141–150 of 169 posts
I am somewhat a Google fan, happily paying for music, tv shows, movies, and use the Google cloud platform. I also get some value from Facebook.
That said, I think that Google and Facebook are going to eventually badly damage the web, or at least the web that I love.
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…
It is one of the most annoying things to use, and might actually get me to switch my default search engine. I often search for stuff where the results come up on Reddit. I want to see the comments, but AMP helpfully hides all replies, and only shows like the top 5-10 comments. This is useless. So now instead of getting to the page I want right away, I have to scroll down to the button that says "see more comments". W…
I 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…
- you cannot scroll to the top by typing on the bar at the top on the screen
- there's this AMP title bar at the top, that's super annoying. I read, they might eventually add the option to hide it
- feels like they tried to implement smooth scrolling what conflicts with native iOS smooth scrolling resulting in not-so-smooth scrolling
Finally, and that is more important I'd say, we have the whole point about the openness of the Internet. People are concerned about what Google (and Facebook) does because there is the potential to create a walled garden of exclusive content not everyone can access - which would actually contradict the idea of AMP, wouldn't it?
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.
I don't really care about that. I just know that if I see the AMP logo on a search result that I'm about to click, it's going to be a pleasant experience when I click through and very quickly am able to read the page. Whereas almost any other news site will be more or less unreadable and unscrollable, constantly changing as it loads over the course of a minute or more, until a huge popover blocks the whole thing and…
Im torn because while I want mobile versions of sites to be fast over poor connections, I also don't want to read what looks like a cached version version of the sute. Maybe it's the AMP sites I've visited but it's always way too jarring
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)
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)
Why don't you give DuckDuckGo a shot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?