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

101–110 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#101

Post by quadrangle »

tyingq wrote: post #53
quadrangle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is this right-swipe business? You swipe and it, what, just takes you to a page that the makers of the current page think you should read next in your infinite time-sink staring at your phone‽

Well, in this case the makers of the previous page (Google) are deciding what right swipe on the current page (Washington Post) does. It certainly makes it clear that the content owner of an AMP page is not the page owner.

I get that, but what is right-swipe supposed to or expected to do? Why would people be right-swiping ever?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#102

Post by alanfalcon »

wand3r wrote: post #91
endorphone wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.

I mean, it's a closed source algorithm. Google provides guidance directly and indirectly but no one knows how the rank weights work outside of Google. Amp obviously ranks higher it is the top hit in search for me. Results appear under it...

Exactly. Obscure AMP results appear higher thanbigher quality non-AMP results; What needs to be cited?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#103

Post by tyingq »

quadrangle wrote: post #101
tyingq wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in this case the makers of the previous page (Google) are deciding what right swipe on the current page (Washington Post) does. It certainly makes it clear that the content owner of an AMP page is not the page owner.

I get that, but what is right-swipe supposed to or expected to do? Why would people be right-swiping ever?

Many reasons. A popular one would be to flip through a gallery of photos related to the story. That one's VERY common.

Also, I missed mentioning the [X] button on the AMP header banner. I bet that most end users think that [X] button should make the AMP banner disappear, while leaving the page content there. Pretty common pattern, like for the EU cookie warning. That's not what it does, though.

Back to the "right swipe", at the very least, it should do nothing, assuming that an AMP page belongs to the publisher.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#104

Post by [deleted] »

limeblack wrote: post #4
JeremyBanks wrote: post #2

Google search doesn't really have many options like this, and I'd be shocked if they added this one. But given the URL format, it should be trivial for a browser extensions to rewrite links or requests from AMP pages to the original. I bet it already exists.

And how do you plan to do this when no mobile browsers suppport extensions?

[deleted]

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#105

Post by tajen »

esrauch wrote: post #38
tajen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're right - Bing can't. Google knows a website's pageviews because it can cleverly cross information between the search engine, Google Analytics and Google Map's by-foot frequentation of shops (for shops and customers with tracking allowed). I'm just underlining that not owning a good share of all 3 of those may make it much harder for future competitors to enter the market.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#106

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

endorphone wrote: post #79
myth_buster wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.

>This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.

Agreed, I like AMP for many of the same reasons I liked Google Reader and RSS feeds: I'd rather consume my content in a form that's optimized for reading.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#107

Post by ricardobeat »

endorphone wrote: post #72
jeffbax wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its comparable to Apple. Apple is trying to make the user experience of existing content better (where it is located) Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. The problem is sites being slow in the first place, but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is by creating a mode where the browser can enhance legibility of any article.

but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is Content authors voluntarily publish their content in AMP form, so it doesn't seem fair to say that they commandeer anything: AMP is a subset of HTML intended for a fast mobile experience, and if you decide to take part you publish flags allowing Google to cache it. Google isn't unilaterally converting content to AMP. The core argument against AMP primari…

> The core argument against AMP primarily seems to be a fear that users will actually prefer AMP content

How on earth did you arrive to that conclusion?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#109

Post by dabber »

I haven't read through the comments here yet but my initial impression of the article is 'ha, I was literally thinking this today'; because I was. AMP is a little heavy handed for my tasteS. Another instance of HN being on the same wave length I guess.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#110

Post by ehsankia »

omot wrote: post #3

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

It isn't. I fully agree with the article that it should be optional, but it's hilarious how the only reason the author can give is that it "doesn't feel right".

They state "I just automatically go to the main url" without giving any real reason for it. They also mention how all studies show that it's a huge positive for users. And it is. It's much faster and easier way to browse content. You can try to shit on Google, but the reality is that people sucked at making fast content, so someone had to step in and no one was.

Post reply on HN