WE don't live in an ideal world and AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages. I would love if managers and directors would do this themselves and AMP wouldn't be needed, but that's just not the case.
I know in an ideal world AMP would be useless, but until we reach that world I'm going to prefer AMP links over normal ones.
AMP is about getting into the carousel search results, and if AMP wasn't the only way to do that, we wouldn't feel forced to use it.
To just download text and images I use www.outline.com, but there are lots of ways to accomplish this.
Of course, google could have just favored really small/fast site that worked well on mobile... but this way they get the extra lock in.
That's significantly different than debloating your website and remaining in control of the traffic, but you don't receive the SEO boost as a consequence. Even if you make your website faster than it would be if you were using AMP (which is not that difficult to achieve), you're still being punished for not giving control to Google.
I don’t think google should be in charge of that, especially if they use search results as a way to force adoption.
Countless posts have been made by site operators who needed to adopt AMP to remain competitive in google search results.
It isn't, though. Plenty of sites out there are de-bloated, and things like Reader Mode in browsers makes the rest work just fine.
But, we don't live in that world I'm afraid. And for many news websites I don't want to even begin downloading the auto-playing video on their page. So AMP is for many the easiest choice.
AMP is an obvious abuse of a dominant market position and Google will come to regret it.
Google could very well have given huge boosts to small/fast websites, and then the sites would have had to figure it out wrt advertising and bloat. It would have been a much better result.
You are completely not understanding my point of having the OPTION to disable it, so users who don't want to deal with AMP at all (myself, and many others) can have that ability.
And, as in the main story, the AMP page bricking the link to the real url.
Not sure there's an extension API that could make signed exchanges work either.
AMP takes control away from web publishers by forcing them to allow anyone to serve their content (signed exchanges). Publishers no longer have control over how their sites get served (for example, no more server-side logs, because Google has forced you to let them serve your site).
It allows large sites (like Google) to have more control over smaller sites by putting back buttons at the top of your website in order to take them back to Google Search. The related "portals" scheme is the new "can you open all external links in a frame?" and small sites are going to be hurt the most.
Publishers don't want to be forced into using "instant loading web pages" if it fundamentally breaks the nature of the WWW and takes control away from them and gives it to a few large companies (AMP caches).
Publishers have to meet users where the users want, and AMP is easily the best of the options because by implementing it once, publishers provide instant loading through multiple link aggregators. If I want to write my own link aggregator, I don't need the clout of a FAANG to get publishers to do a data integration for instant loading pages — I can just implement an AMP cache and use the AMP pages they have already published. AMP levels the playing field.
Google doesn't have a right to damage/destroy the Web or take control away from publishers so that Google can compete with Facebook and Apple. That is not a reasonable argument.
Publishers don't want AMP and the project would fail (as it should) if Google weren't strong-arming everyone to use it with a threat of traffic loss.
The Web is not a Google product, but Google is treating it like one. The company has seriously lost its way.
> Google doesn't have a right to damage/destroy the Web or take control away from publishers so that Google can compete with Facebook and Apple
The publishers get to decide if they want to integrate with Facebook, Apple, and all the AMP caches. The former two they have less control over because they only go to one company and don't have open governance.
> Publishers don't want AMP
They want the first two even less, but I don't see anybody complaining about that. As I said earlier, the problem for publishers is that users demand instant loading. AMP at least lets the publishers control analytics, ads, A/B testing, etc.
But we've gotten way off track again. Users demand instant loading pages. How do you solve it? Would you rather have Google require the publishers directly integrate with them as Apple and Facebook have done and not allow other link aggregators to benefit? Users also like RSS, which takes even more control away from publishers, does not allow above-the-fold loading optimizations for users, and has a much less rich experience, but nobody here has ever complained about RSS.
A better solution than AMP would be to only consider raw page speed, and then use a neutral schema markup for whatever extra features Google wants to display in Google Search.
AMP is not a subset of HTML. It's a superset of a (badly defined) subset of HTML.
Here are some other pages:
Desktop mode disables AMP on Chrome Android for me. I haven't tested with iOS though.
How about de-bloating your webpages instead?
