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

341–350 of 566 posts

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

#341

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

viraptor wrote: post #147
snazz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a discussion with someone on Lobsters about the actual cost of a lower-end iPhone versus a similarly-priced Android phone and the iPhone appeared cheaper: > The Pixel 4 is $799 and the Pixel 3a is $399 (although it may be on sale right now depending on your region). The iPhone 11 is $699 and the iPhone SE (2nd generation) is $399. Both provide additional discounts if you trade in your current phone (and si…

Maybe I've been really unlucky, but I haven't seen an iPhone realistically surviving more than 3 years with real usage. Buttons dying and the battery barely surviving a day was pretty common. I know there will be survivor examples out there, but without knowing the average it's hard to compare them.

I'm using an iPhone 7 which is almost five years old. Apple has changed the battery once (during which I was without the phone for a few hours).

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

#342

Post by drawkbox »

umaar wrote: post #231
drawkbox wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing that is extremely annoying is the hiding of urls in Chrome. Hiding the protocol and the rest of the url besides the domain. When you go to click up in the url/address bar to change a section of the site the protocol re-appears and messes you up. Or when you click in on some mobile and the whole url disappears and you just wanted to change part of the url. Yes Google there are still people that want hack…

Yeah the hiding of the protocol in the URL was a pain to deal with. I updated Chrome today and looks like there's a way to turn this off: 1. Enable chrome://flags/#omnibox-context-menu-show-full-urls 2. Right click the address bar 3. Select 'Always show full URLs' Instead of seeing: news.ycombinator.com You'll now see: https://news.ycombinator.com I made a Tell HN post about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2…

Looks like they finally added it back in to version 83 of Chrome with the flag and then setting, it was originally removed in version 70.

The long dark days of url shrouding and obscuring are over. We won the battle.

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

#344

Post by DevKoala »

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…

Because now every asset you download from the web is a Google tracking resource. Is it really unclear what’s going on? When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. These requests end up being part of the profile built for you which is used for advertisement targeting and content recommendation.

PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project?

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

#345

Post by PunksATawnyFill »

wwweston wrote: post #330
TechBro8615 wrote: post #34

How does anyone think this is a good idea? It should be clear which news site I am reading when I'm reading an article. Otherwise, how do I know which bias to apply? On iOS, the title bar says "google.com" whether I'm reading an article from CNN.com or WashingtonExaminer.com. Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the…

> How does anyone think this is a good idea? A while back on one of the AMP discussions here, someone from Google weighed in. They said the data was clear: users not only accept it, they love AMP. I asked how they knew that, because if it was, say, just tracking how many people tried the 2-3 tap process to get to the original URL compared to how many people just engaged whatever you showed them, then the data might b…

Companies with shitty UI often make unfounded claims that "users prefer it." Adobe is another prime offender here.

If anyone's word should NOT be taken as gospel for UI or branding, it's Google's.

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

#346

Post by dzonga »

if you're on Android use Firefox as your main browser, if you wanna avoid the shit called AMP. on iOS safari does a little better on showing the url. Changing search engines to say Bing, is not really helpful. Bing on chromium android, still shows AMP pages.

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

#347

Post by a1a1a1a1a1a1 »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #299
contravariant wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It looks the info you want is in at least each of first 4 results on ddg. Specifically the 1st ddg result for me is a stackoverflow post with the question showing how to pass individual arguments and the answers explaining how to pass a variable number of arguments. (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3811345/how-to-pass-all-...) I would say ddg gave better results.

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

#348

Post by readarticle »

seph-reed wrote: post #287
schnable wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Safari?

This month? https://gist.github.com/iansltx/18caf551baaa60b79206#gistcom...

The only issue there is developers not being able to keep up with the rapid pace at which Safari is still strengthening privacy protection even in the middle of a pandemic, as far as I can tell.

Blocking third party cookies by default and requiring requests for storage access all sounds great.

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

#349

Post by joshuamorton »

tyingq wrote: post #300
joshuamorton wrote: post #290

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. 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.

So if I understand correctly, your threat model is "Google will inject unwanted JS into a JS blob they host (like the amp.js from Google's CDN) and this will do nefarious (for some definition of nefarious) things to me without me knowing."

How is this different than today, where many sites use js from google, either as a cdn or part of the ads infrastructure? I guess you can block some of those, but blocking the jquery provided by google's CDN isn't going to work too well.

(And further, what kind of nefarious thing do you fear Google will do? How likely is it that they will do so, in your opinion?)

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

#350

Post by neon_electro »

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…

Basecamp is coming out with a new email service called HEY on June 15th. It looks like it might be invite-only to start, but we'll see come that date.

https://hey.com/

Post reply on HN