111–120 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not safe to preload arbitrary web pages. The user will be deanonymized to a site they never visited. It is safe to preload AMP pages by design.
And yet now you never leave Google's servers when browsing. They know your entire path from search to site and back again.
Here's the reality. The Taboola news carousals at the bottom of most slow loading actual news sites are filled with total junk. One page per image websites, super slow, adblock goes crazy. I've literally NEVER had a good experience with these "Stories you may like" Google does something with a news carousel that loads fast and the content isn't crap. I get why publishers running things like taboola think it's terribl…
AMP is a fork of HTML that pressures limited developer resources to maintain a version for Google's visitors while only being fast because of arbitrary framework limitations. You can get a far better outcome by having search results consider site speed as a factor in rankings, which would make all publishers improve their sites overnight. The reason Google doesn't do this is because they also run the biggest ad netwo…
And Microsoft's and Pinterest's and Baidu's and on and on. There are many search engines and link aggregators that preload AMP pages.
You prefer that publishers make versions of their articles solely for Apple and other versions of their articles solely for Facebook? (Each has a proprietary competitor to AMP that actually have the disadvantages you listed.)
Here's the reality. The Taboola news carousals at the bottom of most slow loading actual news sites are filled with total junk. One page per image websites, super slow, adblock goes crazy. I've literally NEVER had a good experience with these "Stories you may like" Google does something with a news carousel that loads fast and the content isn't crap. I get why publishers running things like taboola think it's terribl…
> The Taboola news carousals at the bottom of most slow loading actual news sites are filled with total junk. This, a thousands times. For both Taboola and Outbrain it's clickbaity trash - usually misleading and low quality content. They're designed to "disrupt" so that people click on them and have in the past featured on blatantly false news stories. I'd honestly be ashamed to work at one of these sort of organisat…
e.g. some of these "stories" appeal specifically to fans of a particular TV show or actor from a specific time range.
Here's the reality. The Taboola news carousals at the bottom of most slow loading actual news sites are filled with total junk. One page per image websites, super slow, adblock goes crazy. I've literally NEVER had a good experience with these "Stories you may like" Google does something with a news carousel that loads fast and the content isn't crap. I get why publishers running things like taboola think it's terribl…
> The Taboola news carousals at the bottom of most slow loading actual news sites are filled with total junk. This, a thousands times. For both Taboola and Outbrain it's clickbaity trash - usually misleading and low quality content. They're designed to "disrupt" so that people click on them and have in the past featured on blatantly false news stories. I'd honestly be ashamed to work at one of these sort of organisat…
IDK, just a really weird juxtaposition that stood out to me.
[1] https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP is a fork of HTML that pressures limited developer resources to maintain a version for Google's visitors while only being fast because of arbitrary framework limitations. You can get a far better outcome by having search results consider site speed as a factor in rankings, which would make all publishers improve their sites overnight. The reason Google doesn't do this is because they also run the biggest ad netwo…
> a version for Google's visitors And Microsoft's and Pinterest's and Baidu's and on and on. There are many search engines and link aggregators that preload AMP pages. You prefer that publishers make versions of their articles solely for Apple and other versions of their articles solely for Facebook? (Each has a proprietary competitor to AMP that actually have the disadvantages you listed.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet now you never leave Google's servers when browsing. They know your entire path from search to site and back again.
Google would have known you clicked on the link anyway. You would prefer the publishers and ad networks track users on pages they never even visit?
I didn't state any preferences, and how would sites track you on pages you don't visit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP is a fork of HTML that pressures limited developer resources to maintain a version for Google's visitors while only being fast because of arbitrary framework limitations. You can get a far better outcome by having search results consider site speed as a factor in rankings, which would make all publishers improve their sites overnight. The reason Google doesn't do this is because they also run the biggest ad netwo…
> a version for Google's visitors And Microsoft's and Pinterest's and Baidu's and on and on. There are many search engines and link aggregators that preload AMP pages. You prefer that publishers make versions of their articles solely for Apple and other versions of their articles solely for Facebook? (Each has a proprietary competitor to AMP that actually have the disadvantages you listed.)
What I actually prefer is HTML which is universally accessible by any device and service. No reason to have any proprietary formats like AMP or others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google would have known you clicked on the link anyway. You would prefer the publishers and ad networks track users on pages they never even visit?
AMP pages mean Google has 1st party access to your browser no matter what you browse, which is far more than normal. I didn't state any preferences, and how would sites track you on pages you don't visit?
As I stated in GGGP, the benefit of AMP is that it allows a user to safely preload pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a version for Google's visitors And Microsoft's and Pinterest's and Baidu's and on and on. There are many search engines and link aggregators that preload AMP pages. You prefer that publishers make versions of their articles solely for Apple and other versions of their articles solely for Facebook? (Each has a proprietary competitor to AMP that actually have the disadvantages you listed.)
I’d prefer they stuck to HTML and CSS, with a bit of progressively enhanced JS on top if needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a version for Google's visitors And Microsoft's and Pinterest's and Baidu's and on and on. There are many search engines and link aggregators that preload AMP pages. You prefer that publishers make versions of their articles solely for Apple and other versions of their articles solely for Facebook? (Each has a proprietary competitor to AMP that actually have the disadvantages you listed.)
Why do you keep saying "you prefer" in comments? That's a poor way to frame arguments. What I actually prefer is HTML which is universally accessible by any device and service. No reason to have any proprietary formats like AMP or others.
Unless you want pages to load instantly, which is what AMP and its non-web competitors provide.