I suggest stop using google search altogether. https://duckduckgo.com/ is an excellent search engine and its trivial to make a google search via `!g` prefix when you are not finding what you are looking for.
Please Make Google AMP Optional
21–30 of 457 posts
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#22I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?
From my perspective as a browser developer, AMP is an unfortunate disincentive to make anything faster unless Chrome already did it. Google bans things that are slow in Chrome from AMP, even if there's no good reason for them to be slow in the first place.
An example is off-main-thread animations. There's no intrinsic reason why animating, say, background-color should be slow. A lot of sites empirically do this sort of thing. But that animation is banned in AMP [1], because it's slow in Chrome (and in other browsers). Even if I work on making it faster, it'll stay banned until Chrome catches up (due to Chrome's market share), thus negating the incentive to make it faster in the first place. Without this competition, Web developers and users lose.
[1]: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ani...
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#23I suggest stop using google search altogether. https://duckduckgo.com/ is an excellent search engine and its trivial to make a google search via `!g` prefix when you are not finding what you are looking for.
I moved off of gmail a few months ago, pretty happy about that but man duckduckgo fucking suuuucks. Really wish there was a nonprofit (with a strong privacy policy) wikipedia like .org solution that provided good results.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#24I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google. Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean everything about how it's been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google's search because of it.
same it's amazing how different responses would be depending on the company who did an action. just goes to show the power of good pr. pretend to do some moonshots which you shut down a few years later and you can get away with anything
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#25I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?
Apart from everything else, in the last few weeks I've seen a bunch of AMP pages that include at most the first few paragraphs, possibly just a photo or something, and a "read more on our website" link below. This is strictly worse than a world with no AMP: I have to load the AMP page, and then I have to load the real website.
Because of that I'm starting to seriously wonder if Google is going to end up declaring AMP a failed project (and, being Google, the prior probability was reasonably high in the first place), and then AMP is an uncleanable stain on the web, with www.google.com/amp/ URLs being kept around forever.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#26AMP is bad and anyone who's invested in it should feel shameful for making the internet a worse place.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#27I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google. Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean everything about how it's been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google's search because of it.
Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…
> If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange.
Doesn't Google already admit to prioritising AMP pages in search results?
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#28anyone from the project? wanted to test out but it looks like the create link is dead: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/create/
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…
> If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange. Doesn't Google already admit to prioritising AMP pages in search results?
Thus far it is purportedly not a ranking factor.
https://moz.com/blog/google-amp-search-results https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/07/06/is-google-amp-a-ran...
[just to be clear, just because you read it in some HN thread doesn't make it true. Let's see a single citation that it actually influences ranking]
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#30I suggest stop using google search altogether. https://duckduckgo.com/ is an excellent search engine and its trivial to make a google search via `!g` prefix when you are not finding what you are looking for.
I moved off of gmail a few months ago, pretty happy about that but man duckduckgo fucking suuuucks. Really wish there was a nonprofit (with a strong privacy policy) wikipedia like .org solution that provided good results.
What problems are you running in to? I've been using duckduckgo at work for just over a year now (took a change of job as an ideal time to try a complete switch in search engine too), and it has been excellent. I've been getting almost as good results as I do from google on even from some fairly vague terms, and comparable to Google when I give it explicit text to search for. Unlike Google it also seems to pay a lot more attention to searching for what I'm asking for, instead of trying to play guessing games.