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

331–340 of 360 posts

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#331

Post by JoshMnem »

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?

> In terms of benchmarks, AMP pages are lightning fast.

But apparently not faster than doing it yourself.

"Pinboard founder Maciej Cegłowski already recreated the Google AMP demo page without the Google AMP JavaScript and, unsurprisingly, it's faster than Google's version."[1]

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider...

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#332

Post by JoshMnem »

enos_feedler wrote: post #288
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…

Why not just fork AMP, call it openAMP and then rally around a roadmap that is more fair for the web platform at large (instead of just Google's)?

I think that it would be better to use better practices in regular HTML. There doesn't need to be a new markup format -- just more restraint with JavaScript/animations/CSS/advertisements.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#333

Post by Iv »

IanCal wrote: post #93
Iv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what, in AMP, makes the web less free or open. I am usually among the first on the stockade on invasive tech, but I have a hard time to understand the fuss around AMP. Yes, the cache is problematic, as it may allow Google, in a possible future, to filter some content, censor some other or not refresh often some pages. The thing is, if it does that, people will start using Google's caching, that's as sim…

> The thing is, if it does that, people will start using Google's caching, that's as simple as that. I assume you mean "stop", but you can't. There is no way, as far as I can find, that you can opt out of google rehosting your content.

Yes, I meant "stop", sorry.

What is ironical in that issue is that Google copying/caching your content is part of the free web. We would bitch about websites that prevent copying their contents somehow.

What people can opt out of is sharing links to AMP and AMP redirects, which will happen 2.7 seconds after Google starts censoring content.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#334

Post by mthoms »

mikewhy wrote: post #322
mthoms wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single site these days has a modal or overlay that obscures/distorts the content. People have learned that clicking that little X gets rid of the obstruction so they can view the page as it was intended. You probably dismiss hundreds of these EU cookie notices per week.

Right, and I consider it a modal over the search results, not the page that hasn't been displayed yet.

Yes, but the only reason you think that is because you understand the technical underpinnings (ie. the content is indeed being served by the same domain as the search results).

Regular users have been expecting search results to behave a certain way for over two decades. Opening the results in a modal is simply not the expected behaviour. Changing the back button is not the expected behaviour.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#335

Post by mthoms »

w33ble wrote: post #304
mthoms wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single site these days has a modal or overlay that obscures/distorts the content. People have learned that clicking that little X gets rid of the obstruction so they can view the page as it was intended. You probably dismiss hundreds of these EU cookie notices per week.

I hadn't realized it, but yes, this is exactly the experience I expect. The AMP page is like a modal I front of the actual site. Or that's how I think of it anyway.

Search engines have never worked like this (up until now that is). It's just not what the average user expects. It's also a dangerous precedent IMHO.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#336

Post by Iv »

coldtea wrote: post #34
Iv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what, in AMP, makes the web less free or open. I am usually among the first on the stockade on invasive tech, but I have a hard time to understand the fuss around AMP. Yes, the cache is problematic, as it may allow Google, in a possible future, to filter some content, censor some other or not refresh often some pages. The thing is, if it does that, people will start using Google's caching, that's as sim…

> I fail to see what, in AMP, makes the web less free or open. Google serving your pages? Hijacking your domain for the server pages and obscuring links to the original content? Use of a proprietary technology (whether open sourced or not, it's not a standard)? Abuse of power with veiled threats of punishing content publishers who are not using recommending AMP to make their pages "fast and responsive"? The only way…

> Google serving your pages?

Yeah, what's bad about that? It is, actually, a feature of a free open web: content is there, available to anyone, including Google, to be rehashed, kept, reserved, in anyway any one see fit.

Wikicache is a feature of an open web, that does a very similar thing to what Google is doing.

> Use of a proprietary technology (whether open sourced or not, it's not a standard)?

We have really come a long way if this is what we now call a proprietary technology. My understanding (but I could be wrong) is that the specification is open, everyone is free to implement it, fork it, make editors or readers about it.

Proprietary implies (or used to imply?) that some of these rights are limited: the MPEG consortium forbidding encoders without acquiring a proper license, Oracle claiming that you can't make a Java VM without making an agreement with them, etc...

My understanding is that AMP is as open as it could be: it was just proposed by a private entity. Criticism is a good thing, but saying it will break the open web is simply a warning I can not understand.

If something needs to be criticized, it is Google's quasi-monopoly on search, but even that is not that much of a threat given how many of its competitors are still easily accessible from any device and out there to gain a foothold as soon as Google's search results show any kind of weakness.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#337

Post by kuschku »

vengefulduck wrote: post #328
AznHisoka wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? sites that dont implement AMP still appear in google news and even above AMP results as far as I can tell

It only affects the carousel at the top of the site

Which, on mobile, takes ~40% of the available page. Often catapulting a page 13 result to #2

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#338

Post by josteink »

acdha wrote: post #321
ashark wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point... god, most of a decade ago now, I guess, it seems like the kinds of people doing web design changed and this new crop didn't care about or understand bandwidth constraints like the old ones did. Strangely, this was around the same time "digital native" instead of "print influenced" design got big, so you'd think it'd have gone the other way, but it definitely did not . In fact, I'd say the much-deride…

> At some point... god, most of a decade ago now, I guess, it seems like the kinds of people doing web design changed and this new crop didn't care about or understand bandwidth constraints like the old ones did. This is a cyclical problem because people tend not to measure performance until they notice a problem, which means it's a function of both technical factors and user expectations. The rise of mobile added a…

You also need to account for all that JS to have a runtime-impact.

More JS will make a slower site, especially on mobile.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#339

Post by abritinthebay »

quadrangle wrote: post #301
abritinthebay wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 networ…

~~consumers~~ (nay, citizens) prefer to have no ads or subscription costs etc. The fact is: ad-based model just puts the burden on those most susceptible to advertising. It's similar enough to funding schools through state lotteries in that the money comes from somewhere or the results go underfunded, and if you accept state-run lotteries or anything that looks even slightly like today's ad-based internet, you are ta…

You say that, but time after time user behavior shows they'll go to the ad supported version.

See also: mobile. You have to totally gameify things to get micropayments to work.

I mean, if you want that for websites, sure... but if you think clickbait is bad now...

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#340

Post by eclipxe »

barsonme wrote: post #254
kavok wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On iOS I usually find AMP pages to be less usable. It forces a bar at the top and I can't easily share the link. Sometimes sites don't seem to work at all. For a long time any Reddit link on the Google Search results just didn't load on iOS for me. I run an adblocker and use reading mode frequently. I do not usually suffer any issues with ads even without AMP. It is solving a problem I do not have and creating more p…

Same here. Media (images, video, etc.) don't load at all and the site scrolls very quickly.

Get used to that scrolling. It is the new default in iOS11 (and a welcome change!)
Post reply on HN