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

You Don't Get AMP

blog.153.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#21

Post by quarterto »

CaptSpify wrote: post #17
quarterto wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you write a carousel without JS? A live blog? Lazy loading images and ads? A stateful e-commerce product page? Have a look through the list of AMP components, you'll be surprised what's possible. https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components

Good examples, but none of that is anything that I want. I'd much prefer small, simple, static pages to any of that. Additionally, they will load faster, and be easier to read. Those things are just trimming pages down to what Google wants, not users.

As somebody who has implemented AMP for a major newspaper, these are in fact things that publishers want.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#22

Post by quarterto »

goodplay wrote: post #18
quarterto wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The page is still yours. You have absolute control over the branding, the analytics, the monetisation. Just because it happens not to be served from your domain doesn't mean it's not yours. Let's also not forget that AMP is actively encouraging alternative caches: Cloudflare Ampersand[1] was announced literally an hour after my post. It's a whitelabelled AMP cache aimed at solving this exact problem. [1]: https://www…

For now. AMP is a PROXY/MITM service, with all the perks that come from being such a service. There is nothing stopping google ,or whatever company owns them after they become a Yahoo!, from changing their "policy" to better be aligned with their interests.

As soon as Google stops providing value to publishers, they lose their power in the industry. For now, we work with what we have.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#24

Post by quarterto »

CaptSpify wrote: post #20
quarterto wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, speed should be a ranking factor, but I'd much rather have a slow site that's relevant than a fast one that isn't.

How about a relevant page that is fast. We can have the best of both worlds.

Wouldn't that be nice. But Google don't control how relevant or fast something is, they can only decide how to rank them.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#25

Post by webartisan »

As someone who has developed for mobile web, it can be surprisingly hard to push back on bloat from marketing / seo / analytics teams. I hope this becomes a W3C standard so us developers can show them the finger the next time they want to bring mobile web to a crawl.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#26

Post by webartisan »

As someone who has developed for mobile web, it can be surprisingly hard to push back on bloat from marketing / seo / analytics teams. I hope this becomes a W3C standard so us developers can show them the finger the next time they want to bring mobile web to a crawl.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#27

Post by webartisan »

As someone who has developed for mobile web, it can be surprisingly hard to push back on bloat from marketing / seo / analytics teams. I hope this becomes a W3C standard so us developers can show them the finger the next time they want to bring mobile web to a crawl.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#28

Post by CaptSpify »

quarterto wrote: post #21
CaptSpify wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good examples, but none of that is anything that I want. I'd much prefer small, simple, static pages to any of that. Additionally, they will load faster, and be easier to read. Those things are just trimming pages down to what Google wants, not users.

As somebody who has implemented AMP for a major newspaper, these are in fact things that publishers want.

And as a user: IDGAF what publishers want. Sorry, they had their chance and blew it. And this is the problem: Publishers increasingly are ignoring what their users want. Instead of providing quality products, they keep circling the drain to get the lowest-quality content. GLWT

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#29

Post by CaptSpify »

quarterto wrote: post #24
CaptSpify wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a relevant page that is fast. We can have the best of both worlds.

Wouldn't that be nice. But Google don't control how relevant or fast something is, they can only decide how to rank them.

... thats my point.

This is a problem that Google created. If they would prioritize small, simple, fast sites, and rank them higher, people would make more sites like that. Google is the one pushing slow, bloated sites to the top of the list. Now they are coming in to "fix" the problem that they made.

Re: You Don't Get AMP

#30

Post by flukus »

quarterto wrote: post #21
CaptSpify wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good examples, but none of that is anything that I want. I'd much prefer small, simple, static pages to any of that. Additionally, they will load faster, and be easier to read. Those things are just trimming pages down to what Google wants, not users.

As somebody who has implemented AMP for a major newspaper, these are in fact things that publishers want.

Adding shit because publishers want them is how things got so bloated in the first place. If it weren't for that we wouldn't need AMP.
Post reply on HN