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

Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 566 posts

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#291

Post by dade_ »

nothis wrote: post #247
ralmidani wrote: post #127

I got a new computer (Mac Mini) last week and, as the ritual usually goes, I opened Safari and was about to type “google.com/chrome”, then stopped myself and went to “getfirefox.com” instead. It’s been a while since I gave FF a serious look, and so far I haven’t felt like I’m missing anything. Next up, I need to change my default search engine to DDG. What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve hear…

>What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve heard of ProtonMail but haven’t used it. Been Firefox user out of conviction for 10+ years, made the switch to DuckDuckGo as my main search engine with about a year ago, no regrets. But Gmail? It's sticky. I have so much stuff tied to my email account and it just sucks looking for alternatives. I'd even happily pay. The main difficulty is finding a servic…

2 years, mailbox.org has worked well for me, and has active-sync support.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#292

Post by Kalium »

lightswitch05 wrote: post #289
Kalium wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understood signed exchanges, a correct implementation makes it impossible for the intermediary to inject, alter, replace, or otherwise swap out any part of the page without failing verification. This would mean the original server gets to do all the branding and get all the recognition and integrity in transit that its controllers might wish. I've clearly missed something. Can you help me?

Yes, as you say, Integrity is preserved. However, Confidentiality is also another important aspect of Information Security. Making a 3rd party appear as a 1st party, is a privacy and confidentiality violation, which is why I do not like AMP and signed exchanges.

Yeah, as near as I can tell signed exchanges are essentially a caching proxy. With integrity checks, so that you don't have to trust the proxy all that much and its agency is much reduced. I'm reminded of apt.

The calculation appears to be that given the chance, some website controllers will choose to trade confidentiality of public pages for better load times. In business terms, this seems a pretty straightfoward win in many cases, so I can see why some would sign up.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#293

Post by simpss »

chrischattin wrote: post #95
simpss wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the only gripe i have with DDG is missing 'site: "somewebsite.com"' option. Is there a way to achieve it? I mainly use it for '*.countrydomain' to get results for a specific country.

"site:somewebsite.com some_search" works just fine on DDG.

sorry, just checked, it's the wildcard that isn't working. So 'site:*.co.uk'

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#294

Post by wtetzner »

nothis wrote: post #247
ralmidani wrote: post #127

I got a new computer (Mac Mini) last week and, as the ritual usually goes, I opened Safari and was about to type “google.com/chrome”, then stopped myself and went to “getfirefox.com” instead. It’s been a while since I gave FF a serious look, and so far I haven’t felt like I’m missing anything. Next up, I need to change my default search engine to DDG. What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve hear…

>What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve heard of ProtonMail but haven’t used it. Been Firefox user out of conviction for 10+ years, made the switch to DuckDuckGo as my main search engine with about a year ago, no regrets. But Gmail? It's sticky. I have so much stuff tied to my email account and it just sucks looking for alternatives. I'd even happily pay. The main difficulty is finding a servic…

Maybe you can setup your new service to pull email from your Gmail account via POP3 or something, so you still only need to login to one account. Then you can gradually move further and further away from the Gmail account.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#295

Post by simpss »

coldpie wrote: post #92
simpss wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the only gripe i have with DDG is missing 'site: "somewebsite.com"' option. Is there a way to achieve it? I mainly use it for '*.countrydomain' to get results for a specific country.

I think you want "inurl", see here: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sy...

yes, exactly, thank you. Not as powerful as a specific wildcard, but good enough.

sadly, it doesn't work with .something, so 'inurl:.co.uk' doesn't seem to work. Works with 'co.uk' but that's only valuable with longer suffixes. something like 'uk' is a bit too common.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#296

Post by wizzwizz4 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #290
tyingq wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site. That said, Google already has control of every AMP page because the spec REQUIRES you to load a piece of Google controlled/hosted JS onto your page. That JS can change at any time without "signed exchanges" being aware.

> Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site. Ok why is this an issue? Note that HN is a bad place for this kind of socratic method discussion, we'll both quickly run out of the ability to post replies. Assume I'm someone who doesn't share whatever values you share about the purity of the url…

Centralised collection of metadata, without the users having any way of knowing it's going on.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#297

Post by aaomidi »

a-wu wrote: post #246
hackmiester wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that make the “open in app” button on the AMP pages work? Because I have the same problem and I’m basically willing to try anything.

Unfortunately no. But there's an "Open in Apollo" option from the share sheet which works for me. It's just an extra tap to open the share sheet from the AMP page.

Also an easy JB for iPhones was posted this week. With that you can make Apollo your default reddit application.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#298

Post by pbhjpbhj »

delouvois wrote: post #100
ilikehurdles wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The URL bar is helpful to fighting phishing attacks. It's one of the things everyone at my company, including the non-technical people, is askedt to check before entering information. Also techie and non-techie people have been using the same browsers for how many decades now? Aren't the majority of people in many countries on the internet? It seems like the average non-techie users succeeded in figuring things out s…

URL are "not particularly helpful for non-techie users" ? How did you even end up here is beyond me.

Presumably you know that non-technical users, IME, use Google instead of the URL bar. And, if Bing is the default search engine they search Google first, then enter the website name in Google, then click on the first result (without checking the URL).

This is the primary way I've seen "non tech" users navigate to a website. Some will use the address bar, but they're in the minority.

No matter how much I berate my family they still all do this, so I'm no longer surprised to see it when visiting a client (though I don't do web design/training since last year).

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#299

Post by shrimp_emoji »

contravariant wrote: post #222
StreamBright wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> when DuckDuckGo doesn't quite deliver Which is 90% of the time when you are looking for IT questions. Unfortunately. I am hoping they are going to get better, it would be so good to finally stop google search.

Which queries in particular? I've found duckduckgo to be quite useful especially for IT questions because it actually listens when I tell it to search a phrase verbatim. If I try to google an error then I keep getting all kinds of stuff that is vaguely related but with no mention of that particular error whatsoever.

StackOverflow stuff, for me. I always have to prepend `g!` to those.

Google must index SO better or something because there's always so many more useful results (particularly in the little "sub-results" below any SO result) than what DDG gives. E.g., compare:

DDG: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=bash+pass+argument+to+anoth...

Google: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bash%20pass%20argument...

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#300

Post by tyingq »

joshuamorton wrote: post #290
tyingq wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site. That said, Google already has control of every AMP page because the spec REQUIRES you to load a piece of Google controlled/hosted JS onto your page. That JS can change at any time without "signed exchanges" being aware.

> Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site. Ok why is this an issue? Note that HN is a bad place for this kind of socratic method discussion, we'll both quickly run out of the ability to post replies. Assume I'm someone who doesn't share whatever values you share about the purity of the url…

Combined with that second thing I mentioned (required Google hosted JS), it is total control by Google with no straightforward way for me to detect it, block it or go around it, as I can today.
Post reply on HN