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 impossible that I'd be able to reach the actual content of a non AMP site in the first 5-10 seconds of clicking on its link. (On my phone that's an additional 1-2 seconds for registering the tap, and 1-2 seconds for navigating to the browser)
My click-throughs to non AMP websites have reduced considerably.
So say what you may, AMP (or FB Instant or its ilk) will prosper until the mobile web experience stops being so crappy.
(Edit: About a decade ago, when mobile browsers were in their infancy and data plans were slow and limited, I distinctly remember using Opera Mini for mobile browsing because it used to pre-render pages on the server and send a very light payload to the phone. This saved you both data costs and made mobile browsing even realistically possible)
That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.
AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.
Even served from my cheapo shared web host and not Google's AMP cache, I have pretty-much instant loading of all pages: http://multithreaded.link/2017/08/lyft-customer-acquisition-...
It's a good framework for building super fast pages. I will admit it's a little riskier to build a site on top of technology a large company owns, but this is a risk that you also have when you use React or other frameworks.
React isn't a good analogy. When you use React, you can get 100% of the value of the library, even if Facebook disappears overnight.
By contrast, much of the benefit of AMP is the caching aspect, which relies on Google.
You don't need requires-js-to-render markup or a cache operated by a privacy whoring ad company to make a page load quickly.
Edit: also, comparing to react or whatever js framework is like saying "look at my new cast iron shoes, they're so much lighter than those old lead ones".
this is 100% true. yet somehow there are still those who swear this isnt the case. i've ranted about it previously .
Sure google could modify chrome to allow this and not block it. but you'd be asking for even more technical blockers. And you'd have something that only works for a small portion of the web.
And this would work for at least as much of the web as is currently putting effort into AMP.
This is important for avoiding that you e.g. would suddenly see re-marketing ads for pages that you have never clicked.
I fully support a "faster page spec" that search engines incentivize, just like I support a ranking boost for using HTTPS.
But AMP isn't that; AMP is incentivizing the payment of tribute data to Google under the veneer of a faster page spec, to steer the rhetoric more favorably for the company.
I think it is more likely that they just higher web-developers, according to some cultural norm about how to select devs and about what features to specify. And those devs choose frameworks according to other cultural norms about what makes a good web framework. They are partly, but not completely constrained in this by the requested features set.
The result is bloated JS applications where mere pages are required, but the complexity of the system, and the social inertia is so great that nobody can fix, or even perceive the problem.
Well, kind of, in the same way that common-sense lightweight HTML/CSS/JS pages aren't a desired product for the people who make those decisions on publisher websites.
If AMP went away tomorrow I would just browsing on my phone. Ad blockers are not good enough, and I refuse to fight popups and scroll blockers and blah blah blah in 2017.
If you are a publisher and think that you need AMP than it only means that your website sucks big time.
If all I wanted to do was read hacker news comments I would be safe..
what does google get out of it? The experience is better for users who like fast, lightweight pages, but as far as i can tell there's no tangible direct benefit to google when you load an AMP page. The only benefit to google is if their users like the experience and continue to use Google search so they can access AMP-cached pages. If users don't like AMP, google gets no benefit.
or am i missing something?
Every AMPed page is contributing work towards improving the effectiveness and appeal of Google's product (selling ads), by adding data to the targeting algorithms.
If every piece of content on the internet is tracked -- through full UX hijack on Google's infrastructure -- that might be a trillion dollar holy grail.
AMP carousel pages have some subtle capture features that regular AMP pages don't. They will add more, then slowly move them to the regular AMP pages over time.
People absolutely share amp links.
Also, amp being google.com hosted means no more pesky same-origin privacy protections like limiting cookies.
Google is tracking you. If you don't want to be data-mined, you shouldn't be using Google. If you are using Google, it means you don't mind being tracked. It means you are placing the convenience that Google provides above your concerns about what a faceless corporation can do with your data. If you don't mind being tracked, AMP is not a problem.
I understand how you could dislike Google. I don't understand how you could dislike AMP specifically, but not necessarily google.
But I also don’t want to end up basically deranked on Google by sites that have nothing to do with the result.
Just look at this example to see how AMP distorts the actual search ranking, by moving pages to #1 that have nothing to do with the topic, but happen to be on AMP: http://i.imgur.com/84FvZmA.png
Not sure where you think AMP is coming into this? Those results seem relevant to me?
