Anyone else annoyed at how evernote web clips are completely busted on AMP pages?
Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
141–150 of 159 posts
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#142I imagine it will likely be shelved soon either by lawsuit or just by Google's closing it down.
>I imagine it will likely be shelved soon either by lawsuit or just by Google's closing it down
AMP isn't going anywhere so don't get your hopes up. But, by all means I encourage you to initiate a lawsuit if only to see you fleeced by a lawyer for your litigious attitude.
Also, the article you linked to is so full of inaccuracies that it's impossible to take it seriously.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#143Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…
There's ways Google could fix this without AMP, such as factoring in total page weight when ranking mobile search results.
As mentioned by others, page weight is a bit tricky. However, Google has this thing called "Google Page Speed" and that would actually be a pretty good indication on the performance part.
Then again - any site with good performance can be made unusable by crazy marketing people who wants [insert tracking tool here] on every page or similar.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#144What do you say about blogs? I understand that AMP is harmful to e-commerce based websites but what about blogs that are totally based on content and Google ads? How does it impact them?
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cat is out of the bag, and it will not be easy to put it back. Yup, now that those damn users have gotten a taste of speed & low data usage, it's gonna be hard to drag them back to how it used to be. We had a good thing going, and they didn't know any better.
No one is advocating for users to have a bad experience and large downloads.
The author of the article being discussed expressly states that AMP is bad because it doesn't allow chat services or 3rd party integrations. Those are two examples of things that often lead to a bad experience and large downloads.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#146Mot google projects die organically, with a short life span. No need to keep bashing AMP like this.
This particular AMP-bashing post just reminded me to go change mobile Safari's default search engine to DDG, which I'd been meaning to do so I stop being sent to terrible AMP pages, but kept forgetting to do because in the moment I'm always more interested in finding the info I want on a non-AMP page than fiddling with settings. So it was useful to me.
You can use Duck Duck Go to stop Google showing you AMP links in search results by starting your searches with "!g".
If AMP was so good for me vs just good for Google I would expect them to allow opt out for those, like me, that don't want to see AMP results.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#147Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…
Why not use Firefox with uBlock Origin addon for your phone?
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And why is that? Because you only get a ranking boost if your page > contains a " rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"> tag inside their head tag. and > is allowed to be cached in the Google AMP cache
As the otherwise pretty wrong article correctly states: There is no such ranking boost.
Yeah, but load speed is, and imagine how skewed and unfair it is for Google to load an AMP page from its own cache and compare that to loading a page from someone else's (possibly objectively faster) site. And Google doesn't consider AMP pages cached from sources other than Google to be real AMP pages.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying that's true, but if it is, wouldn't that mean AMP is not a desired product? I fully support a "faster page spec" that search engines incentivize, just like I support a ranking boost for using HTTPS. But AMP isn't that; AMP is incentivizing the payment of tribute data to Google under the veneer of a faster page spec, to steer the rhetoric more favorably for the company.
I want it as a consumer. If AMP went away tomorrow I would just browsing on my phone. Ad blockers are not good enough, and I refuse to fight popups and scroll blockers and blah blah blah in 2017.
Maybe it's time to change websites you visit?
If website is actively trying to prevent me from reading it I just don't do that.
If you are a publisher and think that you need AMP than it only means that your website sucks big time.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow. AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.
The fast, non-blocking content loading is the main feature. I took a radical path when developing my site and made it AMP-first. Instead of having an AMP version of each page, every page is its own AMP version because it's an AMP page. Even served from my cheapo shared web host and not Google's AMP cache, I have pretty-much instant loading of all pages: http://multithreaded.link/2017/08/lyft-customer-acquisition-...…
Your "About", "Contact", and "Privacy Policy" footer links don't work (they go to "#").