AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
1–10 of 172 posts
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#2I've been seeing a lot less AMP URLs but I still see about 1 per week...
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#3The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. https://amp.dev/about/ads/
I don't even work on the web professionally, and even I can figure this stuff out. It's really not that hard.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#4I've been seeing a lot less AMP URLs but I still see about 1 per week...
I've been seeing more apple.news URLs.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#5The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. https://amp.dev/about/ads/ I don't even work on the web…
AMP literally has a built in 1 second delay to render outside of Google, non AMP content, that is the "Nice comparative boost".
It has nothing to do with "pre rendering" its built right into the CSS.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#6I've been seeing a lot less AMP URLs but I still see about 1 per week...
I've been seeing more apple.news URLs.
Where do you find apple.news links on the web? Or are they being sent to you by people?
Not being argumentative, I’ve just never came across a link to an Apple News article.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#7The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. https://amp.dev/about/ads/ I don't even work on the web…
Have you followed any of the links in the article and read about all the documents unsealed in the case against Google?
Or have you even read the article?
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#8[deleted]
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#9The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. https://amp.dev/about/ads/ I don't even work on the web…
> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed.
This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author who is clearly very knowledgeable (I say that as a web publisher who has monetized with ads for more than a decade).
From the article:
> [The recent DOJ lawsuit against Google] claims that Google falsely told publishers that adopting AMP would enhance load times, even though the company’s employees knew that it only improved the “median of performance” and actually loaded slower than some speed optimization techniques publishers had been using. It alleges that AMP pages brought 40% less revenue to publishers. The complaint states that AMP’s speed benefits “were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a ‘nice comparative boost.‘”
This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster, and a giant dick move by Google against publishers. It's literally an evil act by a company that said Don't be Evil. The article is spot on that AMP has irreparably damaged publishers' trust.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#10The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. https://amp.dev/about/ads/ I don't even work on the web…
> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author…
It decreases load times for sites pulling in 20+ third party scripts. The purpose of AMP is to cut away that hot garbage. Sadly it hasn't worked at shaming these poorly designed sites into correcting their ways.