There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…
> 10x better than the ad-filled, [...] 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit Actually I see these on an AMP page too.
I decided to disable AMP on my site
311–320 of 360 posts
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#312There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…
Why not just fork AMP, call it openAMP and then rally around a roadmap that is more fair for the web platform at large (instead of just Google's)?
Google won't let you into the carousel
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? No. And Google could not care less if pages load fast -- it could incenticize making pages faster with traditional methods instead. It's all about capturing more eyeballs and proxying more traffic.
They already did that, and web "developers" did not do the work. The period in which Google incentivized faster page loads was the period of some of the worst page bloat growth.
I would argue that they didn't do that, or at least not enough. I obviously have no insight to how they sort, but IME they aren't putting small and fast sites at the top of the list. Those are usually 3 or 4 pages back, and the first results are usually the slow and bloated ones.
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately encouraging better design won't do much to most of the web. You have to guide with a heavy hand.
I'd strongly disagree. If you hit them where it hurts, they'll change. I'll even argue that we haven't really tried encouraging sites to be better. If Google ranked load-time/page-bloat much heavier in their algorithm, and started punishing bad pages, then sites would adjust. I currently see very little action from Google in this direction.
Look at how successful the mobile-friendly push was at getting everyone from vaguely talking about responsive designs to doing it Right Now! Every user-visible benefit of AMP would happen following your comment – increase the weight for page load time/size and add a standard pre-fetch mechanism[1] which would close most of the gap for the CDN hosting.
1. i.e. the top n results will have rel=dns-prefetch tags hoisted into the search result, the top result (or visible/hover/etc.) will have the first rel=preload html/style/script tags hoisted.
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. You don't need AMP to get rid of them though. We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for…
> You don't need AMP to get rid of them though. We can appreciate that Google encouraged developers to get rid of bloat AND to opt-in for AMP, but that doesn't make AMP technically superior. I think we should give a critique of ourselves and ask why did we wait for a corporation G to push us to get rid of the bloat we created? AMP (or something like it) makes it easier to push recommended practices to upper managemen…
While your point is valid, it's a sad state of affairs when engineers and their managers can't even be trusted to make good decisions for themselves, and have to outsource their judgement to Google under the guise of having your hands tied. The irony, it would seem, is that you're actually tying your own hands in other ways.
Of course, we could argue till the cows come home about what "good" judgement is :)
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#316There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…
So true. Just trying visiting Forbes.com in firefox without adblockers and see how a premium website like that is horrible to load.
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I believe" "I don't think" Try looking for evidence instead. Do a Google search on mobile. Try to find a single carousel result that isn't an AMP page.
Not all of the carousel's are AMP. I just searched for Trump on Google news and the carousel didn't contain any AMP pages.
Mobile or desktop? On mobile the carousel was 100% AMP. On Desktop the "top stories" was 0% AMP.
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#318Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of the carousel's are AMP. I just searched for Trump on Google news and the carousel didn't contain any AMP pages.
Mobile or desktop? On mobile the carousel was 100% AMP. On Desktop the "top stories" was 0% AMP.
Mobile. I have a Nexus 5X. I was using the default Chrome browser.
Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site
#320I've read quite a lot about AMP, but I still don't really understand for what technical reason a new markup language (AMP HTML) and an additional javascript library is required to achieve the (claimed) effect. More specifically: Is there any evidence that AMP is able to provide a better result (at least in terms of performance) than just using a small subset of standard HTML, a little bit of CSS, getting rid of any j…
AMP JS library enables lazy loading of images/videos, so if you have a page with tens of them, you will notice the difference. > getting rid of any javascript Try to find a popular website without JS. Even HN uses it, so this is a moot point.
> Try to find a popular website without JS. Even HN uses it, so this is a moot point.
There's a big difference between not using JavaScript at all and doing it correctly with progressive enhancement. Any site which doesn't depend on a ton of JavaScript to render and uses lazy-loading where appropriate will see the same benefits and will be significantly more robust as well.