Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by DamonHD » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

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…

My hand-coded-in-vim pages have always had height and width attributes, going back to the 90s. It's just become fashionable again.

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

#32

Post by klodolph » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #10

klodolph wrote: post #9

Earlier 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…

I would imagine it's best practice to define height and width attributes for tags, no?

Yes, it's just tedious to do by hand, which is why, in practice, people who write HTML by hand often don't do it.

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

#33

Post by lwhi » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:46 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #28

BrianOnHN wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No.

This the future foreign internet companies chose when they put profits above all else.

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

#34

Post by jsnell » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:46 PM UTC

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…

How do you propose they source that data from other browsers? Do you e.g. think Apple and Mozilla would provide them with a suitable feed, at a high enough granularity to be useful?

And if they did, what do you think the public reaction would be to such data sharing?

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

#35

Post by tyingq » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:48 PM UTC

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…

"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."

My assumption is that AMP is most heavily used by news organizations because of the requirement (recently rescinded) for carousel placement. Anecdotal, but I've talked with people at these organizations, and they definitely don't like AMP. They tolerate AMP solely for the carousel placement. That requirement is gone now. But, given the low margins in those places, it may be some time before they migrate off.

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

#36

Post by blowski » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #34

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…

How do you propose they source that data from other browsers? Do you e.g. think Apple and Mozilla would provide them with a suitable feed, at a high enough granularity to be useful? And if they did, what do you think the public reaction would be to such data sharing?

That's phrasing the problem in a format where the only solution is Google. Re-phrasing it as "What else can a search engine do to stop being gamed?" opens up a lot more options.

The real problem here is not 'gamed search engines' but too much centralisation, with Google owning the search engine, the browser, and the ad platform. This solution makes that problem worse, not better.

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

#37

Post by wil421 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

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.

Does that mean more pop ups to accept?

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

#38

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #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…

You just have to browse the AMP pages on Google Assistant to see how easily they can be devolved into slow dumpster fires despite the rules to maintain speed.

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

#39

Post by elliekelly » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #28

BrianOnHN wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Foreign internet companies aren’t obligated to operate in the EU. If they don’t like the rules they can choose not to participate.

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

#40

Post by thehappypm » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #32

thehappypm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine it's best practice to define height and width attributes for tags, no?

Yes, it's just tedious to do by hand, which is why, in practice, people who write HTML by hand often don't do it.

I think it's one of the more elegant styling things in HTML, you don't need to use the more verbose style=, it's just plain Jane height= and width=. I've never left it out, and I've written a few HTML pages by hand.