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

321–330 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#321

Post by kahnpro »

IanCal wrote: post #304
EGreg wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you make an AMP page?

Restricting what you use to the AMP subset would make your page quite fast, with a dependency on a javascript file that most mobile browsers should have cached, along with having your page in the top carousel loading in smoothly like all the others. This can all be detected from your main page when crawled (as it'll link to the AMP version) so depending on the device one or the other can be presented as a search resu…

How can it be called an HTML subset when they've introduced custom tags like "amp-img"?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#323

Post by andy_ppp »

patrickaljord wrote: post #257
andy_ppp wrote: post #242

What really gets me about the AMP Cache (AMP itself is fine by me) is that it doesn't actually make anything faster. If you time the difference in download speed between the real website AMPd page and AMP Cache URL the difference is almost nothing in 99% of cases. And neither page load gives you that magical instant hit you get on Google's SERPs. The speed difference on SERPs is the background downloading and (possib…

> We already have but how about adding http://amp.newswebsite.com/article/etc." />. The goal of AMP is to improve the experience on mobile, making the client prerender instead of Google would be bad for your mobile device battery.

I’m just suggesting a way to improve the mobile experience without breaking the web. There are a multitude of ways to do this and while I see your point about everyone using prerender everywhere (browsers should probably have energy usage by domain and warn against bad actors) it’s surely better than this mess where one company completely controls the mobile web.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#324

Post by JupiterMoon »

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.

I feel somewhat insulted by this. I am anti-AMP from a consumer perspective - I don't want to consume all my content via a Google CDN and I fear that this may be the end game that Google are playing for.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#325

Post by millisecond »

corobo wrote: post #270
falcodream wrote: post #237

If my regular page loads as fast as the AMP page, to within some margin, could Google drop the AMP version and link directly to me? It would make AMP a tool for improving the web rather than replacing it.

You could just not enable AMP if your site loads faster without it

Problem is that Google is boosting amp in search pages, making it 'required' for sites that live on SEO.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#326

Post by ztjio »

hoschicz wrote: post #302
takeda wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing is that AOL & Yahoo is really Bing, and Ask is I believe Google. So essentially it comes down to Google and Bing. To get DDG you'll need to use a different browser like FF. I actually blocked Chrome on my phone and started using FF once I noticed that Chrome was updating itself even though I was requiring manual updates. Play Store and Google Play Services do the same thing, but don't have a good altern…

DDG actually was using Yahoo as a serach provider and now uses Yandex. The ads on DDG are from the Yahoo network. > AOL & Yahoo is really Bing What? I don't get that -- I don't know about AOL, but I thought that Yahoo does its own crawling (their Slurp bot)

They used to. That changed like 8 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#327

Post by IshKebab »

corobo wrote: post #261
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.

Having been camping in a field for the past week but still needing my internet fix I think I'm going to start giving ddg a real chance (still hate the name though) until Google gives me a setting to disable AMP results I get the idea behind AMP but it's just far too late to the game for Google to be pushing it so heavily. Back on 2G internet I used Opera Mini, I don't use that now because I just don't need it anymore

Well lucky you for having an impossibly great internet connection. Do you seriously never go anywhere with slightly less-than-perfect coverage? Or travel by train?

AMP is so much faster than 90% of websites 90% of the time I can see why Google push it so much.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#328

Post by daveheq »

Google AMP:

1. Obscures the web page's URL.

2. Makes manual zoom in/out impossible.

3. Sometimes hides content mentioned in the article, with no ability to scroll horizontally to see it.

4. Confuses Chrome on Amdroid into over-hiding its top address/menu bar (forcing two swipes down all the way to the top to show) or forces it to show (won't hide on scroll down).

This is just coming from a user's perspective, fortunately it doesn't impact my work, but may in future websites I build due to it being almost 100% of the news articles I read.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#329

Post by qrbLPHiKpiux »

tyingq wrote: post #31
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?

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.

I can't think of another search engine alternative - a truly objective one. It used to be Google. Then they gained a tremendous amount of market share. Even an English language verb - googled. Now it's them. And I ask, now what?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#330

Post by qrbLPHiKpiux »

daveheq wrote: post #328

Google AMP: 1. Obscures the web page's URL. 2. Makes manual zoom in/out impossible. 3. Sometimes hides content mentioned in the article, with no ability to scroll horizontally to see it. 4. Confuses Chrome on Amdroid into over-hiding its top address/menu bar (forcing two swipes down all the way to the top to show) or forces it to show (won't hide on scroll down). This is just coming from a user's perspective, fortuna…

Going back to the old days' BBS does not seem like a bad idea.
Post reply on HN