This, coupled with the common anthem from the tech crowd of using Chrome and only Chrome is a dangerous precedent.
Stop supporting AMP, and use something other than Google Search and Chrome today.
Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
291–300 of 489 posts
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#292i agree that AMP is troubling for a variety of reasons - none of which, however, change the fact that the author of this article is unquestionably a Weenie.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#293If you hate AMP as much as I do, I highly recommend switching your mobile browser to DuckDuckGo. The results are as good as Google and no AMP.
Have been using DuckDuckGo as primary search engine for more than a year. It's OK for many cases but the search results aren't yet there in terms of quality or relevance in many cases. Even searching for AMP shows the AMP spec page after some almost useless dictionary sites, in the search results.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#294Long before amp, Google began prefixing search result urls with "google.tld?url=" and adding Google parameters as suffixes such as "sa=", "ved=", etc.
Unless I am mistaken this parasitic cruft only serves Google, not end users.
Below is quick and dirty program to filter out the above. Replace .com with .cctld as needed.
Requirements: cc, lex
Usage:
curl -o 1.htm https://www.google.com/search?q=xyz
yyg 2.htm
your-ad-supported-web-browser 2.htm
flex -Crfa -8 -i g.l;
cc -Wall -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o yyg;
%%
[^\12\40-\176]
\/url[?]q=
"http://www.google.com/gwt\/x?hl=en&u="
"&"[^\"]*
%%
main(){yylex();}
yywrap(){}
amphtml does look great in a text-only browser that does not load iframes automatically.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#295Ive forced myself to use Bing since google introduced AMP. Do I like it better than Google? No, I don't. But! I like not having google become my single source of content more than I dislike the slight drop in quality as a result of using Bing. I like the sites I go to, to have control over their content and being able to easily link to them. I think it's reprehensible for google to push this so relentlessly and beyon…
Just as a FYI, Bing is a really large supporter of the AMP project. “We started experimenting with AMP in our Bing App last May and have noticed that AMP pages load, on average, approximately 80% faster than non-AMP pages” says Marcelo De Barros, Group Engineering Manager in charge of the AMP integration at Bing. https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...
It feels like the principles (minus the tracking) of AMP should become a W3C spec. Surprised Microsoft and others haven't pushed for this.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich snippets is the catch all for everything else. You can see a preview for what that means by checking out Wikipedia's traffic decline over the last 3 years or so.
To be fair, at least in wikipedia's case, that's potentially a good thing. Wikipedia isn't ad-supported, so having their data hosted elsewhere isn't actually a problem (as long as credit is given and so donations continue), because it becomes less expensive for them to host.
[deleted]
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original content is still on the website, Google hosts a cache server, rehosting the website's content around the world closer to the users for faster access, for free. In theory, it's a win-win-win situation. Publisher gets free hosting (with analytics and ad money still coming to them obviously), users get a faster experience and Google is happier if the users browser more content. In reality, AMP is obviously…
The main problems I have are that it breaks two really important web features: sharing links and trust. Users seeing google.com URLs means they trust them more, which has helped propaganda sites and phishers. The other thing is that for me, AMP has not been faster many times. I know they're working on it but having to download and run 100KB of external JavaScript before rendering frequently meant that it was slower t…
Tap the link icon at the top of the page. Then long press the URL that appears. Or short press it then use your browser's share menu.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#298What is AMP? EDIT: I mean technically, not what the acronym means.
Per the specification:
> AMP HTML is a subset of HTML for authoring content pages such as news articles in a way that guarantees certain baseline performance characteristics.
Source: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec
Basically you have your website serve up your content within a subset of HTML so that your pages have to load faster. JavaScript is permitted but with limited functionality (again, the intent is your website loads quickly).
Also, Google will host your webpage on their servers after crawling your website. When a user clicks on an AMP link from Google's search results, the content will be served up from Google's servers and thus the page will load much faster.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#299Can someone explain How is this killing the open web? Isn't this an open standard?
It's not the standard, it's what google does to amp sites: re-hosts them on their own site so your site is now (essentially) google.com/yoursite.com. AMP as a standard is great: limit javascript to a known set of behaviors, ensure images/etc all have defined sizes so content doesn't jump around... but google's using the benefits of this standard as a trojan horse to route even more web traffic to their servers, enabl…
But it's entirely opt-in -- how is this controversial?
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
It used Yahoo last I checked.
Yandex?