51–60 of 81 posts
Alas, it's rare to find a phone browser that supports extensions.
I can understand how the aspect of the control Google has over AMP isn't ideal but you can't deny AMP sites are a great user experience on mobile. Pages tend to load for me in less than 0.5 seconds even on my mobile connection. For other sites, pages can take 10 to 30 seconds to load, have pop-ups, image loading causes the page the jump up/down etc. Making sites with small download sizes and quick rendering is a very…
The problem that AMP is trying to solve is definitely real. But pushing sites to add another layer on their system is the wrong way to do it, IMO. Why don't they just start rewarding systems that load fast, instead of pushing people into another google system?
This system is easy to follow and validate though. Is it AMP compatible or not AMP compatible?
As a user, I've found AMP results to be invariable an excellent user experience on mobile. I will always click an AMP link over a non-AMP link, when on mobile, because I know the AMP link will load quickly and be usable, and the odds are good the non-AMP link will not. Apparently this is a minority view around here. :)
I completely agree with you. There are so many things that infuriate me about regular sites: - Images not having defined heights, leading to content jumping up as I'm reading - Ads loading and unloading, leading to the page jittering up and down erratically, making the content unreadable - Auto-playing videos: some start playing audio, some have the audio muted but still pause any music I have playing - Those ads tha…
I use AdGuard [1] (which is a system-wide ad-blocker for Android that doesn't require root privileges) along with Brave [2] set as a custom tab provider in Chromer [3] to get rid of pretty much all ads in both apps and websites (regardless of browser).
[1] https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html
[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.brow...
[3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=arun.com.chrom...
As a user, I've found AMP results to be invariable an excellent user experience on mobile. I will always click an AMP link over a non-AMP link, when on mobile, because I know the AMP link will load quickly and be usable, and the odds are good the non-AMP link will not. Apparently this is a minority view around here. :)
I completely agree with you. There are so many things that infuriate me about regular sites: - Images not having defined heights, leading to content jumping up as I'm reading - Ads loading and unloading, leading to the page jittering up and down erratically, making the content unreadable - Auto-playing videos: some start playing audio, some have the audio muted but still pause any music I have playing - Those ads tha…
My desktop is the opposite, but that's because my desktop has Chrome extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem that AMP is trying to solve is definitely real. But pushing sites to add another layer on their system is the wrong way to do it, IMO. Why don't they just start rewarding systems that load fast, instead of pushing people into another google system?
> Why don't they just start rewarding systems that load fast, instead of pushing people into another google system? This system is easy to follow and validate though. Is it AMP compatible or not AMP compatible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question then of course is: why is the non-AMP version of your blog slower, and could you have improved that with the same effort? Or is it just that people coming there via Google get Googles CDN which is faster?
AMP preloads the content before you click, which your own web site can't compete with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why don't they just start rewarding systems that load fast, instead of pushing people into another google system? This system is easy to follow and validate though. Is it AMP compatible or not AMP compatible?
But couldn't they just have a "Here's why we won't rank you higher" check instead?
I agree your approach would have a net benefit as well but Google's AMP approach of making you build your site with performance in mind from the ground up might be more effective than nudging existing poorly performing sites towards being more performance minded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a minority view. At least in my case, I'm fine with clicking on an AMP link, but I'm always aware of: * How difficult it will be if I want to share the link with someone (because I don't want to share an AMP link). * How difficult it is if I want to go exploring around the site that has the thing I am reading.
We are working on a direct path from AMP pages loaded from Google Search to the canonical to fix the link issue & sharing will use the canonical link where technically possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are working on a direct path from AMP pages loaded from Google Search to the canonical to fix the link issue & sharing will use the canonical link where technically possible.
How about a similar lightning bolt for sites with < 1s loading time and no popups that just show the content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the only sites I can reliably use currently are text sites like hacker news and amp pages. I can have a site like reddit even take 30-40 seconds to load. What about reddit's AMP pages [1]? [1] https://redditblog.com/2016/09/20/amp-and-reactredux/
That blog reads as contradictory. It talks about building a SPA, and rendering on the client side using JavaScript. It also talks about being AMP compliant. Those goals cannot coexist.
AMP pages, which link to (and preload) a react-based SPA, which gets its content from AMP pages.