heavily penalize any website delivering over 1mb of html + css + js, and have a bonus for being under 500/100/50kb total as part of their pagerank. That would be a huge driver... if nobody with over 1mb of html+css+js would be in the top 5 results, period.

What you've described would be a pretty game-able SEO algorithm.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#147

Post by bryanrasmussen »

tiffanyh wrote: post #42

There's a lot of hate going on in this thread towards Google ... maybe unfairly. Keep in mind, a huge reason why Google created AMP is because website bloat has gotten out of control. It's not uncommon for a simply Wordpress blog to be 4MB in size and have 70 requested objects to fetch. I live in a geography that has LTE and web site are painfully slow to load on mobile devices. I can't even imagine what the Internet…

well then they could have announced that they were going to aggressively penalize sites that were too bloated and SEO would take of the rest.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#148

Post by fixermark »

claudius wrote: post #35
CameronBanga wrote: post #18

AMP is breaking the web, and while it offers great speed, I think the consequences of breaking and hijacking all urls greatly outweighs the advantages. Really can't be in favor of it until those issues are fixed.

AMP offers no more or less speed than standard HTML. Even on a slow connection, the majority of that slowness is due to the last mile, not because it takes a long time to get data from Europe to Australia. It really is only about getting yet another way to collect data on users and push ads down their throats.

AMP addresses the last-mile concern by constraining the content of the page to mitigate both low-bandwidth connections and low-power rendering agents.

Have you used it? Even on a Nexus 5x running on fast wifi, the difference between loading a Washington Post site from AMP and from washingtonpost.com is tangible.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#150

Post by fixermark »

MBCook wrote: post #59
adtac wrote: post #26

To everyone who's against AMP - try opening any article on an extremely slow 2G connection when you're travelling and try the same with AMP. The difference is night and day. You may be against some principles, but it's an absolute life-saver sometimes.

Hacker News loads very fast without AMP. Daring Fireball loads very fast without AMP. Lots of sites do. That's up to the people making the sites to fix. He's the thing: I CAN'T OPT OUT. If I don't like it or don't want it my only option is to ditch Google.

You're not claiming the solution to the slow web is that every website should look like HN or Daring Fireball, are you?
Post reply on HN