Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 566 posts

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#331

Post by strictnein »

nothis wrote: post #233
TechBro8615 wrote: post #34

How does anyone think this is a good idea? It should be clear which news site I am reading when I'm reading an article. Otherwise, how do I know which bias to apply? On iOS, the title bar says "google.com" whether I'm reading an article from CNN.com or WashingtonExaminer.com. Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the…

>Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the upcoming anti-trust lawsuit. This reminds me of the EU Internet Explorer lawsuit, which was peanuts compared to what Google is doing right now. Between Google Search, Chrome, Android, Youtube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Docs, AMP and likely 5 more things I forgot, they've st…

Their ad business is more or less their only business. Everything else is paid for by that.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#332

Post by 8K832d7tNmiQ »

googleimagesguy wrote: post #256

Hi all! I'm an engineer who worked on this feature. I can't speak to the general concerns about AMP, but I can say that we didn't remove the original url here intentionally - we actually never added it to the Images version. Sorry for the oversight, we're working on bringing it back now!

ah, the good ol’ goopsie again for the N-th time.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#333

Post by third_I »

googleimagesguy wrote: post #256

Hi all! I'm an engineer who worked on this feature. I can't speak to the general concerns about AMP, but I can say that we didn't remove the original url here intentionally - we actually never added it to the Images version. Sorry for the oversight, we're working on bringing it back now!

Hi team!

Is there a way AMP could have an opt-out option? (maybe a permanent setting, maybe a per-search trigger) Ideally at user discretion, but I suppose it must be enabled by the first-party content provider (the website).

That would make everyone happier I think. I don't mind AMP some of the time, but sometimes it's undesirable for security concerns notably.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#334

Post by reaperducer »

inetknght wrote: post #83
zo1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opt in like HTTP/S was? Look what happened when Google decided to threaten the ad/ranking tap if websites refused to move to HTTPS.

I don't think so. I personally don't use sites that don't have HTTPS. I don't have any interest whatsoever in making it easy for third parties to see my traffic.

I personally don't use sites that don't have HTTPS.

Then you have chosen to exclude yourself from knowing a large chunk of interesting information that was posted on web sites before the web went fully corporate.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#335

Post by CobrastanJorji »

0x006A wrote: post #26

AMP really has to go away, its a MITM attack on the internet. Google discontinues so many services, why is AMP not one of them yet?

Wikipedia says that Amp first started appearing in search results in February of 2016. Some random websites tell me the average Google product death happens about 4 years after it launches (not counting anything that hasn't been killed at all and with some huge error bars). So we should expect AMP to be abandoned sometime between now and never.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#336

Post by reaperducer »

macintux wrote: post #105
Bahamut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP in part made me switch to Apple News - it's buggy and doesn't respect browser history (major usability failure on Google's part).

Regrettably Apple News will occasionally drop sections of the content it doesn’t know how to render properly, leaving the news article bafflingly incomplete, and usually it’s not obvious that something is missing.

It is a problem, but depending on what publications you read, how often it happens can vary.

The reason is that, like AMP, Apple News only supports a subset of HTML. It's up to the publishers to adhere to those limitations. Some choose not to make a special Apple version or change their main content to be Apple-friendly, so Apple News does what it can to show what it can.

It's not ideal, but it's better than being reliant on Google.

Also, if you see an article that doesn't look right, there's an option to report that article to Apple. One of the options is "Content missing."

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#337

Post by bmm6o »

u801e wrote: post #305
Arnavion wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It wouldn't work because the phishing site would lack the private key needed to validate your client-side certificate and the TLS connection would not be established. That is not how TLS works. A server can trust a client based on the certificate the client presents. A client can't distrust a server based on the certificate the client presents. "The phishing site would lack the private key needed to validate your cl…

> That is not how TLS works. A server can trust a client based on the certificate the client presents. A client can't distrust a server based on the certificate the client presents. You're correct; I posted inaccurate information. > validating a cert does not involve the private key in any way. What I should have said was that the server would validate the client cert by checking whether the certificate is valid acco…

Not to pile on, but I think you're imagining some kind of TLS framework that simply doesn't exist currently. It's not clear if you're misunderstanding what exists now, or you're alluding to a different possibility without clearly articulating it.

> I guess it's possible for a phishing website to not bother validating the client certificate presented at all

Why would a phishing site do anything to discourage a connection from a potential victim? Of course a phishing site would accept an invalid or missing certificate! Even if the site was impersonating something like amazon.com, Amazon hasn't issued client certificates to all of its users so the whole point is moot.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#338

Post by whelming_wave »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #310
coldpie wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're pushing out the upgrade to everyone soon, and it only supports certain, whitelisted extensions. https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-android-new-feature...

Sorry, but wtf??? "3. Extension-ready This update will initially include support for one of the most popular extensions on Android, uBlock Origin. Additional extensions will be supported in subsequent releases so you can customize and expand your mobile browsing experience even more." Why has Moz turned in to this almost fascist company all of a sudden. Like, what? Kill all but whitelisted extensions, which users ask…

IIRC, this is happening because of the complete internal rewrite - the relevant APIs to expose to extensions simply don't exist yet, and they're implementing them to get the most-wanted extensions available first.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#339

Post by [deleted] »

umaar wrote: post #231
drawkbox wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing that is extremely annoying is the hiding of urls in Chrome. Hiding the protocol and the rest of the url besides the domain. When you go to click up in the url/address bar to change a section of the site the protocol re-appears and messes you up. Or when you click in on some mobile and the whole url disappears and you just wanted to change part of the url. Yes Google there are still people that want hack…

Yeah the hiding of the protocol in the URL was a pain to deal with. I updated Chrome today and looks like there's a way to turn this off: 1. Enable chrome://flags/#omnibox-context-menu-show-full-urls 2. Right click the address bar 3. Select 'Always show full URLs' Instead of seeing: news.ycombinator.com You'll now see: https://news.ycombinator.com I made a Tell HN post about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2…

[deleted]

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#340

Post by judge2020 »

nothis wrote: post #247
ralmidani wrote: post #127

I got a new computer (Mac Mini) last week and, as the ritual usually goes, I opened Safari and was about to type “google.com/chrome”, then stopped myself and went to “getfirefox.com” instead. It’s been a while since I gave FF a serious look, and so far I haven’t felt like I’m missing anything. Next up, I need to change my default search engine to DDG. What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve hear…

>What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve heard of ProtonMail but haven’t used it. Been Firefox user out of conviction for 10+ years, made the switch to DuckDuckGo as my main search engine with about a year ago, no regrets. But Gmail? It's sticky. I have so much stuff tied to my email account and it just sucks looking for alternatives. I'd even happily pay. The main difficulty is finding a servic…

There should be a ".well-known" spec for changing email. Currently all we have is one for changing passwords I believe: https://wicg.github.io/change-password-url/
Post reply on HN