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

421–430 of 566 posts

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

#421

Post by technion »

rsync wrote: post #366
AlexandrB wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads. It's one bad thing (new reddit UI) wrapped in a worse thing (AMP), and getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics. The stupid part is that the amp page is indistinguishable from the (new) reddit page (the AMP page comes complete with the "download our app" popup). So I don't see how it's providing any speed/experience benefit.

"The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads." How can I see this very specific example ? I would like to understand exactly what this looks like ... I am not a reddit user and I don't consume much web content on a phone, which is using Safari on an iPhone ... Would I need to download google chrome onto my iphone, then do a google search for a reddit thread, then click on that search result ? Or…

It's something you will routinely see in subreddits. Someone makes a comment wanting to link this thread, and it will say "just have a read of https://google.com/amp/news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322730....

The madenning part is you will see these links when using Firefox or Safari and you'll see them on a desktop. It is of course, not just Reddit thing. I've seen LinkedIn shares look like this.

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

#422

Post by glenstein »

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…

>I hope they get smacked down for it in the upcoming anti-trust lawsuit.

I wonder if the outcome of the lawsuit will be a grab bag of concessions, such as abandoning AMP, and, say, adding the ability to fully delete Google Apps from Android rather than doing a mere factory reset, making opt-out of interest based ads easier, and things of that nature.

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

#423

Post by chris_f »

gpanders wrote: post #389
chris_f wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"YMMV though, maybe I need to step up my searching game to obtain better results using DDG. That's definitely something I should work on." Yeah, I had the same exact feeling a couple of month ago and created this [0]. [0] https://www.runnaroo.com

I'm surprised I've never heard of this. The results seem pretty good too. Searching for my username on DDG returns an entire page of results on "glanders", a "contagious zoonotic infectious disease that occurs primarily in horses, mules, and donkeys". I don't find anything related to my name until page 2. Runnaroo, however, has my GitHub profile as the first hit and my person website as the second. I like those resul…

Firstly, thank you!

"I'm surprised I've never heard of this."

It is only a couple months old, so not many people have heard of it yet, but I have been trying to make an effort to share it more vs. just staying behind the computer and adding features. It did get a nice bump recently when Brendan Eich tweeted out a link to it. That was a really cool surprise.

"Runnaroo, however, has my GitHub profile as the first hit..."

I'm also working on adding Github right now as a Deep Search source, so the below results will soon be integrated into the SERP for that query.

https://api.github.com/search/repositories?q=gpanders

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

#424

Post by glenstein »

gregable wrote: post #322
calcifer wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a net improvement for security that allows sites to put less trust in third-party servers and scripts. Third parties like Google, right?

Yes. Signed Exchanges mean the publisher signs the content using their private key. A third party can provide delivery like a CDN, but they cannot modify the content, or the signature would no longer match. The useragent (browser) enforces this. This gives the secure control of the content back to the publisher, unlike the trust model of CDNs or the AMP Cache.

>A third party can provide delivery like a CDN, but they cannot modify the content, or the signature would no longer match.

To make sure I understand, does this mean that in principle a third party other than Google can deliver the AMP pages? Is google working to facilitate that AMP hosting is open to everyone and calibrating their searches point to any and all alternative AMP hosters?

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

#425

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

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…

> users not only accept it, they love AMP.

As a user, I will absolutely say I love AMP. AMP pages load incredibly fast with much less bullshit.

The real problem is that AMP isn't necessary. Google created AMP and is encouraging (nearly forcing it) it in a very hamfisted way because web developers couldn't figure out how to make responsive, fast-loading web pages without a huge company like Google spelling it out for them with a framework.

Now, obviously to power users like the typical HN user, AMP is evil because it's just Google taking over more of the web.

But understand that to your typical mobile user, AMP is a godsend because of how fast it is. They don't care that the URL shows Google instead of whatever page they think they're on.

