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

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#121

Post by CaptSpify »

__jal wrote: post #87
mynegation wrote: post #13

It 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.

This is the part that I don't understand. Why are publishers so eager to give away control of their meal-ticket?

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#122

Post by RodericDay »

apeace wrote: post #120
RodericDay wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's the idea: give pages amp ratings purely based on full-load page-speed. amp pages get it, vanilla hackernews gets it too.

IIRC Google already does this. But it doesn't solve the same problem as AMP does. With your solution, site A can load at 2s and site B at 3s, and site A will win. With AMP, sites A and B can both load in 200ms by easily integrating with an open standard. Also: all this talk of "lock-in" and "centralization". With the approach you proposed, the publisher with the most money to spend on dev resources wins the highest s…

really? cause I don't see any discrete indicator that this page loads blazing fast. just rankings.

meanwhile, people itt are claiming that they deliberately seek out the little thunderbolt as proof of quality. why can't the little thunderbolt be awarded to HackerNews too, even outside the AMP ecosystem?

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#124

Post by sametmax »

valarauca1 wrote: post #79
mark242 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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…

page without any advertising on it is 2MB and has a DOMContentLoaded event at 1.29s With advertising, it is 3.9MB and 1.82s This does not support your core argument about ads being the issue. The ads load in 602ms. The page loads in 1290ms The ads are 1.9MB of data The page is 2MB Yes the ads are very heavy. But how are the ads slowing the page down exactly? The page is already INCREDIBLY slow without them. Only ~30%…

+1. What's more, you can choose advertisers according to the size of their ads. And if you are big enough, you can ask them to modify them.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#125

Post by bastawhiz »

dgfgfdagasdfgfa wrote: post #105
mark242 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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…

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

I disagree with that. AMP pages load and work for me without fail. Most non-AMP news sites are unreadable on my phone. Saying it adds a "layer of suck over an already sucky experience" doesn't give AMP nearly enough credit.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#126

Post by bastawhiz »

valarauca1 wrote: post #79
mark242 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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…

page without any advertising on it is 2MB and has a DOMContentLoaded event at 1.29s With advertising, it is 3.9MB and 1.82s This does not support your core argument about ads being the issue. The ads load in 602ms. The page loads in 1290ms The ads are 1.9MB of data The page is 2MB Yes the ads are very heavy. But how are the ads slowing the page down exactly? The page is already INCREDIBLY slow without them. Only ~30%…

I doubt the payload is the problem in most cases. The ads load asynchronously, in most cases, and cause other types of performance issues. When an ad loads and causes your scroll position to be lost, or when the ad takes over the screen and can't be closed, or when you get a malicious ad that starts running JavaScript that starts opening alerts and redirects you, all of these things simply don't happen with AMP.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#127

Post by ehsankia »

djrogers wrote: post #83
kyrra wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You very clearly said "aren't making any money of the AMP'd version of their pages" and that's not true.

They can put ads, they can even put analytics and links back to their main site. The brand lift they get from all the views also has value.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#128

Post by inian »

We need tools to help developers build fast websites. If all websites were as fast as AMP and Instant Articles, these platforms would become obsolete. It is in our hands as developers to take back control and make the web as decentralised as possible.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#129

Post by inian »

xd1936 wrote: post #33
steffenweber wrote: post #6

Google should reward fast / jank-free websites instead of rewarding websites that use one particular technology (AMP). On SERPs, both the "flash" icon and the AMP carousel are AMP-exclusive which suggests that Google is abusing its market power.

They do. They reward sites that load fast. They also offer AMP as another way to speed sites up, which in turn makes them rise in rankings. But Google offers a large suite of tools to help web developers speed up their websites.

If only it were as simple as that. AMP websites get a place in the search carousel of Google. So even if your website loads faster than an AMP page, it would not be placed in the carousel - and that's Google forcing companies to adopt AMP even if they already have a fast website.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#130

Post by bastawhiz »

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 can accomplish fast loading pages with plain, uncomplicated HTML and CSS?

Sure, but news sites don't. That's the problem. They're loaded with bullshit that makes them mostly unreadable on many devices, screws with your scrolling, and takes insane amounts of bandwidth. The problem is that these news sites are fiscally incentivized to make their experiences bad. The more crap you load, the more money you make.

The hook here is that Google gives priority to AMP pages. "Make your page be provably not terrible and we'll rank you higher than your competitors" is a really juicy proposition, and it makes the user (who just wants to read their news) happier. To a news site, you're faced with the decision of having more revenue with a terrible UX or potentially less revenue with more traffic.

Post reply on HN