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

271–280 of 360 posts

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#271

Post by mikeash »

IshKebab wrote: post #209
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…

> scrolling can be wonky Last time this came up someone linked to a Google employee submitting a bug report to Apple about the scrolling. Their response was "that's how it's supposed to work - the rest of the system is wrong and we will fix that". So iPhone users might not have much choice anyway soon! Kind of reminds me of how terrible mouse acceleration is on OSX, and how Apple gradually removed all the options for…

I'd be shocked if Apple's official stance was that tapping the status bar to scroll to the top of a page is wrong and should be fixed.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#272

Post by type0 »

rabidrat wrote: post #210
RoyTyrell wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> same wallet garden BEGIN NITPICKY_JERK; Just in case you've misheard the phrase, it's actually "walled garden" not "wallet garden". END NITPICKY_JERK;

I for one will be using 'wallet garden' (which includes the 'monied tree') from here on out.

Wallet garden and Google is the Money tree!

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#274

Post by mthoms »

rabidrat wrote: post #210
RoyTyrell wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> same wallet garden BEGIN NITPICKY_JERK; Just in case you've misheard the phrase, it's actually "walled garden" not "wallet garden". END NITPICKY_JERK;

I for one will be using 'wallet garden' (which includes the 'monied tree') from here on out.

Too perfect. This needs to be a thing.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#275

Post by abritinthebay »

kentt wrote: post #259
abritinthebay wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

It sounds like you use React well and it's reasonably light and performant. The current project I'm on has a React frontend where typing in a text box is laggy due to how horrific the code base is. You're correct in saying that React is not to blame only it's misuse, however it is becoming a common cause of slowness.

If it wasn't React it would be [insert any other framework here]. React isn't the cause - bad developer practice is. As you said - a text box is laggy due to how horrific the code base is.

That's not something that is going to be fixed by changing library.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#276

Post by abritinthebay »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #264
abritinthebay wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

As a predominantly frontend developer, I sometimes (just for giggles) check to see the page load of pages I visit. It always dismays me to see a site's own resources only take 200-500kb of bandwidth... and then all the ads and associated requests take another 25MB. It's quite common and I keep thinking there must be a better way..

Well, there is - but consumers prefer free + ads to micro-payments or subscriptions. Granted there has been pushback recently but that's usually due to gross abuse of ads.

The only realistic way that I see forward are the ad networks (and this includes Google) setting lower maximum payload sizes for ads. Obviously sites can push back on quality and size but it's a hard metric to track consistently given how ad networks serve things.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#277

Post by mthoms »

edent wrote: post #126

> Do you own a WordPress site? Turn AMP off or don’t enable it in the first place. A warning - I turned off the AMP plug in and it effectively removed my site from Google for a week or so. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2016/11/removing-your-site-from-amp... The Google cache takes ages to clear away all the now-dead links and will serve 404s to your users. A nice incentive to stay trapped in their monoculture.

I'm curious, besides the short term problem, how was your ranking affected overall?

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#279

Post by scott_karana »

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…

AMP pages are regularly filled with garbage ads too.

Try clicking any of the god-awful clickbait AMP pages shared on Facebook, for example.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#280

Post by compuguy »

niutech wrote: post #183
AznHisoka wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So lets say AMP was not invented. Web pages have been notoriously slow on mobile for a decade. Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? where is W3 or Mozilla? Its been a decade. if there was a competituve open standard I would be against AMP but there isnt.

Actually, there is a competitive standard to AMP: Mobile Instant Pages (MIP) from Baidu - https://www.mipengine.org

Since that standard is only targeting the Chinese markets, I don't think it is a viable standard for the rest of the world.
Post reply on HN