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

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#231

Post by forgotpwtomain »

sturmen wrote: post #201

There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…

> I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads,

Firefox on mobile supports extensions, so you can use UBlock Origin / UMatrix. Also the built-in reader mode makes most sites a much better experience.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#232

Post by redial »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #230
boramalper wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. You don't need AMP to get rid of them though. We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for…

We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for AMP, but that doesn't make AMP technically superior. Depends what you mean by technically superior. In terms of benchmarks, AMP pages are lightning fast. Isn't that the only metric that matters?

On that same metric good old plain HTML is faster.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#233

Post by abritinthebay »

sturmen wrote: post #201

There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…

Speaking as someone who uses React: wut?

My companies entire site JS, React and many other modules included, is 220kb over the wire (gzipped).

Site bloat is a thing but it's due to bad developer practice not frameworks or libraries

The single worst offender though for bloat are 3rd party ad networks - Google included/especially. The site often has minimal control over what is put in ad slots.

Start pushing against google to improve their standards for ad payloads and you'll see a massive improvement.

Railing against ads themselves however is, sadly, not too helpful

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#234

Post by ksk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #196
coldtea wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no desire to "click through" to anything. I want my piece of information, a raw fact. Do you also want the original content creators to starve and die off and the only competent content source left to be either Google's archive or Google's lacklustre service for the same thing?

As I said many times in discussions about ad-blockers - I think that content that can't exist in a non-ad-supported way can stop existing, we'll all be better off. Almost anything that's valuable on-line is either a marketing expense or done pro bono. Also, I didn't mean I want a Google-dominated reality. Only said that this particular feature - content in search results - is a step in the right direction; it showcas…

> I think that content that can't exist in a non-ad-supported way can stop existing, we'll all be better off.

I'm not sure what is stopping you from doing that now. You can blacklist domains that serve ads and stop visiting them. Or even better yet, hire someone to write a browser plugin that blocks websites with ads, should be fairly trivial to do. And release the source code so others can benefit.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#235

Post by sillysaurus3 »

redial wrote: post #232
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for AMP, but that doesn't make AMP technically superior. Depends what you mean by technically superior. In terms of benchmarks, AMP pages are lightning fast. Isn't that the only metric that matters?

On that same metric good old plain HTML is faster.

Well, sure. But HN is one of the few major websites that uses plain old HTML. At other websites, developers have very little leverage. The people pushing for bloated websites are managers / executives, not devs. Hence, bloat.

What can we do about this situation?

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#236

Post by chefandy »

technofiend wrote: post #202
sturmen wrote: post #201

There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…

You're right but man you get a lot of that browsing with noscript. Reddit is loads faster with noscript blocking all the cruft they wrap around that site and that's not even one of the clickbaity sites.

That's true but it's a band-aid fix. We need to figure out how people can browse the web efficiently while ensuring websites are financially feasible, and everybody simply blocking javascript is not a financially feasible solution. I'd be more than happy to pay cash for a lot of stuff rather than have to deal with tracking/obnoxious ads, but I think the web would be a much worse place if all non-advertisement content was behind paywalls.

I have no idea what a sustainable solution would look like. Something similar to the Brave browser that was actually agreed upon by site owners and users alike, where site owners would turn off all of the BS for people that paid cash?

Of course, that doesn't touch the problem of people using crazy over-the-top, poorly optimized front-end stacks for things that could easily be accomplished with a regular web server and a smattering of Ajax.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#237

Post by boramalper »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #230
boramalper wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. You don't need AMP to get rid of them though. We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for…

We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for AMP, but that doesn't make AMP technically superior. Depends what you mean by technically superior. In terms of benchmarks, AMP pages are lightning fast. Isn't that the only metric that matters?

I meant that you could achieve the same by reducing the bloat, applying the best practises etc. To be fair, Google has been encouraging people to do so through the PageSpeed suite for quite a long time...

What I found unfair about AMP is Google preloading your AMP-enabled webpage. So that even if your not-AMP-enabled page is equally efficient, an AMP-enabled page would feel faster because Google preloads it in the background. And then there is the fact that Google hosts your own content under their domain, and all other points raised in the article.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#238

Post by takeda »

apeace wrote: post #174

> It “traps” users on Google. If user were to click “x” in the screenshot above, they will be taken back to Google search results. A normal redirect would have landed users on actual BBC site, maximizing their chances of staying on that site. Instead, AMP makes it easier for users to return to Google. As a user, this is what I want. I don't care about the BBC's site, I care about what I searched for. If I want to see…

I don't remember seeing AMP myself, but then I'm using Firefox which has DDG set as default.

I'm wondering though if there's a way for the user to opt out (besides of not using google?). It seems like while it mostly benefits users, they should still have option to simply opt out from AMP.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#240

Post by s73ver »

boramalper wrote: post #221
sturmen wrote: post #201

There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…

> However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. You don't need AMP to get rid of them though. We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for…

Because most of these pages are also corporate owned, and they believed that doing that stuff increased revenues.
Post reply on HN