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

391–400 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#391

Post by leggomylibro »

fshaun wrote: post #208
ciconia wrote: post #194

At 43yo I probably belong to the older folks on HN, but those modern devices all of us carry in our pockets to me seem just absolutely incredible and magical. They probably can run around machines that took up whole rooms just a few decades ago. At the risk of sounding like an old fart (I probably do), I fail to understand this frustration of normal mobile users with the so-called slowness of their mobile experience.…

The issue is that the slowness is unnecessary. No, I cannot give it a second when it should only take 100ms. There is such a thing as pride in craft that seems sorely lacking today. I could not live with myself if I had build a quarter of the websites I deal with daily. I don't know all of the causes, but I certainly understand the frustration.

To be fair, though, this applies to most types of products.

If you buy a cheap plastic hammer from a dollar store, you shouldn't expect it to break rocks like a bespoke carbon steel ball-peen.

But if you buy a cheap website from a bottom-barrel contractor, you're allowed to be baffled at why people don't like using it. It's just a website, for crying out loud.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#392

Post by mistersquid »

leggomylibro wrote: post #390
gub09 wrote: post #335

Please, web developers, as a minimum, set up your websites so that they do not depend on Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon or Apple for their functionality. That means, for example, use DoubleClick or AdSense or GoogleAnalytics if you like, but please do not use jquery from Google's CDNs. If you do that, and the site is dependent on that functionality to work (i.e. for text to be displayed), those of us who don't a…

Thing is, if you're a news site, your news isn't going to show up on Google's news platforms if it doesn't support AMP. As a customer, I don't like this behavior at all. I do not like AMP, mostly for the small issue that it's very difficult to link to the base page. Minor consistent inconvenience, major feature rage. But I can't imagine what it's like for a web developer. You need to support a whole other platform ju…

One of the comments in Alex Kras's linked page asks "Can’t you make a direct link to your site’s page auto generated on your article templates?" [0] which seems a very reasonable, though perhaps not ideal, solution that doesn't require Google to make AMP optional, something I think Google is very unlikely to do.

[0] https://www.alexkras.com/please-make-google-amp-optional/#co...

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#393

Post by rsync »

niftich wrote: post #54

Google Search on Mobile is no longer a web search engine that hyperlinks to the resulting page, but rather an search-integrated newsreader that loads itself when you click on a result that's marked with AMP. This is understandably a big change from how things used to be, but it isn't going to get better anytime soon. After all, most people on mobile spend their time inside apps, probably from some Google competitor l…

"The bottom line is this: Google is inseparable from its ad-serving and adtech business -- it is after all how they make most of their money -- so if you are bothered by their attempts to safeguard their income stream from competitors who have a much easier time curating their own walled garden, you should cease using Google Search on Mobile."

Thank you for this - it's a good summary.

I would go further and suggest a deeper bottom line - the desire of google/facebook/et.al to become "the phone company".

There was a long period of time when end users did not even own the telephone in their home and were not allowed to touch the wiring. We should act as if that level of control and captivity of the audience is the driving force behind the actions these firms take.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#394

Post by alenros »

Wrote down this Tampermonkey\Greasemonkey script that would do the job of automatically redirecting you to the original content. can also be obtained from [0]

// ==UserScript== // @name Un-AMP // @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1 // @description avoids google AMP links and navigates to the original content // @author Alenros // @match https://www.google.co.il/amp/* // @match https://www.google.com/amp/* // @grant none // ==/UserScript==

window.location.href=document.getElementsByClassName("amp-canurl")[0].textContent;

---------------

[0]https://github.com/alenros/Un-AMP

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#395

Post by tangue »

gub09 wrote: post #346
chrisan wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means, for example, use DoubleClick or AdSense or GoogleAnalytics if you like, but please do not use jquery from Google's CDNs. Why is Google Analytics ok and not their CDN?

My point is that anyone can use an adblocker or Squid proxy filtering to block GoogleAnalytics, but if the site uses jquery from a Google CDN to render content, that cannot be blocked without making the site unusable. It's even worse if the Google CDN request is made with https, because then a redirection needs to be made inside the browser.

Websites using cdns should always use a server hosted backup, it's not that hard

  
  
  if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined')
  {
     document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='/serverHostedJquery.js' %3E%3C/script%3E"));
  }

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#396

Post by johnsmith21006 »

myth_buster wrote: post #67
endorphone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…

> 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.

It is absolutely true. How can you say otherwise? Business is free to chose.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#397

Post by wmf »

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.

The browser does the rendering in all cases; it's not like AMP is downloading a bitmap of the page.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#398

Post by johnsmith21006 »

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…

Exactly and thanks for pointing out. What matters most is the user and user experience, It is NOT about Google or Apple. Posts like they are the #2 corp or whatever is not relevant.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#399

Post by johnsmith21006 »

callahad wrote: post #89
floatboth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, same. Firefox Nightly Android + DuckDuckGo, but sometimes I do use Google, still haven't found an AMP page.

That's because Google sniffs Firefox's user agent and serves it an older, less featureful version of Google Search. One that doesn't support AMP. Spoofing Firefox's ua-string to appear as Chrome will get you the full Search experience, including AMP.

But according to some on here a no AMP response with FF is better as no AMP. Which is it?

Personally prefer the faster speed with AMP.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#400

Post by Semaphor »

nerdponx wrote: post #349
Semaphor wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't agree. Almost always when DDG has only spam or useless results, !g gives me exactly what I looked for. I like DDG, especially the bangs, but Google still gives me way better results when I need them.

Out of curiosity, what are some examples? You can also submit feedback directly in the results, which the DDG team uses to improve their algorithms.

IIRC most commonly it's coding related stuff.
Post reply on HN