Facebook, twitter, reddit, etc already utilize similar techniques on their mobile apps to make it so "web links" you click just keep you in the app.
But the web (as in, not bespoke mobile apps, but what you get in a general-purpose web browser) is supposed to be decentralized and resistant to any one entity owning the end-to-end experience.
I'm aware that any other entity (like Bing for instance) could do the same thing that Google does, and that the AMP standard isn't what's at fault here, but there should be no doubt as to Google's motives.
And forces you to load content from Google’s CDN.
And so on.
But that wouldn't give google control and importantly, a sure-fire run around same-origin privacy protections.
If you get a score above 95 or (X) on google page speed insights that might be a metric that everyone can agree on.
It's all driven by money, and unfortunately AMP and bloated pages make money - fast, sexy pages without AMP do not.
Or just use Firefox for Android with uBlock extension and Reader Mode. No, it's not perfect but doesn't require parallel internet (Google's) to function.
I hope AMP meets the same fate as other Google's "works best in chrome" techniques such as PNaCl. Maybe we'll get something standardized out of it like PNaCl was replaced with WebAssembly?
Then again - any site with good performance can be made unusable by crazy marketing people who wants [insert tracking tool here] on every page or similar.
Average Guardian article.
Pop-ins are annoying on the desktop, but close to catastrophic on mobile.
Medium.com now loads so fast, as well as other bloated publishers and newspapers. It's amazing how many tabs I can open, and I use so little bandwidth.
I end using my phone's screen reader usually, so I don't care about appearance. Just need good stories in the <html> :)
As much as I don't like it on a webmaster / blogger perspective, it does help a lot in getting a wider audience than by only offering a "responsive theme".
This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.
I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to be getting out of these sorts of implementations if I'm in "researcher" mode.
That was true. But its not true any more.
Google is now pushing AMP for pages like that.
And why is that?
> More traffic without conversions generally does not help an e-commerce site.
You should not be using AMP for e-commerce, at least not for anything but a static product page.
Again, if you try to drive a nail with a hammer and it doesn't work, the fault isn't on the hammer, it's on you.
Because you only get a ranking boost if your page
> contains a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> tag inside their head tag.
> is allowed to be cached in the Google AMP cache
Just look at this example: http://i.imgur.com/84FvZmA.png Notice how the news carousel is completely unrelated, and the pages do not otherwise show up in the search.
Also notice the awesome bug in Google where "Nazi flag" returns "Flag of Germany".
I'll report the flag bug.
Google always ends up putting news from a sailing event from last year in that carousel when I search stuff about my city. Especially awesome in Google News & Weather, where 90% of the news are from last year.
Google seems to just displays the top X search results that happen to be AMP, no matter how old they actually are.
That said, an antitrust complaint was filed with the EU anyway, so we can all just hope your employer is forced to end AMP sooner rather than later, and we can all replace it with a solution that doesn’t rely on any single group’s implementation.
This is the ranking boost mentioned: http://i.imgur.com/KsSmYH8.png
"Top stories" relevant to the search are shown, even if they’d otherwise be on page 10 or worse of the actual search.
Any AMP page can end up there, but only AMP pages. This is a ranking boost.
Original article was about e-commerce. The Top Stories carousel is not relevant to e-commerce since it only contains news articles.
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.
> Google products use the Google AMP Cache
Google products will only mark your page as AMP if you allow it to be included in the Google AMP Cache CDN.
Why would you use an AMP page for that? It was specifically NOT designed for those use cases.
Now back on your point: if the users who have a question are a small % of the total users, why would you have all users load the heavy chat window on mobile devices with limited screen space?
Whatever other benefits it brings are solely for the purpose of pitching it.
That said, AMP clearly isn't for eCommerce. You want dynamic, personalized content for eCommerce. Recommendations based on past pages visited, or search terms, or your location... It's not just about fast loading pages.
Some eCommerce may fear that their sales will suffer if someone else gets a page that's in AMP and then Google's new rankings put that page over their own... But that's no reason to convert your site to AMP. It's a good reason to build out landing pages specific for search terms, do paid advertising around keywords, and just generally market your products / site.
