It's funny that Google says they care about performance, yet the number one reason for bad performance on many site is Google Adsense ads.
Did no one in Ads team get the memo to optimize performance?
Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
91–100 of 238 posts
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#92Here'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?
> How do you propose they source that data from other browsers?
Easy. Google should not be operating the monopoly search engine _and_ the monopoly web browser. They need to spin off search or Chrome as a separate company. Then they can source their data from wherever they like. Then every browser is an "other browser".
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, from Chrome mobile, I searched for "springsteen anti-vaccine". The first carousel entry is a CondeNast property, vanityfair.com, with an AMP lightning bolt icon. I click it, and get this: https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW The top bar is Google controlled. The url in the omnibar is a google url. So I'm not seeing how Conde Nast is a good example here. Before they very recently rescinded the requirement, using a non-Goog…
What you're complaining about is that Google frames the carousel results, which is a completely legitimate complaint, but which is not really related to AMP as such. Edited to add: An example of where the same content is not framed by the same search engine is on Chrome Mobile's new tab page "articles for you". Many of these are directly links to unframed AMP content, such as what I'm seeing right now: seekingalpha.c…
My point is that I believe Conde Nast chose AMP mostly so they would be in the carousel and not lose traffic since the carousel pushes down the organic results. The quotes from them I copied in up-thread comments seem to align with that. I also believe they would have passed on AMP if the carousel wasn't there, but I obviously can't prove that.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol. google is sweeping the entire internet not catering to chrome users under the rug and you're concerned with popups on the top 10 bigger sites
Cookie laws have destroyed my web browsing experience much more than amp ever has.
It's not the laws that have destroyed the experience, it's the reckless and senseless selling of data. Websites don't need to show any popups, they choose to.
Honouring DNT should be trivial, no user interaction needed to stop tracking and therefore the need for 99% of these popups.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you serve something in another country, you abide by their rules. Be it a physical product or a virtual one, which includes a website or webservice.
This concept is a recent legal development. It’s not obviously correct. Whether or not you think it’s correct, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that the web will be siloed off and cease to be a global network.
True, and we could already see this with the great firewall of China and the intranet of North Korea. And today, there's many American sites which serve me a 451 unavailable due to legal reasons, or just a permanent redirect to some "we care about our European visitors" weasel words.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#96It's funny that Google says they care about performance, yet the number one reason for bad performance on many site is Google Adsense ads. Did no one in Ads team get the memo to optimize performance?
> Did no one in Ads team get the memo to optimize performance?
They were too busy raking in the billions.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#97Earlier 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.
How is having to use “amp” attributes and loading a script from ampproject dot org simpler than just not doing that and everything works with every browser and without JavaScript and you don’t have any dependencies on Google servers? AMP as a subset of existing HTML is fine, but at that point it’s just a style guide. AMP as the existing invasive species it is just adds more complexity to an already complex web “ecosystem.” Google did not invent or even perfect maintainable web pages so why should I have to “grab” anything from them on the supposedly decentralized web?
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I'd quite like it if my government could block foreign phone calls that attempt to spoof local numbers. If only as a way of stopping foreign criminal gangs from scamming the vulnerable. The main reason this can't happen is because of international agreements that were made long before the internet age or this type of crime became a thing.
And there are others who, when faced with the trade-off, would choose differently. It's amusing how on another thread the general consensus may be a celebration of Let's Encrypt while over here I seem to come off as crazy (and thus deserving of downvotes simply for saying "not everyone agrees with you").
You are probably receiving downvotes because you're making a non sequitur. The web is, unlike phonelines, encrypted. At best it's a strawman or just a false equivalence.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you serve something in another country, you abide by their rules. Be it a physical product or a virtual one, which includes a website or webservice.
This is not, strictly speaking, an obvious forgone conclusion. Imagine that I call you over the phone, old school style, with voice. Would you or would you not want the governments on either end of the phone line to eavesdrop on our conversation so they can make sure it meets their local laws? What if we communicated by SMS? Email? Posting on a message board? Some people will have an "obviously yes, I want the govern…
I agree, some laws are dumb and stupid, some inhumane, some simply impractical, and we should be above them. Sadly we aren't because we don't have an army and populace. If only I was in charge I would... But the sad reality is that I'm not.
Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about testing sites themselves with those browsers and benchmarking that?
Ok. So the first problem is that people would end up optimizing for entirely the wrong thing. Rather than optimize for the machines and networks that are actually in use, you'd optimize for high CPU Linux servers with no GPU connected over high bandwidth and low latency networking. Not low CPU mobile phones over LTE or dodgy WiFi. Second, you wouldn't complain that it's an unfair advantage to pages in the Google AMP…
Agreed that if you did a shitty job benchmarking you could get shitty results.