Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

kinsta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#101

Post by abalone »

They don’t actually say why they think leads declined.

They list a few reasons why they think it didn’t increase, e.g. they’re already fast on mobile. But they don’t explain a 59% drop in leads.

Crucially they note that impressions and clicks actually increased with AMP. That points to an unflattering explanation: the AMP format is blocking techniques they use to turn clicks into leads.

So why don’t they discuss the reasons for the drop? Perhaps because they know those techniques are user hostile.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#103

Post by dang »

xiphias2 wrote: post #5

Front end engineers are not selected for their skills in understanding algorithms and data structures. It's quite easy to speed up a web site if you understand how CPU works on a low level and how Javascript is compiled to machine code, but it requires a lot of knowledge.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18693451 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#104

Post by manigandham »

privateSFacct wrote: post #41

Here's the reality. The Taboola news carousals at the bottom of most slow loading actual news sites are filled with total junk. One page per image websites, super slow, adblock goes crazy. I've literally NEVER had a good experience with these "Stories you may like" Google does something with a news carousel that loads fast and the content isn't crap. I get why publishers running things like taboola think it's terribl…

AMP is a fork of HTML that pressures limited developer resources to maintain a version for Google's visitors while only being fast because of arbitrary framework limitations.

You can get a far better outcome by having search results consider site speed as a factor in rankings, which would make all publishers improve their sites overnight. The reason Google doesn't do this is because they also run the biggest ad network in the world which runs 80% of the slow ads you see on websites.

These projects within Google are common, similar to how it ranks down websites forcing web users to download an app, when their own websites do the same. AMP allows Google to keep people on Google domains, with better data collection and more control over the independent ad networks and analytics that can run on AMP pages.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#105

Post by tyingq »

shaki-dora wrote: post #94
tyingq wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Conspiracy theory" is an interesting take. Are you suggesting Google's motives here are purely altruistic...solely to improve the web?

The conspiracy here seems to refer to the accusation that Google is trying to actively make their search results worse, in order to force people to buy ads. That post does seem to be paying lip service to actual benefits for users (such as speed), but then ... suddenly ignore them in favour of a Trojan horse metaphor that doesn't make much sense to me.

It would be hard to prove Google is purposefully making the organics lower quality. On the other hand, it's obvious they are shifting them down the page over time, which has a similar effect.

As for the Trojan horse metaphor, it is my opinion that's what AMP is. It's tricking publishers into ceding control of their websites. I suspect Google will, over time, leverage AMP to further march towards a walled garden. It is, though, an opinion. Hard for me to "prove" something I'm not privy to.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#106

Post by manigandham »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #91
dep_b wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right about that, but AMP'ed pages not coming from Google's cache are already really fast. Actually they're only preloading those pages while you're on the results page, which is something they could do as a reward for all pages that have a reduced page weight.

It is not safe to preload arbitrary web pages. The user will be deanonymized to a site they never visited. It is safe to preload AMP pages by design.

And yet now you never leave Google's servers when browsing. They know your entire path from search to site and back again.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#107

Post by manigandham »

izacus wrote: post #27
PaulHoule wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Perceived" benefit is the key. It used to be the "World Wide Web" but now it is the "Google Platform" and we just live in it. After Google established that useful web search was possible the realized that the #1 competitor for their ads was organic rankings, and if you could really get a #1 ranking by investing in the best content then why would you spend money on ads? So since then it is has been about deliberately…

Your conspirancy theory completely ignores the whole shitshow of 15MB+ textual websites we've had to endure in those last years.

80% of the ads you see on the web come from Doubleclick adserver - owned by Google. Perhaps you should ask why they do not optimize that system and use site speed in search rankings instead?

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#108

Post by trevyn »

zapzupnz wrote: post #77
scarface74 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google AMP on iOS is also much worse than Safari + adBlocker. AMP also leaves out relevant content.

My beef is that it used to jack the scrolling. I don't know if it still does.

Considering the percentage of news sites that can't even scroll properly on iOS, I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#109

Post by kentt »

Rjevski wrote: post #69

I don’t like AMP, but I am so happy to see when websites complain that “leads dropped by 59%” because of it. For “leads” to drop that much it must mean they weren’t legitimate, happy leads in the first place. I bet those “leads” came from a shit letter popup or other similar dark pattern, in which case AMP works as designed and benefits the user by shielding them from such garbage. AMP is bad for the web in the long…

Agreed. However, I'm more in favour of AMP because if the reasons you mentioned. Essentially I think Google has tricked a lot of publishers into using less dark patterns and avoiding shooting themselves in the foot with heavy ads and tracking. It's not perfect but from an end user perspective I'm grateful for it.

Re: Google AMP case study: leads dropped by 59%

#110

Post by ehsankia »

kentt wrote: post #109
Rjevski wrote: post #69

I don’t like AMP, but I am so happy to see when websites complain that “leads dropped by 59%” because of it. For “leads” to drop that much it must mean they weren’t legitimate, happy leads in the first place. I bet those “leads” came from a shit letter popup or other similar dark pattern, in which case AMP works as designed and benefits the user by shielding them from such garbage. AMP is bad for the web in the long…

Agreed. However, I'm more in favour of AMP because if the reasons you mentioned. Essentially I think Google has tricked a lot of publishers into using less dark patterns and avoiding shooting themselves in the foot with heavy ads and tracking. It's not perfect but from an end user perspective I'm grateful for it.

It's also important to note that AMP isn't meant to be used for every site out there. It's only useful for specific sites that have a static landing pages. I still don't understand why sites like reddit use it either.
Post reply on HN