Generally speaking, people who come in to product pages straight from Google are just doing price comparison anyway -- it's just a step in the decision journey, but if you've done a proper job of marketing your business, customers that buy tend to go straight to your site and do a search using your own search tools.
To get a ranking boost? For some search terms, moving to full AMP gives you a ranking boost catapulting you from page 13 or worse to the #1 result. So if you don’t use that, someone else will use that advantage.
For example, current #1 result for "guardian" is https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/a...
Then when someone goes to the intentionally Cloudflare AMP site and clicks through to your site your actual domain never gets the hit. Instead all traffic remains within Cloudflare and you never see it.
Additionally, after 2 months of trying to contact anyone at Cloudflare about this exact situation happening with the most popular page on my domain (saw the cloudflare AMP bot in the logs) I still can't get a real person. Their support is attrocious.
Sounds pretty nice, no? Where can I sign up to reduce my hosting bill?
For example, none of the newspapers reporting about stuff where I live support AMP, but a few US newspapers that report about sports events that happened years ago do.
So when I search about stuff in my city, at the top there’s an AMP carousel with news from years ago, and below that only the actual results.
No, you only get the boost if you allow any CDN to cache it.
Please stop making the same baseless claim without providing sources.
How can I do that AND get the same spot in Google search?
…and similarly the rest of the article seems badly researched.
Perhaps, author, because of how those pages are painted
This tech may seem trivial to broadband users, but has demonstrated itself to be effective in mobile-heavy, low-bandwidth markets (ref India & myntra.com)
> With AMP [chat applications] cannot be used
True currently. There are no chat application amp extensions, yet. This could change in the future. Vendors interested in implementing one for AMP should get involved at http://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
> AMP does not have any markup specific to checkouts
Most web pages move from shopping cart to payment by changing URLs. This would work just fine with an AMP page. There is in fact at least one vendor who has integrated payments with AMP already: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-acc...
Also take a look at https://ampbyexample.com/advanced/payments_in_amp/
> AMP does not allow for use of forms
> They really do not support a logged in state, or user preferences. Things like recommended products, or recently viewed products will not work with an AMP page. None of the personalization aspects like “Hi, Lesley” are done with AMP.
See the (perhaps poorly named) https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-lis... This supports loading content specific to the user, even on a cached amp document.
> if search and filtering are a large part of your site’s mobile navigation, AMP will be useless.
This is exactly what amp-bind was built for:
> Google Analytics is not supported on AMP
Google Analytics is fully supported in AMP. Here's the Google Analytics support page:
> If you use a different suite of tracking such as Piwik or kissmetrics, they will not work with AMP.
There is a large list of analytics vendors that have direct support here:
Other vendors can be added with a small amount of configuration. Here's a guide for Piwik, for example: https://www.elftronix.com/guide-to-using-piwik-analytics-wit...
Alternatively, vendors can submit a configuration to the AMP project which is just a few lines of JSON, then the vendor will be supported more directly.
> Ad Revenue is Decreased
The link is to a single article from a year ago. There are many studies pointing to the opposite effect as well.
> A/B testing is not supported
I'm not sure what URLs the author used, but I tried to find a similar overstock recliner page that might be the right one. I found:
The author tries to use a google.com/amp URL, but these redirect when not coming from a search click. Much easier is to take the CDN amp URL, which is served the same way:
I loaded both of these in Chrome, simulated a mobile device, network tab, and throttling with Fast 3G. Here were my results:
* non-AMP: 42 requests, 1.1 MB transferred, Finish: 10.3s, DomContentLoad: 3.38s, Load: 9.52s
* AMP: 35 requests, 408 KB transferred, Finish 5.87s, DomContentLoaded 1.28s, Load: 5.88s
I suspect that the author's referenced tool is reporting "fully loaded time" as the time that the last network event ended. AMP pages intentionally delay loading images below the fold to prioritize visible content. This results in some images loading later without impacting the user experience. For example, as I scrolled in the AMP page, the "Finish" time would move ahead to a new time as new images were loaded. With events like analytics triggers, looking at the time the last network event finished is typically a misleading metric and won't work correctly with most amp documents.
