Should have stopped at Google AMP is bad.
Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
91–100 of 159 posts
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#92So AMP is not even faster than other mobile pages without the google CDN? A pity so many prefer something like AMP to generally stripping down their sites. Get rid of JS unless absolutely necessary, compress/remove images, remove all this ad and bloat, and your page, whatever category it fits in, will load blazyingly fast. What happened to good old sole HTML and CSS, served statically or server-generated for lightnin…
It's not only not faster but it's often slower — AMP puts 100KB of render-blocking JavaScript into the critical path. If you can render a page with less than that, you're likely to beat it, which I see regularly on iOS.
Not only that, but because of the limitations of AMP, many AMP sites are getting slower and slower as they attempt workarounds. I've seen many sites recently that do section headers as a large image-as-text, I'd guess because they want to use a custom font? Even worse is AMP won't load images until you've scrolled them into view.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#93The author seems to completely misunderstand the point of AMP. It was never designed or created for dynamic, interactive content, especially e-commerce. This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.
The point of AMP is to maximize time spent on Google SERP pages. Period. Time is money.
Whatever other benefits it brings are solely for the purpose of pitching it.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#94The author seems to completely misunderstand the point of AMP. It was never designed or created for dynamic, interactive content, especially e-commerce. This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.
>> It was never designed or created for dynamic, interactive content, especially e-commerce.
That was true. But its not true any more.
Google is now pushing AMP for pages like that.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the fact AMP sites are faster than the average site is exactly what makes it so dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of sites out there that aren't bloated up with javascript and ads, but Google doesn't offer any way to identify that in the search results. The only reliable indicator of site speed is the Google AMP Cache logo. So naturally users will consciously or otherwise favour clicking results with…
Well, here's an interesting data point to dig through insofar as AMP performance is concerned: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/170816_7R_b596415003dabf34... Average Guardian article.
So 80% is js bloat? How does that optimizes for my experience?
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#96Tried today to find a way to let amp-img mimic CSS' background-size cover paired with background-position. Not possible, so I need still to use CSS' background-image without AMP's preloading feature.
This is one of the most used features in HTML/CSS to handle images, people are complaining in the Github issues, others rewrite the whole Internet in AMP with AMP components.
This is ridiculous, Google just wants to restrict other ad networks' JS and recreates HTML/CSS/JS for no real reason.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your optimism, but my read is that current Google management is very heavily invested in this idea and will fight hard before they give it up. In addition AMP has penetrated other platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. The cat is out of the bag, and it will not be easy to put it back.
The cat is out of the bag, and it will not be easy to put it back. Yup, now that those damn users have gotten a taste of speed & low data usage, it's gonna be hard to drag them back to how it used to be. We had a good thing going, and they didn't know any better.
No one is advocating for users to have a bad experience and large downloads.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#98Despite 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…
The crazy thing is that content websites insist they need dozens of ad and analytics libraries on every page because otherwise, how would they monetize their site? So, they create a crappy experience, realize it's crappy, then switch to AMP, getting rid of all the libraries they supposedly "needed". They could just remove the cruft themselves and cut out the middleman.
In reality, they get scared of losing traffic by not adapting AMP, decide to implement it, and then flip out over how restrictive it is without understanding how they caused this situation.
It's all driven by money, and unfortunately AMP and bloated pages make money - fast, sexy pages without AMP do not.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#99Despite 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.
It's not as simple as total page weight - latency and server throughput are also important. AMP pages are likely served from a fast global cache with low latency from all over the world.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
The carousel ranks in position one if it is determined to be the best result. It can rank way below. https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook is a good way to see that. Original article was about e-commerce. The Top Stories carousel is not relevant to e-commerce since it only contains news articles.
> It can rank way below. https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook is a good way to see that. It ranks at #2. With articles that otherwise end up at #14 (just checked). That’s a 12 place ranking boost. You can’t get that anywhere else. > Original article was about e-commerce. You’re competing with ebay, and ebay uses AMP on all pages so that they get the #1 spot with the carousel.
Do you have a link where an ebay page shows up in a carousel?