Seriously, people, come on — just put less cruft in your web pages. Don't load 500 trackers. Say no when the marketing guys come over and tell you to add 10 more. Tell your bosses that marketing is incompetent. Push back and tell people that adding cruft is bad.
Please don't bother telling me how it "can't be done". It can, but you might not want to.
I'm actually quite happy about the way this AMP thing is unrolling: the bloated crappy sites will walk into the jaws of AMP and get badly owned by Google eventually, being completely dependent on them.
For context so people don't get the wrong idea... I just want to point out that the gp you responded to (apexalpha) wrote "my option" and _he_ (as a web surfer) is not the manager in charge of those other programmers adding in the cruft. In his next sentence he wrote:
>I would love if managers and directors would do this themselves and AMP wouldn't be needed, but that's just not the case.
NB. the remaining animated gifs can be stopped on palemoon and I think FX with shift+escape.
You occasionally gets CSS animations but they are pretty rare.
I'm not an iPhone expert but those don't seem simple.
In iOS, you can enter urls one at a time in the blocklist which is cumbersome. Obviously, this doesn't work for thousands of ad network urls. What people do on desktops is import a big hosts file but my cursory research says you can't do that on a non-jailbroken iPhone.
If you mean "block" via DNS such as pointing to Adguard DNS servers, you can only manually change the DNS server ip address on wifi connections and not the cellular connection. For DNS blocks on cellular, you have to install vpn software.
(But I'm not saying any iPhone setup difficulties means you should use AMP.)
It's politically untenable. Marketing brings in the $$$ and you don't.
So when you can point to the carousel and say "You can either have that or the trackers" you actually have some leverage to push back on marketing.
It would be nice to just disable JS on mobile though.
Meanwhile, the easiest way to speed up pages is to stop selling ads and splitting up content over multiple clicks.
E.g. at a company we had to add "useless" content on our shop pages, otherwise google ranked the pages lower due to having not enough content.
If any feature/change introduces a regression, they will not ship it.
(That kinda indicates that people outside of hn actually like amp)
Keep in mind that: amp team != search team.
Doubt. Especially "time spent on website" primarily indicates that the user didn't quickly find what they were looking for.
You'd be correct in assuming that it's a good indicator if it wasn't gamed. Since people believe that it's a ranking factor, they'll do whatever they can to increase it. Shitty SEO texts that go on and on without actually saying anything, breaking the back button, adding exit intent popovers, you name it, it's out there. All heavily increasing time on site. Are the users happy? Do you prefer a 5 sentence page that just plainly answers your question about some topic, or do you want a twenty paragraph novel that maybe, possibly somewhere includes the answer, but you need to completely read this opus magnum first?
Is that why answers are always buried in long articles or walls of text?
Seems a horrible metric.
Publishers definitely use it more heavily.
You can easily make pages lighter without AMP, and we shouldn't so easily swallow the reasons given by Google for its introduction.
AMP was only ever needed because so many made their pages so artificiality heavy in the first place and had no incentive to make them lighter.
AMP SEO advantage is a great incentive to make them lighter. The thing is, Google could have pushed their algorithm toward performance more and make it clear on their page too and have the same effect. They just found a way to get more control from it too.
AMP was a very calculated move on Google's part. The narrative of "we're only doing it to help our users avoid the bloat" when everyone agrees that bloat is a huge problem works very well.
Didn't they? I mean, I figure everybody read the case studies about page load time and user abandonment. My experience is that those who built a leaner mobile version of their desktop site were also mostly the ones that built an AMP version (WP + "I'll just install a plugin and see what happens" left aside), while those that never cared about mobile users still don't.
Does AMP deliver better rankings? I haven't seen that on sites that I'm affiliated with, but that may be niche specific or the improvement wasn't big enough to go from 4 to 3 etc.
> that never cared about mobile users still don't.
News website still have multiple MB per page and they all got an AMP version which is much more lightweight.
> Does AMP deliver better rankings?
That's a good question. I do know that Google would show news stories with AMP at the top first, but that was part of a different widget. I do remember reading that it helped ranking.
(AMP isn't even that light - Google preloads pages in its AMP carousel, using bandwidth whether you tap to view them or not)
Aren't those 2 sentences contradictory?