If you load filmstrips in Chrome's Performance Tab, you can see this more clearly. Filmstrips display what the page looked like at snapshots in time after loading starts. For my quick test with network throttling, the non-AMP page takes a little over 6s to finish reaching it's final state and the AMP page takes about 2.2s. So AMP here is nearly 3x faster as the user would perceive it on similar connection speed.
It either doesn't load or goes back to the previous page after a few seconds.
AMP has limitations, like any piece of technology. Once you understand the limitations you should be able to plan your attack accordingly.
We are pre-launch but if you want early access and test our automatic generator please email me.
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.
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.
AMP isn't going anywhere so don't get your hopes up. But, by all means I encourage you to initiate a lawsuit if only to see you fleeced by a lawyer for your litigious attitude.
Also, the article you linked to is so full of inaccuracies that it's impossible to take it seriously.
This is a major ranking factor, in some situations moving sites that would be on page 13! to the #1 spot in search. In other cases, the effect is less visible.
That is what keeps people from not implementing AMP.
And you get this ranking benefit not for using AMP, or for a certain performance, but it is given to everyone that uses Google’s AMP version, from Google’s CDN, with Google’s tracking solutions. If I want to run AMP from my own CDN, I can’t do it, and if I want to avoid Google’s cache, because I have my own CDN, I also don’t get the ranking boost.
Got a source for that? I always heard that the criteria for the carousel was AMP-compatibility, not being hosted on Google's CDN.
Currently, Google serves AMP by serving all AMP search results from its own cache, which allows Google to add features such as the header bar, or the swiping between carousel elements. This doesn’t work if the pages are from different origins.
EDIT: I found some sources:
> contain a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> tag inside their head tag.
Which prevents self-hosting the JS
> Q: Can I stop content from being cached?
> A: No. By using the AMP format, content producers are making the content in AMP files available to be cached by third parties. For example, Google products use the Google AMP Cache to serve AMP content as fast as possible.
How different is this from common HTML caching done all over the web? And that's about using the Google AMP Cache, not about using AMP.
And you still didn't provide a source about "having to use Google's CDN".
Essentially: do AMP pages hosted on Cloudflare's cache do not get into Google Search carrousel?
> Anyone can use a CDN to set up and run an AMP cache, but only content in Google’s cache (which Google has stated can be used without restriction and at no cost) is currently getting preferred search results treatment
But the whole point is kinda moot because AMP requires that your assets be "cacheable", which means google will come along and cache them, and the search results will use the google-cached version.
So sure, another CDN could cache your stuff, but nobody clicking through a google search result will ever hit it.
> And you still didn't provide a source about "having to use Google's CDN".
This is the issue I meant with Google’s CDN/Cache.
If a user clicks a link to an AMP page in Google search, they are not redirected to your page. They ALWAYS get the cached version from Google, and Google modifies your page by adding UI, and changing other functionality (for example, the left/right swipe gestures are changed to navigate to other Google search results).
You can not opt out of this while still appearing in the carousel.
I can only point to what the Google AMP documentation says, where they state that you have to allow your site to be served by Google AMP Cache to count as an AMP site: https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq and https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp
Maybe they don't follow their own docs and there are sites out there not cached in the Google AMP Cache that still get placed in the carousel. I have no way to prove that without being able to test every single possible search term (plus all the other variables like location which affect the results).
To quote the AMP specs, a page is only eligible for showing up as AMP in search if it
If AMP was so good for me vs just good for Google I would expect them to allow opt out for those, like me, that don't want to see AMP results.
1. You have to embed the AMP version from Google’s servers, you can’t self-host the AMP js, or run it from another CDN. This makes your site unavailable in, for example, China, relies on Google’s systems, and ensures that Google knows every user of your site.
2. You need to allow Google to cache the content, and all Google products will always link to the Google cache version. You can not opt out of this. You can not ensure users visit your own CDN version. You can not prevent Google from displaying modified versions of the pages (for example, the header UI of AMP pages in Google search, and the swiping between pages gesture).
3. Pages that use AMP get a massive indirect ranking boost. Yes, they don’t get directly boosted, but they get added to the AMP carousel, between the ads and the #1 result, or between the #1 and #2 result. If, for a given search term, none of the top pages have an AMP result, Google will boost the first 3-4 pages that have an AMP result to this place – even if they’d organically rank on page 10 or later. In some situations, I’ve seen results from page 13 boosted to #1.
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.