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

41–50 of 159 posts

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#41

Post by PaulHoule »

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…

It would go a long way to the reform of the mobile web if they got rid of all the "pop-in" windows that are hard (and sometimes impossible) to dismiss.

Pop-ins are annoying on the desktop, but close to catastrophic on mobile.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#42

Post by kuschku »

roneythomas6 wrote: post #38
kuschku wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The guardian may run their own CDN, but all guardian search results in Google Search redirect to the Google AMP cache.

For example, current #1 result for "guardian" is https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/a...

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#43

Post by ucaetano »

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.

> 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

No, you only get the boost if you allow any CDN to cache it.

Please stop making the same baseless claim without providing sources.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#44

Post by kuschku »

ucaetano wrote: post #36
kuschku wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes. To quote the Google AMP Cache FAQ (https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq):

> Google products use the Google AMP Cache

Google products will only mark your page as AMP if you allow it to be included in the Google AMP Cache CDN.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#45

Post by sbov »

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…

There's ways Google could fix this without AMP, such as factoring in total page weight when ranking mobile search results.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#46

Post by kuschku »

ucaetano wrote: post #43
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.

> 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 No, you only get the boost if you allow any CDN to cache it. Please stop making the same baseless claim without providing sources.

That is the same result. I want to prevent Google (or anyone but the user’s browser addons and me) from modifying the UI of the page, adding any UI, swipe gestures, or from caching it.

How can I do that AND get the same spot in Google search?

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#47

Post by godot »

dividuum wrote: post #31
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.

>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.

That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#48

Post by kuschku »

godot wrote: post #47
dividuum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.

And modifies the pages UI.

And forces you to load content from Google’s CDN.

And so on.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#49

Post by anon1385 »

ucaetano wrote: post #30
anon1385 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you show us some examples of AMP sites served from Cloudflare (and not the Google AMP cache) that show up in the Google AMP carousel and get the AMP logo in the Google search results?

The burden is on you to prove that they don't.

How can I prove a negative?

I can only point to what the Google AMP documentation says, where they state that you have to allow your site to be served by Google AMP Cache to count as an AMP site: https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq and https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp

Maybe they don't follow their own docs and there are sites out there not cached in the Google AMP Cache that still get placed in the carousel. I have no way to prove that without being able to test every single possible search term (plus all the other variables like location which affect the results).

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#50

Post by avaer »

godot wrote: post #47
dividuum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.

For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow.

AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.

Post reply on HN