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

Please Make Google AMP Optional

alexkras.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#31

Post by tyingq »

bo1024 wrote: post #27
endorphone wrote: post #17

Earlier 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?

They do. They seem to be a little quiet about the idea that a right/left swipe on your content switches to a competitors page though.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#32

Post by tyingq »

endorphone wrote: post #29
bo1024 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

In the organic results or the carousel?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#34

Post by adventurer »

0x0 wrote: post #26

AMP is bad and anyone who's invested in it should feel shameful for making the internet a worse place.

I'm not sure I would go that far but I've given up on Google personally, though. Yahoo search is ok. Firefox's mobile UI isn't as good but I'm sticking with it. Email and Photos is pretty hard to get away from. Hopefully I'll be fully out some day in the near future.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#36

Post by tyingq »

omot wrote: post #3

I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?

>Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad

This is just one of many reasons, but try this on a mobile phone.

Go to Google and search for "Trump"

Note what choices you have to pick from without excessive scrolling. They all end in either ads or Google urls.

Click one of the featured stories in the carousel, almost guaranteed to be an AMP site. Seems to be a prerequisite to sit in the carousel.

Lets say you land on a Washington Post story. What do you think a "right swipe" should do? Should it navigate to a competitor of Wapo? This is Wapo's page, right? So it should go to another Wapo page. Nope, it goes to Fox News.

Okay, so now you've navigated from Wapo to say Fox News. Hit the back button. It should go back to the Wapo story, right? Nope, goes back to Google.

How this isn't viewed as a land grab is a mystery to me.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#37

Post by wmf »

The author's argument against AMP comes down to "I don’t know why I do it, but for some reason it just doesn’t feel “right” to me to consume the content through the AMP. It feels slightly off". This is... not a strong argument.

The AMP saga has pretty clearly shown that users care about content while Web developers only care about URLs and what goes over the wire. This is a huge disconnect. It doesn't help that many Web developers show no empathy for the users' viewpoint.

Ultimately it probably is easier for Google to add an opt-out to appease a very small, very vocal minority than to educate them that the URL doesn't matter.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#38

Post by esrauch »

tajen wrote: post #11
zakk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really an expert, but I don't see any good in strengthening Google's monoculture.

Plus pageviews are done on Google's servers, so Bing doesn't know which website has many views and which doesn't.

How does Bing know it for non-AMP views?
Post reply on HN