[deleted]
Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
21–30 of 238 posts
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They are used to determine the intrinsic size. The aspect ratio is also affected by the CSS rules, and doesn't necessarily equal the aspect ratio of the intrinsic size.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#23Here'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]
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I would like to introduce my set of constraints called "cortyNet":
- no JavaScript
- you get 100kB for HTML and CSS
- all decorative and non-essential images are included in those 100kB
Happy hacking!
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not a web developer but as a user I love AMP. For whatever issues it has it did significantly help mobile performance. Could developers have solved that issue with AMP? Yes Did developers solve the issue prior to AMP forcing them to? No.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#26> The logic behind AMP goes like this: web developers suck at making fast websites, let's strip out all the stuff people don't need and cache it on our super-fast servers.
Web developers don't suck at making fast websites. Publishers demand tons of ads and tracking scripts. If the person signing the paychecks wants the page to have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS, then the page will have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS. AMP succeeded because Google brandished a stick that publishers cared about more: exclusion from the Top News carousel.
I'd also note that the whole reason this ad tech explosion even happened is a race to the bottom that Google itself facilitated. Google is selling us solutions to a problem that Google had a huge hand in causing.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#27The 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.
That’s an extreme claim that requires some backing evidence. Mobile search quality is the main metric google uses to judge its search products. The idea that google search is “unusable on mobile” is pretty silly, if you’re literally the only person who ever noticed.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is the future the EU chose when they started imposing EU law on foreign internet companies.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#29"some arbitrary set of performance standards"?
Less than 3s load time, reasonable DOM size, and low FID are all widely accepted as a "good UX".
Just another veiled article criticizing Google's dominance rather than a technical one.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hm? I think Parent is just hoping Google is required by law not to rank results this way. It would not bar access to anything.