Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I decided to disable AMP on my site

alexkras.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 360 posts

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#111

Post by Jyaif »

cdnsteve wrote: post #75

Since your site is actually going through Google's cache, they could add any additional tracking, etc they like, I'm sure they're already doing this. If you don't run Adsense or Google Analytics or anything else Google JS already on your site this gives them a new opportunity to further track users behaviour with a seemingly "friendly" mobile method. It's all about tracking users and selling more ads while keeping ey…

> I'm sure they're already doing this.

Could you verify that? It should be a matter of popping open the Developer tools.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#112

Post by zero_shift »

omnifischer wrote: post #61

@alexkras Sorry this comes from me in Nigeria using a second-hand MotoG (1.Gen). May be your website is not loading 23 trackers + unnecessary js. But many websites, load such crap. Please especially in third-world, we have so poor phones. Only google-CDN avoids all these. (yes, google does track me but we do not all have unlimited bandwidth).

Low-power phones in developing nations were exactly the platform we targeted when implementing _The Guardian_, and I would advise every seriously global publisher to do the same.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#113

Post by ryantownsend »

chii wrote: post #50
boramalper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying exactly that Google is evil, and maybe they don't even have bad intentions (heck, we are talking about a corporate identity here, how far can we apply morals?). But, what I am thinking is that AMP and its rivals (such as Instant Articles) hurt the free & open Web. For instance, Google Search is invaluable, but as a side effect, a website that doesn't end up on the first page of a Google Search result…

i would expect that content producers will start putting in abreviated versions of their content in AMP format to satisfy the AMP requirement as minimially as possible, and then add a link back to the original site for the rest.

I'm going to guess Google would penalise that behaviour for showing different content, justifying it as "harming the user experience" or something.

If they don't do this already, they probably will if they keep going down the AMP rabbit-hole.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#114

Post by eddieroger »

TekMol wrote: post #28

To me, AMP is the same wallet garden that Facebook is. Google and Facebook both say: "Give us your content. But without the crap. Just the content. Since we don't allow crap, users prefer the experience over here. So your content will have more readers then on your own domain.". And for some reason publishers are crazy enough to do that. Instead of removing the crap on their own domains in the first place.

> And for some reason publishers are crazy enough to do that. Instead of removing the crap on their own domains in the first place.

Publishers may be too broad of a definition. Marketing and sales may require that the pages be bogged down with crap content, whereas the tech team are using AMP as a way of removing it to meet the other business requirement of "go faster." Lots of big companies have problems where the left and right hands are working against each other.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#115

Post by TekMol »

Chris2048 wrote: post #106
TekMol wrote: post #28

To me, AMP is the same wallet garden that Facebook is. Google and Facebook both say: "Give us your content. But without the crap. Just the content. Since we don't allow crap, users prefer the experience over here. So your content will have more readers then on your own domain.". And for some reason publishers are crazy enough to do that. Instead of removing the crap on their own domains in the first place.

you are forced to login to FB, is the same true with AMP?

Whatever Google wants you to do to access the content. Once it is on their domain, they have full control over it.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#116

Post by shawnz »

michaelt wrote: post #41
AznHisoka wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag: " rel="nofollow">https://www.example.com/url/to/amp/document.html"> Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? imo, its drastically different to Instant Articles because you can never ever find the Instant Articles version of a web page. its p…

Sites that are traditionally called walled gardens (facebook, AOL, compuserve...) often combine four features; (a) all the content is hosted under the walled garden's domain; (b) the walled garden designs key parts of the navigation and layout, understandably acting in their own interests; (c) the walled garden has content policies and declines to host certain content; and (d) users must have accounts and be logged i…

I don't think it's fair to claim that (a) applies here, certainly not like Facebook at least. Facebook makes an effort to keep user-created content inside of their platform. Google does not make any effort like that with regard to AMP, other search engines could use the AMP data just as well. Serving it from their own domain is just a technical matter.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#117

Post by klibertp »

torrent-of-ions wrote: post #24

In the 90s web pages loaded instantly. Now we have faster computers and faster networks, but apparently we need something like AMP to make the web fast. We have regressed.

We've lived through different 90s then. Most of my early porn was loading for ages, first appearing partially, then slowly loading the rest, to finally display a 600x400 (full screen!) image. Well, I was rather young then, so one image was often enough, and the waiting time made it all the more... satisfying, but it sure as hell wasn't "loaded instantly" :)

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#118

Post by shawnz »

kuschku wrote: post #64
matt4077 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feature that defines a walled garden is the wall. AMP doesn't have that wall: it is perfectly usable by any other search engine/spider to replicate the experience. The website itself can link to the AMP version if that makes sense for users. Mobile browsers, or web servers, could check for and redirect to the AMP version. There's a slightly-higher wall for advertisers, I believe. But Google is rightfully afraid o…

AMP has the wall. Can I get the same display in the Google Search with or without AMP? No. That’s the wall.

Then is HTTPS also a wall, given that HTTPS results are favoured by Google search?

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#119

Post by kogepathic »

niutech wrote: post #94
omnifischer wrote: post #61

@alexkras Sorry this comes from me in Nigeria using a second-hand MotoG (1.Gen). May be your website is not loading 23 trackers + unnecessary js. But many websites, load such crap. Please especially in third-world, we have so poor phones. Only google-CDN avoids all these. (yes, google does track me but we do not all have unlimited bandwidth).

Hey, would you like to try the brand new AMP Browser? It should help when the Internet connection on your PC is poor: http://ampbrowser.com

> try the brand new AMP Browser?

I'm only seeing a Windows build on the website. Doesn't help OP much when they have a phone: "Please especially in third-world, we have so poor phones."

I don't know if you've been to Africa, but PCs are not common there unless you're working in a company. Depending on where you are, a small portion of the population has personal laptops. Otherwise feature phones or smartphones are the best people have. So linking to a Windows-only application for someone who lives in a developing country and only lists a cellphone may not be very applicable to them.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#120

Post by chatmasta »

AznHisoka wrote: post #13
chris__butters wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree, while technically AMP is suitable but it creates a walled garden by using Google - who actually boost page rankings if you use it, so they have publishers by the balls "forcing" them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings.

AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag: " rel="nofollow">https://www.example.com/url/to/amp/document.html"> Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? imo, its drastically different to Instant Articles because you can never ever find the Instant Articles version of a web page. its p…

When you load an AMP page in your browser, you never actually connect to the original publisher. That seems like a walled garden to me.

Personally, as a consumer, I absolutely hate the fact that I can't quickly check my browser's domain bar to see what website I'm reading (to assess its credibility for example).

Post reply on HN