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

Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

thirtybees.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#31

Post by dividuum »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #23

Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…

Personally I don't think the idea behind AMP is bad. But the implementation is dangerous as it artificially fragments the web. I guess fewer would oppose AMP if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#32

Post by themaveness »

SystemOut wrote: post #19
themaveness wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its that. Its that AMP is borderline an anti-trust. But the point is, even with the speed and possible ranking boost, does it boost conversions? More traffic without conversions generally does not help an e-commerce site.

First, how is it anti-trust? And second, it's been shown that faster page loads = better conversions since your bounce rate drops. This is especially true for mobile.

Imagine the scenario, a user lands on the AMP page and a user lands on a responsive page. Both have a question about shipping time. The AMP user has to navigate to a contact form to ask, then submit. The responsive user can just ask in the chat window on the page.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#33

Post by durgiston »

ucaetano wrote: post #9

The author seems to completely misunderstand the point of AMP. It was never designed or created for dynamic, interactive content, especially e-commerce. This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.

Yeah, but if the hardware store doesn't have screwdrivers anymore, you can see why people might be upset.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#34

Post by roneythomas6 »

kuschku wrote: post #20
roneythomas6 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare provides AMP cache. If you don't want to use Google CDN.

That still doesn’t give you any of the ranking boost – that is only given if you allow Google to cache it on their CDN. Google does that by default, you likely don’t even notice it, but if you try to prevent it, you lose the ranking boost.

Can you provide a reference where it says that there is rank boost for AMP sites. AFAIK if you're site is fast it will get some boost only in mobile. But it doesn't need to be an amp site. Gurdian for example runs their own AMP cache.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#35

Post by kuschku »

ucaetano wrote: post #29
kuschku wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no direct source, but you can try it, or just look at the current implementation. Currently, Google serves AMP by serving all AMP search results from its own cache, which allows Google to add features such as the header bar, or the swiping between carousel elements. This doesn’t work if the pages are from different origins. EDIT: I found some sources: > contain a " rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v…

> Q: Can I stop content from being cached? How different is this from common HTML caching done all over the web? And that's about using the Google AMP Cache, not about using AMP. And you still didn't provide a source about "having to use Google's CDN". Essentially: do AMP pages hosted on Cloudflare's cache do not get into Google Search carrousel?

> How different is this from common HTML caching done all over the web? And that's about using the Google AMP Cache, not about using AMP.

> And you still didn't provide a source about "having to use Google's CDN".

This is the issue I meant with Google’s CDN/Cache.

If a user clicks a link to an AMP page in Google search, they are not redirected to your page. They ALWAYS get the cached version from Google, and Google modifies your page by adding UI, and changing other functionality (for example, the left/right swipe gestures are changed to navigate to other Google search results).

You can not opt out of this while still appearing in the carousel.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#36

Post by ucaetano »

kuschku wrote: post #24
ucaetano wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its that AMP is borderline an anti-trust. And why is that? > More traffic without conversions generally does not help an e-commerce site. You should not be using AMP for e-commerce, at least not for anything but a static product page. Again, if you try to drive a nail with a hammer and it doesn't work, the fault isn't on the hammer, it's on you.

> And why is that? Because you only get a ranking boost if your page > contains a " rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"> tag inside their head tag. and > is allowed to be cached in the Google AMP cache

You're taking the guidelines for the Google AMP Cache. Do you have any sources showing that an AMP page hosted by CloudFlare is demoted compared to on hosted on Google?

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#37

Post by anon1385 »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #23

Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…

I think that the fact AMP sites are faster than the average site is exactly what makes it so dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of sites out there that aren't bloated up with javascript and ads, but Google doesn't offer any way to identify that in the search results. The only reliable indicator of site speed is the Google AMP Cache logo. So naturally users will consciously or otherwise favour clicking results with the Google AMP logo. That drives more traffic to those sites, improves their search ranking etc. A non-GoogleAMPCache site could be incredibly lean and fast but it will still lose out to the Google AMP Cache hosted sites in terms of traffic and ranking. The only way to compete is to use Google's proprietary markup standard and cede hosting of your site to Google.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#38

Post by roneythomas6 »

kuschku wrote: post #18
roneythomas6 wrote: post #14

Why would you build your whole site on AMP??? Please read this before think about build AMP. https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/12/progressive-web-amp...

> Why would you build your whole site on AMP??? To get a ranking boost? For some search terms, moving to full AMP gives you a ranking boost catapulting you from page 13 or worse to the #1 result. So if you don’t use that, someone else will use that advantage.

Guardian for example runs their own AMP cache and gets in page 1 without Google AMP cache. Also AMP is one in many factors that is used to decide site relevance. Amazon and many other sites that don't use AMP gets featured in page 1 on mobile.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#39

Post by kuschku »

roneythomas6 wrote: post #34
kuschku wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still doesn’t give you any of the ranking boost – that is only given if you allow Google to cache it on their CDN. Google does that by default, you likely don’t even notice it, but if you try to prevent it, you lose the ranking boost.

Can you provide a reference where it says that there is rank boost for AMP sites. AFAIK if you're site is fast it will get some boost only in mobile. But it doesn't need to be an amp site. Gurdian for example runs their own AMP cache.

Pages that use AMP get a massive indirect ranking boost. Yes, they don’t get directly boosted, but they get added to the AMP carousel, between the ads and the #1 result, or between the #1 and #2 result. If, for a given search term, none of the top pages have an AMP result, Google will boost the first 3-4 pages that have an AMP result to this place – even if they’d organically rank on page 10 or later. In some situations, I’ve seen results from page 13 boosted to #1.

For example, none of the newspapers reporting about stuff where I live support AMP, but a few US newspapers that report about sports events that happened years ago do.

So when I search about stuff in my city, at the top there’s an AMP carousel with news from years ago, and below that only the actual results.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#40

Post by ucaetano »

themaveness wrote: post #32
SystemOut wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, how is it anti-trust? And second, it's been shown that faster page loads = better conversions since your bounce rate drops. This is especially true for mobile.

Imagine the scenario, a user lands on the AMP page and a user lands on a responsive page. Both have a question about shipping time. The AMP user has to navigate to a contact form to ask, then submit. The responsive user can just ask in the chat window on the page.

> The AMP user has to navigate to a contact form to ask, then submit. The responsive user can just ask in the chat window on the page.

Why would you use an AMP page for that? It was specifically NOT designed for those use cases.

Now back on your point: if the users who have a question are a small % of the total users, why would you have all users load the heavy chat window on mobile devices with limited screen space?

Post reply on HN