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

121–130 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#121

Post by amelius »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #45
sintaxi wrote: post #21

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.

I started using DDG a few months back and I've been very happy so far. Sometimes results aren't as great, so I just use !g to load Google. But even better, you can search across different websites! For example, !mdn for Mozilla Developer Network, or !yt for YouTube Another thing you can do is use alternative browsers. On mobile I use Firefox Mobile, which has the benefit of allowing extensions, so you can install uBl…

I'm using Android with Chrome, and there is no option to change the search engine to DDG :/

The only options are: Google, Bing, AOL, Yahoo, Ask.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#122

Post by amelius »

65827 wrote: post #23
sintaxi wrote: post #21

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.

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 mail service are you using now?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#123

Post by robryan »

teraflop wrote: post #41
omot wrote: post #3

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

Leaving aside the lock-in issues, AMP causes me minor annoyances more often than it helps. For instance, when I open a search result from a site like Reddit, I get a static logged-out view, instead of the normal one that obeys my preferences. And if I want to copy the link, it takes a few extra taps to get the original one.

Yeah, encountering pages that are less useful than the or original or outright broken is a big reason for me.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#124

Post by bitmapbrother »

geofft wrote: post #25
omot wrote: post #3

I 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…

Do you also use the argument about Microsoft being Microsoft and shutting down more products and services than Google ever has?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#125

Post by cmac2992 »

I love AMP as a user. So many sites have brutal load time and jumpy pages, popups and sometimes crashes.

As a developer I'm not a fan. It's another thing to manage and maintain. And the last time I checked once you can't leave without some serious consequences.

As a marketer I like the increased CTR but dislike the higher bounce rate and limited features.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#126

Post by KevinIsMyName »

godot wrote: post #118

There's a lot of complaint about Google AMP and Facebook Instant Articles, e.g. walled garden, anti-open-web and whatnot. Here's something simpler from a non-developer, average-consumer point of view. I recently began taking BART to work daily (new job). For those who don't know, BART is Bay Area's subway system, and (at least on the east bay side) cell reception is notoriously spotty. When I'm on the train, which in…

Convenience is not enough to make monopoly a right choice. This is a road towards monopoly (duopoly or just powerhouses holding the power - name it as you want it).

Yeah, many Google and FB services are great, but should you fully depend on them?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#127

Post by robryan »

rak00n wrote: post #7
zakk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If that's the argument everyone should boycott all Google products.

Or just not use new ones that actively make the internet worse.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#128

Post by bradgessler »

cmac2992 wrote: post #125

I love AMP as a user. So many sites have brutal load time and jumpy pages, popups and sometimes crashes. As a developer I'm not a fan. It's another thing to manage and maintain. And the last time I checked once you can't leave without some serious consequences. As a marketer I like the increased CTR but dislike the higher bounce rate and limited features.

Google could accomplish the same objective by penalizing pages that abuse users with ads or load slow.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#129

Post by robryan »

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?

A lot of websites would have a bing ads tracking Javascript.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#130

Post by timdorr »

vultour wrote: post #40

> AMP took off. Over two billion pages are using AMP I don't think I've ever seen an AMP-enabled website, I certainly never noticed any buttons suggesting I visit the original website.

It targets mobile browsers (the M stands for Mobile in AMP), so you won't see them on desktop.

But if you search on a mobile device, you'll get this for the OP: https://www.alexkras.com/please-make-google-amp-optional/amp...

Post reply on HN