5 ms·

AMP sites are lighter sites.

by dfabulich 10y ago

CaptSpify 10y ago
Maybe I'm mis-understanding, but then why would I want to use AMP? What benefit does it bring?
- niftich 10y ago
  Because Google will treat your content preferentially if you do. To quote an earlier post of mine from a different thread [1]: AMP can impose constraints because it's a corporate effort to re-frame content in a way that provides centralized ad serving, tracking, and the like. It gives the content publishers the same tools (ads, tracking) they have to provide themselves with on the open web, while simultaneously benefiting those like Google who will put their own viewport and context around that content. It's not that much different from when an individual wants to publish on Medium or Tumblr, so the platform provides the author with a box to put text in, a dashboard, view tracking, and stuff the author wants, while they get to host interesting content with which to attract an audience for ads. It's a win-win, symbiotic relationship, while on the self-hosted web, every publisher is on their own. This isn't about HTML vs AMP at all. It's about business models, which are given in AMP, but left as an exercise for the publisher on the open web. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    So I'm giving up control of my site, so that Google can strong-arm themselves to extract more value from it? I think I'll pass, thanks
    - niftich 10y ago
      It's more of a mutually-consented handholding with small amounts of arm-twisting. Your content needs to make money for you to stay afloat -- if it doesn't, you're not in the target market for AMP -- so Google gives you some tools to that they can surface your content, and you get their ad and analytics infrastructure and their preferential treatment; the premise is both Google and the publisher win more than they lose.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        But this is clearly only a plus for Google, by abusing the relationship with the publisher. The logic is circular here. If Google wants people to make better sites, then why don't they just rank sites higher if they aren't full of bloat?
        cstrahan 10y ago
        If I read the above posts correctly, it sounds like it's not just Google that benefits; supposedly Google provides ads and such, which provides the publisher with revenue -- the publisher would otherwise have to find ad networks and such themselves. If a publisher already has advertising revenue sorted out, and they're OK with the expense in terms of time spent managing that, then there's little incentive and so they pass. How much of that is correct? I don't know. I'm just explaining what (I think) the posts above were trying to say. (Edit: spelling)
- notatoad 10y ago
  AMP is a strategy to take control away from the publishers, to prevent them from cluttering up the site with obtrusive ads and other heavy clutter around the actual content. The carrot that Google is offering the publishers in order to get them to relinquish this control is better placement in search results. The best way to think of AMP is it's a list of things you're not allowed to do anymore when you make a website. It's just HTML with rules.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    But then why use a whole new system, instead of just punishing sites that use too much crap?
    - euyyn 10y ago
      I guess it's easier to measure the amount of crap when you've defined a list of no-no's and yes-yes, and on the other side it's also easier for publishers to understand.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        Couldn't Google just say "If you do X Y and Z, we'll lower your ranking?"
    - Quinner 10y ago
      A lot of the crap isn't loaded by the publisher's site directly but by third-party tracking/analytic/ad code. Many publishers would love to have faster loading sites but can't give up those third-party functions easily. Creating an ecosystem like AMP allows Google to also arm-twist the third-parties to clean up their act, if they want to be supported in AMP.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        I guess I just don't see how this addresses my question. Why this would help, over just ranking those sites lower? It seems like a roundabout way to do things.
- esrauch 10y ago
  For some it helps keep your own content lightweight: when your ad sales team tries to get you to make some change you know is bad (or if you dont know, amp tells you) you have a very explicit "we can't do that because it violates amp guidelines" response. I'm pretty sure that value mostly applies to the Forbes and Techcrunches that have really started suffered from page weight and multiple relayouts after load, not for the individual blogs of hackernews readers.

AMP sites are lighter sites.

CaptSpify 10y ago

Maybe I'm mis-understanding, but then why would I want to use AMP? What benefit does it bring?

niftich 10y ago
Because Google will treat your content preferentially if you do. To quote an earlier post of mine from a different thread [1]: AMP can impose constraints because it's a corporate effort to re-frame content in a way that provides centralized ad serving, tracking, and the like. It gives the content publishers the same tools (ads, tracking) they have to provide themselves with on the open web, while simultaneously benefiting those like Google who will put their own viewport and context around that content. It's not that much different from when an individual wants to publish on Medium or Tumblr, so the platform provides the author with a box to put text in, a dashboard, view tracking, and stuff the author wants, while they get to host interesting content with which to attract an audience for ads. It's a win-win, symbiotic relationship, while on the self-hosted web, every publisher is on their own. This isn't about HTML vs AMP at all. It's about business models, which are given in AMP, but left as an exercise for the publisher on the open web. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  So I'm giving up control of my site, so that Google can strong-arm themselves to extract more value from it? I think I'll pass, thanks
  - niftich 10y ago
    It's more of a mutually-consented handholding with small amounts of arm-twisting. Your content needs to make money for you to stay afloat -- if it doesn't, you're not in the target market for AMP -- so Google gives you some tools to that they can surface your content, and you get their ad and analytics infrastructure and their preferential treatment; the premise is both Google and the publisher win more than they lose.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      But this is clearly only a plus for Google, by abusing the relationship with the publisher. The logic is circular here. If Google wants people to make better sites, then why don't they just rank sites higher if they aren't full of bloat?
      - cstrahan 10y ago
        If I read the above posts correctly, it sounds like it's not just Google that benefits; supposedly Google provides ads and such, which provides the publisher with revenue -- the publisher would otherwise have to find ad networks and such themselves. If a publisher already has advertising revenue sorted out, and they're OK with the expense in terms of time spent managing that, then there's little incentive and so they pass. How much of that is correct? I don't know. I'm just explaining what (I think) the posts above were trying to say. (Edit: spelling)
notatoad 10y ago
AMP is a strategy to take control away from the publishers, to prevent them from cluttering up the site with obtrusive ads and other heavy clutter around the actual content. The carrot that Google is offering the publishers in order to get them to relinquish this control is better placement in search results. The best way to think of AMP is it's a list of things you're not allowed to do anymore when you make a website. It's just HTML with rules.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  But then why use a whole new system, instead of just punishing sites that use too much crap?
  - euyyn 10y ago
    I guess it's easier to measure the amount of crap when you've defined a list of no-no's and yes-yes, and on the other side it's also easier for publishers to understand.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      Couldn't Google just say "If you do X Y and Z, we'll lower your ranking?"
  - Quinner 10y ago
    A lot of the crap isn't loaded by the publisher's site directly but by third-party tracking/analytic/ad code. Many publishers would love to have faster loading sites but can't give up those third-party functions easily. Creating an ecosystem like AMP allows Google to also arm-twist the third-parties to clean up their act, if they want to be supported in AMP.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      I guess I just don't see how this addresses my question. Why this would help, over just ranking those sites lower? It seems like a roundabout way to do things.
esrauch 10y ago
For some it helps keep your own content lightweight: when your ad sales team tries to get you to make some change you know is bad (or if you dont know, amp tells you) you have a very explicit "we can't do that because it violates amp guidelines" response. I'm pretty sure that value mostly applies to the Forbes and Techcrunches that have really started suffered from page weight and multiple relayouts after load, not for the individual blogs of hackernews readers.