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

221–230 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#221

Post by untog »

fragmede wrote: post #211
ender7 wrote: post #151

Users: I like AMP pages, they're fast! HN: But the open Internet! Users: What's that? HN: Normal websites! Users: Like...the really slow ones? With all the annoying popovers? And pages that take forever to load? And for some reason cause my fancy new phone to slow to a crawl? HN: Well, those websites should rewrite their entire codebase to be faster. Users: That doesn't help me, though. HN: Trust in the free market!…

Which is funny, because Google Amp was a piece of shit when it was called the Digg toolbar and users hated it, and it was even worse as the Alexa browser toolbar spyware, and users really hated it. Amp has some pretty dressing but amounts to the same thing.

Huh? How is AMP in any way similar to a browser toolbar? I think you've misunderstood what it does.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#222

Post by untog »

kartickv wrote: post #144
alanfalcon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which search result, and which obscure AMP result ranks higher than which non-AMP result? That's what needs to be cited, not an assertion free of evidence. Second, even if that does happen, the question is whether it would have happened without AMP. In other words, is it a bug in the search algorithm, independent of AMP.

Try searching for pretty much any trending term on Google, on mobile. How many results in that top carousel aren't AMP pages? I'm yet to see a single one.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#223

Post by untog »

kartickv wrote: post #145
wand3r wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Google said that they prioritise fast pages, not AMP pages. You can use some other way to make your pages load fast, and it won't make a difference. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe you over believing Google.

Is it really that surprising that Google finds crawling pages stored on their own CDN to be faster than pages stored... anywhere else? They don't even need to leave the Google network.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#224

Post by untog »

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]

I'm yet to see a single page in the carousel at the top of a search page not be an AMP page.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#225

Post by radicsge »

reaperducer wrote: post #186
whoami_nr wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You can ask Google/Facebook to provide hotspots inside trains, ask the network provider to make cell reception better inside the subway etc. There are ways to achieve a better outcome instead of locking down how you consume the internet.

So in your world, he should devote all of his time, money, and effort into getting multi-billion dollar corporations and massive bureaucracies to install millions of dollars of soon-to-be-outdated equipment in a massive urban transportation upgrade, instead of just clicking on the link that works? Millennial thinking.

Or instead of waiting few seconds, just get into the line of closed internet (let them monopolize it). It's the same like giving up the democracy for one-party system. Because if you stand out, you might heart yourself.

Nothing will you miss by missing few news. Try it, seriously!

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#226

Post by bitmapbrother »

baconner wrote: post #169
ender7 wrote: post #151

Users: I like AMP pages, they're fast! HN: But the open Internet! Users: What's that? HN: Normal websites! Users: Like...the really slow ones? With all the annoying popovers? And pages that take forever to load? And for some reason cause my fancy new phone to slow to a crawl? HN: Well, those websites should rewrite their entire codebase to be faster. Users: That doesn't help me, though. HN: Trust in the free market!…

Your hypothetical there assumes that AMP actually works well. My experience is it's got painful usability issues at least on android chrome. The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing, returning you to results. Fast is good, but at least it ought to be a good user experience. I used to use google news a lot, but i totally abandoned it after…

>The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing

Anecdotal, but I've never had this happen to me. Chrome on Nexus 6P 7.1.2

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#227

Post by terrestrial »

robin_reala wrote: post #141
makecheck wrote: post #98

Be sure to structure your Google searches as "g!" searches to DuckDuckGo and AMP effectively disappears with the same set of search results.

Only because Google haven’t turned on AMP results for encrypted.google.com. It’s presumably only a matter of time until they do.

!g has been my exclusive portal to Google for years (also on mobile). I never understood what all the rage was about until I went to try it in the "normal" Google. This is the first time I've seen that "lightning" icon. Wow.

So that's how it feels like to be a "lucky 10 000".

crawls back under stone

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#228

Post by bitmapbrother »

ShellGh0st wrote: post #133
bitmapbrother wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. How is Google taking the content? Isn't it the creator that is publishing their content using AMP?

Google is grabbing a normal website and completely, utterly breaking it. Have you ever actually tried to use an AMP page, share it, etc? AMP is garbage, and honestly whoever signed off on it shouldn't have a position at Google or wider tech community.

It's the creator of the content that creates the AMP page and publishes it on AMP.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#229

Post by klfasdf77 »

untog wrote: post #221
fragmede wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is funny, because Google Amp was a piece of shit when it was called the Digg toolbar and users hated it, and it was even worse as the Alexa browser toolbar spyware, and users really hated it. Amp has some pretty dressing but amounts to the same thing.

Huh? How is AMP in any way similar to a browser toolbar? I think you've misunderstood what it does.

The Digg toolbar hijacked the content and offered it via it's own short URL: digg.com/randomnonsense

So even if one typed www.google.com and shared the page, it would be re-wrapped into a digg.com URL

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#230

Post by eridius »

kartickv wrote: post #185
albedoa wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the other comments that you seem overly invested in this, but I'll play along: Do a search for "wwdc" on mobile. This was my first and only test against your challenge. It isn't just a matter of the AMP results being ranked higher — they are segmented from non-AMP pages. The eleven (!) "Top Stories" are all AMP pages. Under that is "People also searched for > WWDC iPhone 8", which consists of five (!) AM…

I don't see us having a constructive exchange of views, where each person gets a perspective they didn't have earlier, so I won't reply. Have a good day.

> where each person gets a perspective they didn't have earlier

That's not really how arguments work. I mean, sure, sometimes it works that way, but other times, like this time, one person is clearly in the wrong, and is simply refusing to listen to the other side.

Post reply on HN