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

211–220 of 238 posts

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

#211

Post by tmikaeld »

bcrl wrote: post #198
Fuzzeh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Core web vitals is a joke. Literally 4 days ago it started bitching to me about breadcrumbs telling me that data-vocabulary.org schema deprecated Google ; New Breadcrumbs issue detected for site xxxxx 24 Jun 2021•Breadcrumbs So I look into it, knowing I'd fixed that ages ago.... Google ; Last crawled : 13 Nov 2019 Triggering stuff because you eventually got round to looking at it 19 months later? and it's all like th…

I tried to report a bug to Intuit about QuickBooks online the other day. 45 minutes later, the person answering the phone at the other end was finally able to give me a ticket number. I don't understand why it has become so hard to give feedback to developers to improve their product. I like it when people report bugs that give me a better understanding of how my software is being used -- am I really in the minority…

Depends on the bug, if it hurts the business it's generally fixed instantly, if it's just an annoyance, feet are dragged.

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

#212

Post by nextaccountic »

partiallypro wrote: post #5

I find "Web Core Vital" to be fairly useless (outside of trying appease Google.) I can make a page load slower and feel worse for anyone visiting the site...and the "Core Vitals" score will increase. So, how is this about the user experience? You can inline all of your CSS to increase your score, but what about users that visit more than one page? Now they have larger payloads per page. Then at that point what is the…

> I can make a page load slower and feel worse for anyone visiting the site...and the "Core Vitals" score will increase

But there's a metric specifically for measuring load times. https://web.dev/lcp/

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

#213

Post by raxxorrax »

rchaud wrote: post #75
Spivak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, you're right that this is essentially Google making everyone eat their vegetables but isn't it a little wild that this single company has so much control over the internet that they can basically make sweeping decrees like this?

No, I don't think so. There are hundreds if not thousands of unique domains for nearly every single query. Very few of those are providing first-hand, unique information. Take Apple product announcements; there are hundreds of high-traffic blogs basically creating identical content rehashing a press release or writing posts about newly announced products. There has to be a way of prioritizing some of these sites over…

> There has to be a way of prioritizing some of these sites over others.

Those that display fewer ads and trackers? Many people would like that but somebody would really not.

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

#214

Post by raxxorrax »

undfg wrote: post #84
fddddd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol. google is sweeping the entire internet not catering to chrome users under the rug and you're concerned with popups on the top 10 bigger sites

Cookie laws have destroyed my web browsing experience much more than amp ever has.

Companies that use a disproportionate of trackers and therefore need cookie banners destroyed my web browsing experience.

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

#215

Post by wyager »

scott_w wrote: post #204
wyager wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your model is nonsense - physical goods are not the same as digital goods. Regardless of whether or not your model actually makes sense, an inevitable consequence of your model is that the internet will become siloed at a national level. It sounds like you’re fine with that though.

They’re not the same but they don’t need to be. It’s not my model, it’s just the way the world has always worked.

Show me a company that ever got sued, indicted, or fined by a foreign country for sending internet packets to that country, with no other business presence in the country, before 2010.

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

#216

Post by wyager »

scott_w wrote: post #205
wyager wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how the internet worked in most countries until recently. In any case, once again it’s irrelevant. Whatever your justification for it, this behavior will lead to internet siloization.

You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. The former is just a delivery mechanism for the latter, which is what’s being regulated. Plenty of countries require you to register for sales tax once you establish a presence in their country, whether you sell goods or services. No business operating in this environment thinks it’s unreasonable to do so. Once again “their house, their…

> You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business.

No, you are confusing sending information with “doing business”.

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

#217

Post by paulcole »

wutwutwutwut wrote: post #163
paulcole wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you work at the same company on the same product don’t you both have the same end goal?

Not really, no. There are 500 people in marketing organization and I doubt there are less than 20 conflicting end goals within that organization. Unless you're going all fluffy and talk about company goal as said by the owners. Either way, if their process of reaching their end goal included steps which legal dismissed then they needed to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new strategy, right? It would be…

> It would be strange for me who doesn't work in their profession come and tell them how to solve their issues.

You're not telling them, you're helping them.

I guess I can't get past the idea of telling someone I work with that their solution won't work and then being like, "sorry you're on your own".

Although I'm sure you don't care, the disdain you show for marketing wouldn't make me super excited to work with you.

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

#218

Post by lapnitnelav »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #130
lapnitnelav wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah sure let's bury our head in the sand and pretend all forms of media will thrive while only selling subscriptions but so far, we've seen how it went for the older ones (newspaper, radio, tv ...)

Or we can acknowledge that advertisment is there to stay and we instead develop a proper framework to make it work sanely rather than all the duct-taping we've done so far.

The real failure is the unwillingness to confront the fact that ads were there to stay and should have been baked into a W3C standard ages ago instead but here we are.

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

#219

Post by scott_w »

wyager wrote: post #215
scott_w wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not the same but they don’t need to be. It’s not my model, it’s just the way the world has always worked.

Show me a company that ever got sued, indicted, or fined by a foreign country for sending internet packets to that country, with no other business presence in the country, before 2010.

Not a company but USA vs Gary McKinnon 2002.

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

#220

Post by scott_w »

wyager wrote: post #216
scott_w wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. The former is just a delivery mechanism for the latter, which is what’s being regulated. Plenty of countries require you to register for sales tax once you establish a presence in their country, whether you sell goods or services. No business operating in this environment thinks it’s unreasonable to do so. Once again “their house, their…

> You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. No, you are confusing sending information with “doing business”.

Laws don’t give a damn about data packets: they’re interested in the real world outcomes which are the services those packets enable. If you can’t understand this then I’m not wasting any more time explaining the basics of real life to you.
Post reply on HN