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

#426

Post by texasbigdata »

hjek wrote: post #370
lightswitch05 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more that AMP is terrible. I do everything I can to avoid it. Using DuckDuckGo certainly helps, but I will still occasionally stumble on an AMP site. I've created a hosts block list to help me avoid AMP as much as possible. It currently has 3,569 unique domains (works great with a PiHole!). I'm really concerned about Chrome's 'signed exchanges' where they can fake the URL completely. I hope Firefox w…

Even better than blocking AMP is just redirecting to the proper page[0]. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/

Yessss. Any chrome equivalent

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

#427

Post by lightswitch05 »

hjek wrote: post #370
lightswitch05 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more that AMP is terrible. I do everything I can to avoid it. Using DuckDuckGo certainly helps, but I will still occasionally stumble on an AMP site. I've created a hosts block list to help me avoid AMP as much as possible. It currently has 3,569 unique domains (works great with a PiHole!). I'm really concerned about Chrome's 'signed exchanges' where they can fake the URL completely. I hope Firefox w…

Even better than blocking AMP is just redirecting to the proper page[0]. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/

Yes, that is even better! Unfortunately it doesn’t work on iOS, or I would have never created my list. Literally the only thing I miss about Android was being able to use browser extensions like uBlock Origin with Firefox on Android. Safari has its built-in content filters but it’s not the same.

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

#428

Post by flattone »

lightswitch05 wrote: post #77
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…

I couldn't agree more that AMP is terrible. I do everything I can to avoid it. Using DuckDuckGo certainly helps, but I will still occasionally stumble on an AMP site. I've created a hosts block list to help me avoid AMP as much as possible. It currently has 3,569 unique domains (works great with a PiHole!). I'm really concerned about Chrome's 'signed exchanges' where they can fake the URL completely. I hope Firefox w…

Duck duck go is a lighthouse in the storm. We are all saved. If Jesus came back ask yourself this, ‘would he be google or duck duck go’

Exactly. Search your hearts and use the net with your values as though they’ve become a force to be feared by the swill that is invading our liberties (google).

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

#429

Post by glenstein »

sgift wrote: post #197
ravenstine wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope they get smacked down for it in the upcoming anti-trust lawsuit. People have been saying this for years, and it never happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google - Things take time, but Google did get fined in the past and there's a good chance they get fined again (and forced to change things).

My concern is they lose the ability to counterbalance the other four of the Big Five, if they are uniquely targeted by an anti-trust lawsuit.

Which is to say, I don't disagree with the momentum toward anti-trust measures being brought against Google, but I want them systematically brought against the entire Big Five, or else the effects may just be further consolidation.

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

#430

Post by radium3d »

SquareWheel wrote: post #261
radium3d wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amp is supposed to reduce file size and script overhead. Its seemingly innocent goal was to speed up page loading on slower mobile devices and reduce bandwidth usage. Google then cached entire amp versions of articles on their servers and never load the original when searchers or Google news app users click to read an article. It means the authors of the articles web pages never get hit by readers. This is I think th…

You're only half right. While Amp is designed to create small pages, what's more important is that they should be safely-embeddable. That means there's no potentially unsafe scripts or asset requests. That why Amp uses a subset of HTML as defined via WebComponents. >Google then cached entire amp versions of articles on their servers That's the Amp Cache. The cache allows vendors like Google, Microsoft, and Cloudflare…

"preloading" the entire article the way say, Google News app does for example means that without going two touches deeper it essentially negates the user ever needing to visit the site that originally authored the content removing them entirely from the process. It's not very content-creator friendly. For that matter, why use the internet if you don't trust anyone but Google, Microsoft, Cloudflare, etc? Insanity. The internet may as well be considered broken and useless if you can't trust your web browser to at least minimally protect you from scripts automatically hijacking your computer with an "unsafe script".

Also, I did mention scripts but left it short and sweet with the limited support of scripting that AMP has to explain AMP in more simple terms.

Post reply on HN