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

311–320 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#311

Post by type0 »

tyingq wrote: post #103
quadrangle wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 swi…

> 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,

Dark petterns, MS, google, facebook etc. It's becoming the norm for the behemoth corporations to do this.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#312

Post by wruza »

epistasis wrote: post #6

I'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.

>no longer use Google's search because of it

I'm not using it too, but not because of that (and I was unaware of amp before). DDG shows instant wiki, stackoverflow, lyrics previews, while google only does that for wiki. I don't use gmail because of crappy ui, ux and designs. I wouldn't use annoying youtube if dailymotion was not blocked. Translate is only bearable for english. Local maps are way better in navigation/street/company info (probably not true for US/EU).

Summarizing, I clearly see no value in google services for me today and it was surprisingly easy to get rid of it completely.

Edit: and in search regard, ddg/yahoo links lag far less than google's redirects and ddg never presented me "you're a robot, enter captcha to not get to our search service anyway" for hours.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#313

Post by GuB-42 »

albedoa wrote: post #171
kartickv wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Searching "wwdc" on google.fr The very first result (top story) is not an AMP page. The other top stories are AMP pages. Then, in the regular search results, only the last one is an AMP page.

Searching "wwdc iphone 8" (not in the "people also searched" list for me) yields about 50% AMP pages. The first result is but the second isn't.

I don't really see a pattern here. The only part where AMP seems mandatory is the news carousel.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#314

Post by Neliquat »

b0rsuk wrote: post #300

The article displays his autocomplete hints: google amp pages google amp annoying google amp sucks google amp conference My equivalents in google.com are: test cache disable maps Both bing.com and duckduckgo.com (which doesn't track) don't recognize "amp", even when I put both first words in quotes, and assume I made a typo in "maps". This simple test is therefore inconclusive, but my hypothesis is that his search au…

Looks like the filter bubble is on your end.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#315

Post by jbg_ »

I started using a self-hosted searx[1] instance recently, and I highly recommend it if you'd prefer to not have to care about this nonsense.

It's the first time I've found an alternative to google.com that is actually usable (i.e. I find what I'm looking for near the top of the first results page every time I make a search).

You can use Google as one of the results providers, but you won't see any AMP results, and since searx can mix in results from Stack Overflow etc, you might find that a different search engine than Google still gets you good results.

I think Google would pull fewer of these monopolistic tricks if people would realise they have genuine alternatives.

[1] https://github.com/asciimoo/searx

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#318

Post by Gigablah »

wruza wrote: post #312
epistasis wrote: post #6

I'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.

>no longer use Google's search because of it I'm not using it too, but not because of that (and I was unaware of amp before). DDG shows instant wiki, stackoverflow, lyrics previews, while google only does that for wiki. I don't use gmail because of crappy ui, ux and designs. I wouldn't use annoying youtube if dailymotion was not blocked. Translate is only bearable for english. Local maps are way better in navigation/…

So your criticism of google search is that they don't go far enough in appropriating website content?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#319

Post by chinathrow »

kuschku wrote: post #97
abrowne wrote: post #52

I've never actually seen AMP "in the wild". Is it because my only mobile browsing is with Firefox on Android?

Google intentionally serves to Firefox a massively limited version of Google search. Most search features are completely removed, and this also includes AMP. Others are search filters, for example.

> Google intentionally serves to Firefox a massively limited version of Google search.

This alone should be enough to warrant a close examination of Googles practices, let's say by the EU.

Post reply on HN