3 ms·
I guess I'm still not seeing any advantage to using AMP, except as the obvious power-grab. I don't see anything in your statement that couldn't be done by just
by CaptSpify 10y ago
I guess I'm still not seeing any advantage to using AMP, except as the obvious power-grab. I don't see anything in your statement that couldn't be done by just punishing sites for being bloated and slow, and stating why. Adding another layer onto something to combat complexity is two steps back.
I hate heavy sites probably more than the next guy, but pushing your own standard is the wrong way to go about it, IMO.
- dfabulich 10y ago> I don't see anything in your statement that couldn't be done by just punishing sites for being bloated and slow, and stating why. They tried that; they're still doing it. But it didn't work, and at this point I think it's naive to think that the mobile web will get much faster purely because Google ranks fast sites higher.
- CaptSpify 10y agoI'd argue that they haven't really tried it. Maybe their failure is not prioritizing it enough in the algorithm. If I look for weather, there are tons of shitty, heavy-js sites. Yet http://myfreeweather.com/ http://myfreeweather.com/ (which still has some JS, but not a ton) is nowhere listed. The first few pages of sites that google offers me are all terrible choices.
- Crespyl 10y agoFrom what I can see, AMP is really less about "here's some cool new tech", and more "here's a buzzword and some conventions" to encourage sites to write lighter-weight, better designed web pages (or versions of web pages). It seems like a sugar-coating over the "use modern HTML and make less bloated pages" pill.