
One Year Without AMP - ingve
https://www.alexkras.com/one-year-without-amp/
======
lightswitch05
I block AMP and its related domains in my aggressive blocking hosts list[1].
I've found many AMP related sites are purely for marketing, or 'news' articles
that are thinly veiled ads. I haven't missed it at all. I also don't use
Google, so perhaps that it part of it, but I applaud your decision to remove
AMP. The web isn't meant to be centralized in this way.

[1]
[https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/tracking-...](https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/tracking-
aggressive-extended.txt)

~~~
JoshMnem
I block AMP pages too. Unfortunately, Google artificially slows down AMP pages
so that they literally take 8 seconds to load if you block the AMP JavaScript.
(Check the inline CSS.)

~~~
SquareWheel
Are you sure that isn't just a timeout function in case AMP fails to load?

edit: Dug up the code.

    
    
        <style>
            body {animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both}
            @keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden} to{visibility:visible}}
        </style>
        <noscript>
            <style>
                body {animation:none}
            </style>
        </noscript>
    

The timeout function is turned off if JS isn't available, so JS being disabled
shouldn't be a problem.

I'm guessing this is actually to delay page paint so it doesn't display when
half-loaded.

~~~
anoncoward111
If they don't allow you to fix this fallback, it's a punishment

~~~
bastawhiz
In fairness, blocking the external half of the code while not blocking the
inline part of the code is on you. You could just as easily block/disable the
<style> tag that adds this in addition to the AMP JS.

~~~
JoshMnem
Blocking inline CSS is more difficult than blocking external resources.

------
arkadiyt
Here's a Firebase talk where the dev accidentally admits Google gives
preferential ranking to AMP pages and then he immediately gets cut off:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puUqJTJVz5A&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puUqJTJVz5A&feature=youtu.be&t=2055)

~~~
petee
Without time to hunt down the articles, I was fairly sure Google has been
publicizing that they were going to give AMP priority for a long time now, no?

~~~
joegahona
Not that I've seen. Everything I've seen from Google says that AMP has no
bearing on rankings. If there's stuff published by Google, or quotes directly
from Google people working on AMP, that say differently, I'd love to see it.

See:

\-
[https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/824185977098960897](https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/824185977098960897)

\-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXi76HDygi8&t=11m46s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXi76HDygi8&t=11m46s)

\-
[https://youtu.be/ixPFGXYUwNM?t=19m16s](https://youtu.be/ixPFGXYUwNM?t=19m16s)

~~~
ricardobeat
Even disconsidering organic results, only AMP pages are eligible for display
in the carousels at the top of the page. The end result is the same as being
upranked.

~~~
joegahona
Yeah, definitely -- I acknowledge this elsewhere in the thread. There's no
denying that those items have preference, but I believe they're news-only (as
of now).

------
amgin3
AMP is terrible and it is ruining the web for desktop users. I frequently get
linked to AMP pages while on my desktop, and have never come across one that
provides a link to the non-AMP version of the page and often the URL to the
non-AMP version cannot be derived from the AMP URL.

What's wrong with using CSS media queries to have a responsive design? Or if
you absolutely need a separate mobile site for some reason, at least give a
link back to the full desktop version of the page..

I get that AMP is supposed to help optimize page loading for mobile devices,
but for most sites I don't think it is necessary to go to the extremes of AMP
in 2018. Most places in the world have decent enough internet speeds and
mobile data allowances that pages do not need to be super tiny all the time.

~~~
jwilk
An AMP document is required to contain:

    
    
      <link rel="canonical" href="...">
    

pointing to the regular HTML document.

~~~
amgin3
Except that doesn't put a physical link in the document. Why should I have to
dig into the source code of the page just to find the link to the normal page?

~~~
jwilk
Some non-mainstream browsers (ELinks at least) make <link>s visible. This is
occasionally useful, but most of the time it just wastes space. :-/

You might want to use this web extension to make automatic AMP → HTML
redirects:

[https://github.com/da2x/amp2html](https://github.com/da2x/amp2html)

Or you could use this bookmarklet:

    
    
      javascript:window.location=document.head.querySelector('link[rel="canonical"]').href

------
martin-adams
I was at a Google sponsored hackaton focusing around page speed. They were
pushing AMP. What I feel was completely missing at the time was data, testing
results and case studies showing where it has improved a business ROI.

They have some published now but it’s really so high level that you can’t
conclude your business will get similar results. Some measure click through
rate, others conversion rate or bounce rate. It’s not like for like.

I feel like the data was deliberately vague. I work in ecommerce and need to
know this improves conversion rate and average order value. That’s what drives
revenue and profitability.

------
willio58
I doubt removing amp actually helped your search results. If there’s evidence
of this out there I’d like to see it. Like you said, it’s probably the fact
that you’ve written more (and maybe better) articles in the past year.

~~~
ImaCake
>I doubt removing amp actually helped your search results.

The author doesn't say this. In fact the author has carefully worded their
conclusion so they don't say this!

From the article:

>Still, I feel very confident that disabling AMP did not have a negative
impact on my search traffic.

