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

121–130 of 238 posts

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

#121

Post by dang »

djtriptych wrote: post #66

I've been working on core web vitals for the better part of a year at a major news outlet. I have seriously mixed feelings. There's probably an hour-long talk about this in me but briefly: - It's really nice and maybe unprecedented to have an alignment of business, user, eng, and seo goals. Google is using it's monopoly to change roadmap priorities across the industry. The web vitals themselves are unquestionably goo…

If you want to write something about your experience with this, I'm sure the community here would appreciate a fact-based third-party article. If you wrote it in the same style as your comment here, we would put such an article in the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/pool, explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308), so it would get a random placement on HN's front page. Email me at hn@ycombinator.com if you'd like some tips about that.

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

#122

Post by eli »

djtriptych wrote: post #66

I've been working on core web vitals for the better part of a year at a major news outlet. I have seriously mixed feelings. There's probably an hour-long talk about this in me but briefly: - It's really nice and maybe unprecedented to have an alignment of business, user, eng, and seo goals. Google is using it's monopoly to change roadmap priorities across the industry. The web vitals themselves are unquestionably goo…

Getting wildly different numbers from different tools is super annoying but I'm pretty sure the data they'll actually use in rankings is crowdsourced from Chrome users: https://web.dev/chrome-ux-report/

Which of course you can only see weeks in retrospect.

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

#124

Post by wutwutwutwut »

paulcole wrote: post #112
wutwutwutwut wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I was asked by management to add Google Tag Manager to the company site. When I saw that GTM included 15-20 tracking scripts I told them that unfortunately we can't include it until we have ensured that all of them act in accordance with GDPR. Legal was involved and agre…

What options or alternatives did you suggest to marketing so they could accomplish their goal?

None? I have no clues what marketings goal are and frankly I don't care. If they want to insert some junk.js into their web page they need at least to ensure it is legal.

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

#125

Post by scott_w »

wyager wrote: post #120
scott_w wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it’s unusual for a government to limit or put stipulations on what you can send into their country?

I don't care if it's "unusual" or not - I'm just pointing out that the legal model you're espousing will inevitably result in a siloed internet. Don't shoot the messenger.

I’m not espousing a legal model at all. I’m just pointing out that literally no government in history has ever said “you can send whatever you want into our country with no restrictions.”

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

#126

Post by nybble41 »

scott_w wrote: post #117
wyager wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that sending a packet to someone's house probably isn't the same as physically being inside their house.

You think it’s unusual for a government to limit or put stipulations on what you can send into their country?

Unusual, no. Unjust, yes, and impractical besides. If (unlike me) you accept the legal fiction that a country's government "owns" everything within its self-proclaimed official borders, with all the corresponding rights of a property owner within that domain, then they can either block the communication at the border or impose requirements on those living within, provided that anyone who doesn't care to agree to those rules is free to leave without further penalty. In any case, their jurisdiction does not extend to any party (or parties) to the communication outside their physical borders.

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

#127

Post by WillPostForFood »

djtriptych wrote: post #66

I've been working on core web vitals for the better part of a year at a major news outlet. I have seriously mixed feelings. There's probably an hour-long talk about this in me but briefly: - It's really nice and maybe unprecedented to have an alignment of business, user, eng, and seo goals. Google is using it's monopoly to change roadmap priorities across the industry. The web vitals themselves are unquestionably goo…

* The web vitals themselves are unquestionably good for the user*

Fast pages are good, but Google is using their tools like Page Speed to push you to adopt Google’s ideas of fast, like using WebP for images. So now you might have a bunch of cruft in your page to support multiple image types.

Also, as user, I hate lazy loading. I can scroll faster than images load. I’d rather everything load in the beginning, and have images there as I scroll.

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

#128

Post by scott_w »

nybble41 wrote: post #126
scott_w wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it’s unusual for a government to limit or put stipulations on what you can send into their country?

Unusual , no. Unjust , yes, and impractical besides. If (unlike me) you accept the legal fiction that a country's government "owns" everything within its self-proclaimed official borders, with all the corresponding rights of a property owner within that domain, then they can either block the communication at the border or impose requirements on those living within, provided that anyone who doesn't care to agree to th…

It’s unjust for a government to regulate what enters its borders from another country? So you’re suggesting that the U.K. should allow assault rifles to be sold from the USA, in spite of the fact they’re outright illegal to own inside the borders of the U.K.

Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position?

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

#129

Post by jakelazaroff »

wyager wrote: post #118
jakelazaroff wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the restrictions govern how packets may be sent? Or do they deal with taxes, handling user information, etc?

The restrictions don't need to directly restrict how packets get sent - if they impose tax/regulatory costs for packets getting routed a certain way, the end result will be the same.

This is a bit like complaining about restrictions on "sending atoms to the EU" when they decide to impose tariffs or safety regulations on consumer goods. Businesses shouldn't get to flout regulations just because they happen to be digital.

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

#130

Post by jakelazaroff »

lapnitnelav wrote: post #108
jakelazaroff wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're technically correct, but people who write pay checks often can be argued with. That's true, but the proliferation of ad tech junk is strong evidence that this is the exception rather than the rule. Capital will persuade labor to do its bidding far more often than not.

What's the solution? If anything, the proliferation of ad tech junk and 15MB of various ad-related things is probably better than just that 1MB of only Google Ads scripts, no? Or are we going to talk about how online advertising has been the economic backbone of the web? Not that I'm advocating for it, by hiding the true cost of things, publishers have brought this onto themselves really. So no more ads? That's proba…

IMO, the only feasible solution is to regulate surveillance capitalism out of existence. The market is not going to solve this.
Post reply on HN