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

Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 238 posts

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#11

Post by Tomte »

klodolph wrote: post #9
swiley wrote: post #4

The replacement they're whining about is "core web vitals" IE the metric you can view at[1]. This is what AMP should have been in the beginning and I was surprised they did something else, it made Google search unusable on mobile. [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9205520?hl=en This means that your hand-coded-in-vim static pages will rank near the top.

There is one metric where hand-coded-in-vim pages tend to do poorly, and that's cumulative layout shift. If you have images on your page (a reasonable assumption) and just stick tags in there, you can get dinged on cumulative layout shift because the layout will shift as images get loaded. I use a somewhat hand-coded-in-vim approach, but there's some post-processing that adds width/height attributes to tags which mit…

Include height and width attributes to your tag and the layout shift problem is solved.

Those are used to determine the aspect ratio, so even when resized via CSS the browser knows how much space to reserve in the layout.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#12

Post by eli »

klodolph wrote: post #9
swiley wrote: post #4

The replacement they're whining about is "core web vitals" IE the metric you can view at[1]. This is what AMP should have been in the beginning and I was surprised they did something else, it made Google search unusable on mobile. [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9205520?hl=en This means that your hand-coded-in-vim static pages will rank near the top.

There is one metric where hand-coded-in-vim pages tend to do poorly, and that's cumulative layout shift. If you have images on your page (a reasonable assumption) and just stick tags in there, you can get dinged on cumulative layout shift because the layout will shift as images get loaded. I use a somewhat hand-coded-in-vim approach, but there's some post-processing that adds width/height attributes to tags which mit…

Tip: Add "height" and "width" attributes even if the rendered size will be different because of CSS.

The CSS sizing will still take precedence but the height/width attributes let the browser know the aspect ratio without having to download the image so it can layout the page faster.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#13

Post by swiley »

klodolph wrote: post #9
swiley wrote: post #4

The replacement they're whining about is "core web vitals" IE the metric you can view at[1]. This is what AMP should have been in the beginning and I was surprised they did something else, it made Google search unusable on mobile. [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9205520?hl=en This means that your hand-coded-in-vim static pages will rank near the top.

There is one metric where hand-coded-in-vim pages tend to do poorly, and that's cumulative layout shift. If you have images on your page (a reasonable assumption) and just stick tags in there, you can get dinged on cumulative layout shift because the layout will shift as images get loaded. I use a somewhat hand-coded-in-vim approach, but there's some post-processing that adds width/height attributes to tags which mit…

Having two CSS rules in a single selector is something you absolutely can do in vim. You can even chuck it in a one line style tag. IMO cumulative layout shift should be ranked down, it's extremely frustrating.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#14

Post by ehsankia »

judge2020 wrote: post #7

In case you're trying to find what the replacement is: > Unfortunately, there are problems with AMP's replacement as well. And those problems go right back to what was wrong with AMP in the first place: Google is in charge of it. So the problem isn't core web vitals nor AMP itself, but the fact that everyone uses Google and they control the results on google.com. We can now go back to our regularly scheduled discussi…

The article is also surprised that people are still using AMP now that it's no longer required, because in the author's mind, AMP is so god dang awful that when given the chance, everyone would immediately want to get rid of it.

Some people are so deeply lost in their hatred of AMP that they cannot even consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, AMP actually does work well for some people.

I'm glad it's no longer required, and if people are correct that AMP truly sucks, then surely it'll slowly fade away over time.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#15

Post by BrianOnHN »

ehsankia wrote: post #14
judge2020 wrote: post #7

In case you're trying to find what the replacement is: > Unfortunately, there are problems with AMP's replacement as well. And those problems go right back to what was wrong with AMP in the first place: Google is in charge of it. So the problem isn't core web vitals nor AMP itself, but the fact that everyone uses Google and they control the results on google.com. We can now go back to our regularly scheduled discussi…

The article is also surprised that people are still using AMP now that it's no longer required, because in the author's mind, AMP is so god dang awful that when given the chance, everyone would immediately want to get rid of it. Some people are so deeply lost in their hatred of AMP that they cannot even consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, AMP actually does work well for some people. I'm glad it's no longer…

My opinion is regularly "unpopular" here on HN, but I happen to love AMP. Sometimes constraints can be a blessing. Don't want to over engineer? Use AMP.

Of course you can over engineer anything, but why would you when [almost] everything you need is easy to grab a la carte.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#16

Post by eli »

Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers.

So an even more disproportionate amount of site performance work will now be focused just on what makes Chrome happy. Experimental Chrome features that boost performance metrics will be embraced in the name of SEO. Safari and Firefox can't offer that.

It's another way Google uses their control of the search market to cement their browser as the de facto standard.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#17

Post by dannyw »

eli wrote: post #16

Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers . So an even more disproportionate amount of site performance work will now be focused just on what makes Chrome happy. Experimental Chrome features that boost performance metrics will be embraced in the name of SEO. Safari and Firefox can't offer that. It's another way Google uses their control of…

I hope the EU competition authority gets Google to change this. At least inside the EU.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#18

Post by BrianOnHN »

dannyw wrote: post #17
eli wrote: post #16

Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers . So an even more disproportionate amount of site performance work will now be focused just on what makes Chrome happy. Experimental Chrome features that boost performance metrics will be embraced in the name of SEO. Safari and Firefox can't offer that. It's another way Google uses their control of…

I hope the EU competition authority gets Google to change this. At least inside the EU.

I hope not. Regional based internet could become the next major factor when it comes to inequality.

For example, don't hire people from Region A because they can't access the best resources located in Region B.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#19

Post by cratermoon »

I've decided that while Google ostensibility makes it possible to search the world's knowledge*, that's just the bait. Google's main product is selling ads in what amounts to a glorified yellow pages.

*In reality, about 1% of human knowledge, by some estimates.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#20

Post by [deleted] »

eli wrote: post #16

Here's a better criticism: the Core Vitals metrics that affect SEO rank on Google are sourced only from Chrome browsers . So an even more disproportionate amount of site performance work will now be focused just on what makes Chrome happy. Experimental Chrome features that boost performance metrics will be embraced in the name of SEO. Safari and Firefox can't offer that. It's another way Google uses their control of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN