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

Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#101

Post by chris_va »

greglindahl wrote: post #74
vorpalhex wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all websites fall into one of two categories: fast or slow, and you penalize one, it's the same as helping the other and vice versa.

The world isn't that simple. Search engines know how fast their fetches are all of the time, but they only know how fast a javascript-heavy site is when the search engine crawls with javascript on -- which is rarely. And by construction, AMP pages are easy to analyze without having to execute anything.

You perhaps underestimate the complexity and fidelity of the Google crawl, indexing, and ranking pipeline. Many intelligent people have spent many years trying to solve the sorts of problems you describe.

(disclaimer: I work at Google, and used to work on Search)

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#102

Post by apeace »

The core argument of this article is flawed. AMP does not break normal links--although the Google search engine sort of does.

As an example of using AMP with normal links, see Cloudflare's implementation[0]. It is possible for many CDN-like services to implement AMP caches. Web sites link to each other normally, and mobile visitors can be served the AMP version.

Remember that AMP is an open standard and accepting pull requests[1].

> Who (other than Google) can possibly see this as a good thing?

Users want faster pages. From all these AMP critics, I have never heard an alternate solution, or even an idea, of how we can streamline delivery of article content.

AMP is imperfect. But it is a step in the right direction _for users_. Critics need to step up with a better idea, or maybe some code, and quit with the (in this case, unfounded) rhetoric.

[0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/

[1] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#103

Post by bartread »

mark242 wrote: post #34
interfacesketch wrote: post #20

Do 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…

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…

^^^And THAT RIGHT THERE is why I load the asynchronous Adsense script at the very bottom of my pages, after everything else, and why I load my core JavaScript synchronously, just before that, so it can schedule key tasks before getting swamped with third party guff.

I mean, sure, Adsense loads asynchronously and Google claims it won't slow your page loads, but once it starts loading advertising assets and scripts it's the Wild West. Some - not all, by any means, but some - of those third party scripts are extremely badly behaved and, yes, they do measurably slow your page load down.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#104

Post by greglindahl »

chris_va wrote: post #101
greglindahl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world isn't that simple. Search engines know how fast their fetches are all of the time, but they only know how fast a javascript-heavy site is when the search engine crawls with javascript on -- which is rarely. And by construction, AMP pages are easy to analyze without having to execute anything.

You perhaps underestimate the complexity and fidelity of the Google crawl, indexing, and ranking pipeline. Many intelligent people have spent many years trying to solve the sorts of problems you describe. (disclaimer: I work at Google, and used to work on Search)

I totally get that Google has done a lot of work on these issues. It is still the case that no website that wants good ranks should depend on Google executing their javascript. Implementing AMP, on the other hand, means that you know you're going to get a good mobile speed score.

In no way was I dissing Google's crawl or crawl team. I'm just handing out conservative advice for website owners.

(disclaimer: blekko Founder/CTO. Nice to meet you.)

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#105

Post by dgfgfdagasdfgfa »

mark242 wrote: post #34
interfacesketch wrote: post #20

Do 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…

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…

Okay, but let's be realistic—this absolutely ruins any online experience. AMP just ads another layer of suck over an already sucky experience.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#106

Post by wmf »

apeace wrote: post #102

The core argument of this article is flawed. AMP does not break normal links--although the Google search engine sort of does. As an example of using AMP with normal links, see Cloudflare's implementation[0]. It is possible for many CDN-like services to implement AMP caches. Web sites link to each other normally, and mobile visitors can be served the AMP version. Remember that AMP is an open standard and accepting pul…

I can't wait for the "remove the AMP cache concept" pull request.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#107

Post by bartread »

wffurr wrote: post #63
mort96 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you have never wanted to link someone to an AMP page. You also somehow didn't notice that there's a huge useless bar at the top of the page.

Just for giggles, I hit "copy link" in the Chrome Webview that the Android Google Search App opened up. Pasted that into Android Chrome, and it took me straight the AMP page, which loaded instantly and let me scroll right away. Seems fine. I then went to my desktop, used the Chrome history feature to open the tab from my mobile, and the AMP URL redirected me to the publisher's desktop site, which took multiple second…

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

I don't much like the idea of AMP because, to me, it does violate the idea of an open and free world wide web. But, equally, publishers have brought this on themselves. (And I suppose, equally, it isn't the halcyon days of the mid 1990s any more either.)

Sites are egregiously slow and heavyweight, and the experience on mobile is often nothing short of appalling with actual content when it eventually loads relegated below the fold, or near the bottom of the screen. You then have to find a way to scroll without accidentally triggering an ad and once you've done this you're likely to be confronted with one of those delayed interstitials that are so in vogue (and so completely unacceptable) at the moment.

From this perspective AMP is kind of a backdoor to holding large media outlets (in particular) to account for the inexcusably poor web experience they offer to users. Because this isn't a technology limitation: it's a choice they make in the name of monetization.

Rant over.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#108

Post by cramforce »

elsewhen wrote: post #73
vorpalhex wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

google could have opted to create a standard that matches the amp standard, but not host the pages, and not put a "X" bar at the top, and not create new urls. they could have put the lightning icon on the serps next to all pages that are fully compliant with the standard. the difference in speed between google-hosted amp and what i suggest above would be minimal. the reason google didnt do it this way is because amp…

Google could have, indeed. We were aiming at instant loading, though, and for instant loading we needed to do pre-rendering, and the only known way to do that does not allow for changing the origin (has to stay https://www.google.com).

We are working on a few ways how to both make access to the base URL easier and how to eventually even get the right URL in place.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#109

Post by cramforce »

prebrov wrote: post #98
Zikes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bing also includes AMP in their search results: http://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-t... AMP is a standard for creating fast / jank-free web sites, which all search engines can implement freely. Google is spearheading the effort because nobody else did, but they're not monopolizing it. Everyone is free to contribute.

Afaik, AMP is solely driven and developed by Google engineers, both standard and implementation. Everyone is free to follow, but they don't accept contributions. That is monopolising.

It is not true that AMP does not accept contributions. What is your data to back that up?

Here is actual data: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/graphs/contributors AMP currently has 275 contributors (people whose code was merged) on its open source project. Lets aim high and say 50 of them work for Google (probably a bit less), that leaves about 225 other contributors.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#110

Post by CaptSpify »

headcanon wrote: post #30
interfacesketch wrote: post #20

Do 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…

We're not talking about developer/technical blogs, which are generally very lightweight, and the person making it likely takes pride in things like efficiency. Your typical content publishing platform on the other hand, is a giant mess of wordpress plugins, tracking, ads, and scripts that pull in other scripts that pull in other scripts. Is it efficient from a technical perspective? No, but it gets the job done for t…

The problem is that their framework is too big and bloated. Your suggestion is to have them add another layer on top of that, rather than remove the bloat?
Post reply on HN