Can't Google just penalize slower-than-necessary pages in their search results?
Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
81–90 of 169 posts
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#82I love AMP because I can easily tell which sites will actually load fast and give me the info I wanted directly from the search results page. Publishers are still able to track pageviews and serve ads, so I don't get what the hullaballoo is all about here. There's nothing in the AMP spec that stops links from working. I just searched for "Is Google AMP a good thing" on my mobile, and got the OP's post as the first re…
But, you don't actually get to their page. Once you click on an AMP link on Google's SERP, I've found it impossible to actually "open full site" as you might expect to be able to do. It's also annoying to try and share a search result link only to have it be an AMP redirect.
I was able to open full site just fine. There was a CIO.com banner at the top of the page. Tap on it and it took me to their non-AMP homepage.
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you are not a major publisher trying to make money off these pages. Hate to break it to you, but major publishers aren't making any money of the AMP'd version of their pages - most of the monetization is stripped out, and readers aren't even actually on their site so they won't stay and click around.
The spec for amp specifically has an "amp-ad" tag for displaying ads. There are multiple ways they can be shown in an AMP page. The nice thing about AMP ads is they will not cause the page to change layout/flow as they load. I believe a size must be declared for ads to prevent bad behavior. https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad
I didn't say they couldn't show ads, but basic ads aren't the only way that these places monetize. Trackers, 'you might also like' panels, etc all feed in to the overall monetization strategy. A couple of amp-approved ads on an amp-page don't necessarily make up for all that...
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#84Do we really need Instant Articles (Facebook) and AMP (Google) when we can accomplish fast loading pages with plain, uncomplicated HTML and CSS? I feel that many web developers don't realise that simple HTML and CSS is often all you need to make clear, fast loading pages. No complicated tricks or techniques required. You can make the page reasonably pleasant in appearance too. Think of the sites you often visit: news…
You already know they're dang fast :P Version B was noticeably slower for me on desktop, but still 100% okay in my book. Version A was near-instant. My eye caught that the image didn't magically appear fully loaded, but after a split second loading was complete and the page (and layout) look great!
Thanks for trying out these test pages! When I created them, I tried loading them in different locations on my phone. Surprisingly, even in busy city-centre locations (using 3G), the pages weren't always loading instantly - but they were fairly fast, enough to feel usable.
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#85Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#86Do we really need Instant Articles (Facebook) and AMP (Google) when we can accomplish fast loading pages with plain, uncomplicated HTML and CSS? I feel that many web developers don't realise that simple HTML and CSS is often all you need to make clear, fast loading pages. No complicated tricks or techniques required. You can make the page reasonably pleasant in appearance too. Think of the sites you often visit: news…
I mean, really, that's most of AMP: a restriction on a bunch of elements that may slow things down and a bit of special mark up so things can be further accelerated. If most websites actually did load quickly, then I don't think AMP would have a reason to exist. But if most websites can't manage to slim down their bloat, then one potential answer may be to take away some of their toys (and I'm not saying it's the rig…
plus the removal of another dns resolution.
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#87It got annoying enough for me to switch my search to bing.com everywhere, including Google's own browser. My two main complaints: 1. Once I am on AMP page, most of the time I want to click around the site and I cannot do that - feels like a cage. 2. URL obfuscates the site name and article title (not completely, but definitely adds visual noise)
2a) I want to get to the site, not another Google property.
Penalize my search listing all you like, but none of my stuff will be hosted elsewhere.
I thought publishers learned their lessons here - use someone else's printing press, and ultimately, they control what's printed.
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#88I have been suffering with AMP. try to share a link to an article and you current url is an AMP url. if the site didn't make a hard link in the post title, you are gonna have a bad time.
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but let's be realistic-- you are not a major publisher trying to make money off these pages. You can say "yes my page loads in 100k and 300ms until DOMContentLoaded" all you want, that doesn't change the fact that when you slap a couple of pieces of advertising on there, it's going to slow down. To give you an idea-- the New York Times page without any advertising on it is 2MB and has a DOMContentLoaded event at…
> you are not a major publisher trying to make money off these pages. Hate to break it to you, but major publishers aren't making any money of the AMP'd version of their pages - most of the monetization is stripped out, and readers aren't even actually on their site so they won't stay and click around.
As a dev at a major publisher I can confirm that we are making money off these pages, and readers are actually clicking on more recirculation links. The monetization isn't stripped out at all, it's just all sandboxed in iframes.
Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing
#90The reaction to AMP is a perfect example of when the things users/publishers care about differ greatly from developers. Users don't care about being on the publisher's site vs. Google's but do really care that that their low-to-medium end phone from 2014 can load the article in <5 seconds on a slow 3G connection. Publishers care that all of their tracking and ads are working properly.