[deleted]
Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
11–20 of 50 posts
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#12I've already gone to great lengths to optimize my mobile site. I am fully confident that AMP cannot possibly make my site any faster. Every page on my site loads via a single HTTP request that transfers 10k of gzipped JS and HTML all at once. Loading an additional script with an extra request for another JS file is completely against my mobile design principles. Should people like me start using AMP anyway to stay re…
He declined to comment about whether AMP pages would rank higher, though he said some of the signals Google uses for search include whether a page is mobile friendly and how rapidly it loads
Showing only results that use AMP would be a very coarse cudgel to enforce page speed. It is entirely within Google's ability to simply directly measure page speed, and to my eyes the more sensible course of action given the capability.
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#13There's a lot of Google negativity here (perhaps not without reason), but when you view the AMP spec and what it tries to solve for, it feels like a smart move to help broaden the adoption of sensible but poorly understood optimizations: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/get_started/technical_overvi...
Those optimizations are worth looking over even if you don't plan on adopting AMP.
I do think that rather than requiring direct use of AMP for specialized search placement, it should really measure site performance and only ensure your site meets the same benchmark, no matter what you do to optimize.
Google may not be a perfect ally of the open web, but I like this approach much more than what I've seen from Facebook.
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#14I've already gone to great lengths to optimize my mobile site. I am fully confident that AMP cannot possibly make my site any faster. Every page on my site loads via a single HTTP request that transfers 10k of gzipped JS and HTML all at once. Loading an additional script with an extra request for another JS file is completely against my mobile design principles. Should people like me start using AMP anyway to stay re…
He declined to comment about whether AMP pages would rank higher, though he said some of the signals Google uses for search include whether a page is mobile friendly and how rapidly it loads Showing only results that use AMP would be a very coarse cudgel to enforce page speed. It is entirely within Google's ability to simply directly measure page speed, and to my eyes the more sensible course of action given the capa…
You have to imagine someone there is already measuring this, if for no other reason that evaluating the effectiveness of their own approaches.
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#15I've already gone to great lengths to optimize my mobile site. I am fully confident that AMP cannot possibly make my site any faster. Every page on my site loads via a single HTTP request that transfers 10k of gzipped JS and HTML all at once. Loading an additional script with an extra request for another JS file is completely against my mobile design principles. Should people like me start using AMP anyway to stay re…
You are inlining the script on the same html page?
Hope you are using chunked transfers so it will render sooner, pre-gzipped streams end up not being chunked in nginx.
Google has already said AMP is not used as a ranking signal (but mobile friendliness is).
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#16There's a lot of Google negativity here (perhaps not without reason), but when you view the AMP spec and what it tries to solve for, it feels like a smart move to help broaden the adoption of sensible but poorly understood optimizations: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/get_started/technical_overvi... Those optimizations are worth looking over even if you don't plan on adopting AMP. I do think that rather than requiri…
Some of those guidelines (avoid style recalculation and use only "GPU-accelerated" animations) are specific to Chrome (and to other browsers of today). Style recalculation is needlessly slow today due to the lack of parallelism and typed CSSOM. And there's no such thing as a "GPU-accelerated" animation, either in the spec or technically: all animations can be run on the GPU with minimal state changes. It's just that browsers found it easiest to only optimize a small subset of cases (in the case of CSS animations, really small--transform and opacity), so as to keep around their legacy, originally-CPU-based, painting infrastructure. It's good that they did that, because it let us get to some degree of graphics acceleration quicker, but we can do so much better.
I'd prefer to just improve the browsers instead of putting the burden on Web authors.
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#17Make up your mind Bloomberg: Google said [...] it will put websites built with its Accelerated Mobile Pages [...] in the Top Stories section of a search results page VERSUS AMP isn’t “a signal we use in ranking” pages, Besbris said. He declined to comment about whether AMP pages would rank higher
There is a difference between being the number one in the standard results list and having your page featured a la Google+/Google MyBusiness pages.
I don't know the data on CTR for these featured pages but I think it's probably significant.
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#18When an article about less web bloat has a self-playing video clip...
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#19To use AMP you need to load JavaScript from the AMP CDN, which is operated by Google. From " rel="nofollow">https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-h... : > The AMP runtime is loaded via the mandatory " rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"> tag in the AMP document . So you are handing over the security of your site and your user's privacy to Google.
you can also host it yourself. See github downloads.
You could also use a subresource integrity check if you are worried about the security but still want to use Google's hosted version.
Re: Google Seeks to Pacify Consumers with Faster Mobile Pages
#20There's a lot of Google negativity here (perhaps not without reason), but when you view the AMP spec and what it tries to solve for, it feels like a smart move to help broaden the adoption of sensible but poorly understood optimizations: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/get_started/technical_overvi... Those optimizations are worth looking over even if you don't plan on adopting AMP. I do think that rather than requiri…
Some of those guidelines (avoid style recalculation and use only "GPU-accelerated" animations) are specific to Chrome (and to other browsers of today). Style recalculation is needlessly slow today due to the lack of parallelism and typed CSSOM. And there's no such thing as a "GPU-accelerated" animation, either in the spec or technically: all animations can be run on the GPU with minimal state changes. It's just that…
Sure, I'd love browser improvements too, but at the end of the day, you can't automatically optimize everything from the browser. The browser can't magically fix a 1MB JS file in , or serving 2000px wide images to iPhones.
>I'd prefer to just improve the browsers instead of putting the burden on Web authors.
A cynical answer is that Google released this because web authors haven't done a good enough job making fast pages.