Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please Make Google AMP Optional

alexkras.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#91

Post by wand3r »

endorphone wrote: post #79
myth_buster wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.

>This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.

I mean, it's a closed source algorithm. Google provides guidance directly and indirectly but no one knows how the rank weights work outside of Google.

Amp obviously ranks higher it is the top hit in search for me. Results appear under it...

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#92

Post by jolux »

izacus wrote: post #68
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just said "Jimmy pissed in the pool, so who cares if Timmy shits in it?"

I have hard time sympathizing with people who made the web a horrible blinking ad and malware laden experience for everyone. Especially when they're complaining about something that brings actually content and performance forward again.

Google has a part in that too though. I have a hard time sympathizing with people who made the web into a panopticon, and as such I'm not inclined to hand them more power.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#93

Post by hk__2 »

holografix wrote: post #66
endorphone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…

You should really be careful of sourcing your news on fb, you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see.

> you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see.

This comment is applicable to all media sources: replace "fb's algos" with any newspaper, website, or TV channel name. You might want to be careful of sourcing your news from one single source instead.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#94

Post by wyager »

endorphone wrote: post #17
epistasis wrote: post #6

I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google. Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean everything about how it's been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google's search because of it.

Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…

> Apple introduced reading mode,

A purely local feature that you have to select manually and doesn't infringe on your privacy or break the ability to share links.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#95

Post by Viper007Bond »

mattmanser wrote: post #57
vultour wrote: post #40

> AMP took off. Over two billion pages are using AMP I don't think I've ever seen an AMP-enabled website, I certainly never noticed any buttons suggesting I visit the original website.

Only works on Chrome.

That's simply not true. I get it all the time in Safari on iOS.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#96

Post by j1vms »

What some may fail to see is that the Web's success in the smartphone/mobile era is not yet secure. Both Facebook and Apple, among others, have vested interest in treating the Web as competitive threat. I believe AMP was Google's response to Facebook's Instant Articles.

Although there is much to be concerned about Google's ever-expanding reach into the daily life of a good portion of the planet, I think web proponents have more to fear from the likes of FB, Apple, and others appearing on the horizon. These companies are mostly succeeding at meeting current UX expectations (performance, standardization, ease-of-use), and in doing so they are capturing eyeballs away from the web. It's possible some of those who have left for these walled gardens may not return.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#97

Post by kuschku »

abrowne wrote: post #52

I've never actually seen AMP "in the wild". Is it because my only mobile browsing is with Firefox on Android?

Google intentionally serves to Firefox a massively limited version of Google search.

Most search features are completely removed, and this also includes AMP. Others are search filters, for example.

Post reply on HN