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

Post by lern_too_spel » Thu, May 28, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

glenstein wrote: post #524

lern_too_spel wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment does not make any sense to me. Are we talking about the same thing? A snippet is a summary of the page served by the search engine. The publisher currently does not have any idea that a particular user has seen a snippet, so publishers do "know the same amount" as they did before with AMP, which is nothing. > Is that how you feel about regular search results? Regular search results have snippets.

I'm sorry that you were having difficulty interpreting my comment. It may help if you go back and note that I was making a distinction between using AMP to consume content vs search for it. Publishers normally know when their content is being consumed. Let me know if that makes sense to you. >Regular search results have snippets. Right, and I was asking about the search results, not the snippets that accompany them.…

Post by reaperducer » Thu, May 28, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

AnssiH wrote: post #438

reaperducer wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fined ≠ "smacked." To Google, EU fines are just a cost of doing business. Like FedEx eating parking tickets. Until Google is fined to a degree that it impacts its share price, nothing will change.

All of the 3 big antitrust cases with fines the parent linked to resulted in Google changing their practices. So IMHO "nothing will change" does not seem right.

Post by seph-reed » Thu, May 28, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

readarticle wrote: post #348

seph-reed wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This month? https://gist.github.com/iansltx/18caf551baaa60b79206#gistcom...

The only issue there is developers not being able to keep up with the rapid pace at which Safari is still strengthening privacy protection even in the middle of a pandemic, as far as I can tell. Blocking third party cookies by default and requiring requests for storage access all sounds great.

    window.onmessage = function(e) {
      if (
        /^https?:\/\/((subdomain)\.)?mysite.com/.test(e.origin) === false
      ) {
        console.error("Access: No auth");
        return;
      }
    }

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:24 PM UTC

dastx wrote: post #280

kerkeslager wrote: post #177

I understand the objections to Google's actions--this is clearly a dick move which is terrible for both users and content creators--but I'm not understanding the AMP hate here. As a user, AMP is great. AMP is a better implementation of the open web than HTML is. It's a (usually) self-contained document that isn't tightly coupled to the server it came from. You can download an AMP document, render it, attach it to an…

> AMP is a better implementation of the open web than HTML is. Except the results of AMP can be done without AMP. It just requires site owners to not put a bunch of crap on the site. Something that AMP requires you to do. > You can download an AMP document, render it, etc., without having to log in or get tracked Except for the fact that now only Google tracks you. Also, doable without AMP. The hate from many isn't a…

Post by gregable » Thu, May 28, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #476

gregable wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AMP team doesn't prefer these URLs shared either: If you click the browser share icon, or trigger the browser native share intent, the origin URL will be shared, not the AMP Cache URL. Only if you explicitly copy the URL bar will the AMP Cache URL be shared. The Signed Exchange spec that AMP has offered sites for a year now allows them to have their own URLs displayed in browsers that support it. In that case, th…

If someone wants to detect whether a website is using amp, what would be a good way to do it?