551–560 of 570 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give this tired quip a break. You don't have to be spending dollars to be a considered a customer, that's not what customer means.
It literally means a person who purchases something. No sane person on the planet would consider a person using a search engine for free, "the customer". The customer is the person who buys something - in Google's case, advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It literally means a person who purchases something. No sane person on the planet would consider a person using a search engine for free, "the customer". The customer is the person who buys something - in Google's case, advertising.
Right, and users of the engine aren't using it for free. They're paying in ad impressions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who block JS by default but who don't want to completely turn off JavaScript encounter that 8-second delay. (I'm using "ad-blocker" loosely -- it refers to any kind of tool that blocks ads and tracking. On my computer, it's blocked at the hosts level in addition to an add-on.) Some people don't want to load resources from Google's servers, and they shouldn't be punished for it. That JS file isn't needed for AM…
Couldn't this be solved by the adblockers by injecting some JS to change this?
One problem is that Google wants AMP to replace HTML. I've already seen AMP pages in the Google search results (on desktop), and at least one large website so far appears to be built entirely in AMP.[1]
Google already sends desktop users to Wikipedia's mobile site from some of their listings, so I wouldn't be surprised if Google eventually starts to send desktop users to AMP pages. Google benefits when people visit AMP sites, because Google will be able to spoof the domains and serve the content themselves, giving them increased control over publishers.
[1] independent.co.uk, but they removed the CSS that delays page loading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that these users work for Google and/or on the AMP team is stated in their profiles. However, as is almost universally the case, they never disclose it in the AMP discussions. And how many people go and check other users' profiles? This is important info considering the moral and technical gray area of AMP. We've seen members of the AMP team discuss AMP "in good faith" here while shutting down any questions…
Plenty of users check other users' profiles, just as you did. I don't know about AMP discussions elsewhere, but HN is certainly not shutting them down. We've had two huge threads in the last two days (this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21703345 ), and half a dozen other ones this year alone. That makes it an extremely well-covered topic here. In fact, HN moderators usually downweight threads that relit…
I heed your warning!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The behavior you describe occurs if the useragent blocks the URL https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js which does not have anything to do with ads or analytics. Certainly an ad blocker can be used to block any URL, but I don't know of any that block this one by default. If there are any, let me know and I'm happy to file issues to get that fixed! If a user chooses to block this particular resource which the page needs to…
People who block JS by default but who don't want to completely turn off JavaScript encounter that 8-second delay. (I'm using "ad-blocker" loosely -- it refers to any kind of tool that blocks ads and tracking. On my computer, it's blocked at the hosts level in addition to an add-on.) Some people don't want to load resources from Google's servers, and they shouldn't be punished for it. That JS file isn't needed for AM…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without the Javascript file, the images will not load. AMP loads images using a custom element which has performance benefits such as lazy loading of images until they are close to the visible viewport and guaranteeing a stable layout that will not cause the elements on the page to jump around. The downside is that until Javascript is loaded, these images are not available to the browser.
Not seeing images is better than not seeing the page at all. People who block content know that things sometimes don't load. There is no reason to block loading of the pages for 8 seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you work on AMP, can you please disclose why Google results call the AMP carousel “Top Stories,” when indeed it’s not the top stories, but the top _AMP_ stories? Please create a ticket that instructs engineers to immediately change this nomenclature to either “Top AMP Stories” or start allowing non-Amp pages to appear in this carousel. This is misleading to users of Google.
Presumably, the people who work on the AMP spec are different from the people who work on Google search (or for that matter, Bing search, Yandex search, or any other search engine that consumes AMP). I doubt he has any control over how search results are ranked or presented.
Plausible deniability and all that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
firefox still has horrible performance and battery usage on mac.
I keep seeing this, but I don't think it is true today with latest FF. The recent updates they made have made FF on mac speedy and no more battery hungry than chrome. safari still beats all on batt though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course AMP has other motives than simply making the web faster for mobile, but it also does make the web faster for mobile. I guarantee the AMP version of that paper's mobile website provided a significantly better user experience than the normal version. That is why AMP has been successful, and it's why I will continue to click on AMP links whenever available. Is giving Google that much control ideal? Of course n…
> a lot better than the alternative There are more alternatives. IIRC the goal in 56k days was to make the page load inside 10 seconds. People managed.