~~~
willio58
I said that disabling amp probably didn’t have a positive impact. The writer
is saying that they are confident that disabling amp did not have a negative
impact. Two different statements.

------
nelsonic
This article is not scientific or conclusive and offers _poor advice_ for
people wanting to _accelerate_ their content.

I am _keenly_ interested in the effectiveness of AMP (Accelerated Mobile
Pages) as a content discovery, delivery and filtering system because I " _feel
the pain_ " of slow content each/every time I use a 3G (non-wifi) connection.

Yes, AMP was developed/sponsored by Google, but that does not make it "bad"...
If anything it means Google knows that slow mobile pages "hurt" the web and
they are trying to help "fix" the often painful waiting times for loading
content on mobile.

AMP is an "open-source initiative" _however_ to be "compliant" a page _MUST_
include the AMP JavaScript file:
[https://ampbyexample.com/introduction/hello_world](https://ampbyexample.com/introduction/hello_world)
For people who are "privacy conscious" this is an _obvious_ "red flag" because
you are basically _forced_ to include/load a "tracker" which means Google
knows what content is being read.

For the _vast_ majority of Publishers who already use Google Analytics
including the AMP JS on the page is not a concern. (you are already sending
all your usage data to Google...)

The OP concludes with: > " _I would highly recommend small time bloggers and
publishers like myself to avoid wasting their time on AMP._ "

I _question_ the OP's suggestion to avoid AMP as for _most_ "small time
bloggers and publishers", having _extra_ content discovery & distribution for
not _that much_ extra effort, is well worth the time.

Google Does _NOT_ "slow down" AMP pages, much to the contrary, in our
experience of Deploying AMP for several content-heavy websites Google both
give _better ranking_ and _promote_ AMP pages in the SERPS. (Yes, this is
"favouritism" for AMP content, but it's also _better_ for the Users who
searched for that content! _)

Alex's _relatively* "flat" traffic (see graphs in article) and the fact that
he has been writing more content:

" _A lot of it can be attributed to me writing additional articles in the last
year_ "

Means that the conclusions of the article are "unscientific" _at best_. I
would _counter-argue_ that if he _actively_ supported AMP his traffic would be
_higher_. (and since his blog is ad-supported, he should re-consider...)

~~~
JoshMnem
AMP is one of the biggest threats to the future of the WWW at the moment. It's
an attempt to appify the web on Google's own domain and dictate how you
monetize your site. Hand-optimized HTML pages are faster than AMP pages. Here
are some links:

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/)

[https://80x24.net/post/the-problem-with-amp/](https://80x24.net/post/the-
problem-with-amp/)

[https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/01/09/amp-will-
still-...](https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/01/09/amp-will-still-suck)

[https://danielmiessler.com/blog/google-amp-not-good-
thing/](https://danielmiessler.com/blog/google-amp-not-good-thing/)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+sucks&num=100](https://www.google.com/search?q=amp+sucks&num=100)

~~~
cylinder714
Maciej Cegłowski:
[http://www.idlewords.com/amp_static.html](http://www.idlewords.com/amp_static.html)

------
kyberias
It is never explained but I believe AMP here means Accelerated Mobile Pages.

~~~
heyoni
Reddit uses it and it is awful, because it never remembers your choice to not
use the app, and will keep asking you.

~~~
aikinai
Reddit's incessant up-selling is completely unrelated to AMP; they do it on
all of their pages.

And just another anecdote, but I like Reddit's use of AMP. The pages load
super fast, the top comments are all accessible, and there's a big button at
the bottom to load the full page if you want.

~~~
cylinder714
A reminder: one can go to
[https://old.reddit.com/r/test/](https://old.reddit.com/r/test/) to access the
old site, and
[https://old.reddit.com/r/test/.compact](https://old.reddit.com/r/test/.compact)
to see a mobile-friendly version.

~~~
crtasm
Alternative to .compact is
[https://i.reddit.com/r/test](https://i.reddit.com/r/test)

------
joegahona
The site I work on had a slight bump up the first month after disabling AMP,
and we've had pretty flat traffic from SEO ever since, which feeds the
conspiracy theorists that "AMP helps your search positioning."

~~~
partiallypro
It's not a conspiracy theory, I've worked with Google engineers over the phone
and email for an agency...and this is one of their pitches. They now will even
help you build the AMP pages, or just build them for you.

~~~
joegahona
I was on a Hangout with two product managers of AMP, and they told me exactly
the opposite. This was Oct 2017. The exception is the news carousel, which
appears at the top of search results and also contains only AMP. As of right
now, however, it's only news content, and I don't work for a news site.

~~~
partiallypro
My last call was a month ago, this was for a general home page of a site. If
what they told me is not true, or what they told you is not true...Google
needs to get their employees on the same page. But it appears from some of our
experiences that it has helped rankings, which I find annoying and a bit
baffling.

