5 ms·
Wait, THAT'S why people want to use AMP? I set up AMP on my personal site for a couple weeks because I thought there was an SEO benefit (I didn't see any, so I
by hawkice 10y ago
Wait, THAT'S why people want to use AMP? I set up AMP on my personal site for a couple weeks because I thought there was an SEO benefit (I didn't see any, so I removed it -- lowering page weight by something like 7x).
I had no idea that the reason it seemed pointless was because it was for ad infrastructure.
- kybernetyk 10y agoFunnily enough the AMP version of my page is larger and takes longer to load than the non-amp version. And ironically I don't even get that little "amp" bolt symbol because it's a software product page and not a recipe, news post or blog post (there's only a handful of categories that are amp enabled). I think I'm going to remove the AMP page, too. It offers nothing to me and is actually worse for my visitors than the normal responsive page.
- hawkice 10y agoSame here. My blog is (unsurprisingly) text-based, so the 40-50kb JS file was almost all of the page weight.
- lucb1e 10y agoHold on, "accelerated" pages mean "add 45KB of data"?
- luctus 10y agoYou need to add [this js file](https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js) that is near to 45KB. I have just uploaded an AMP version for my site and it felt a little bit ridiculous... I made a simpler version (with no js and limited css), changed `<img>` for `<amp-img>` and added this js. It would load even faster without this js!!
- skybrian 10y agoAdvertisers (as a whole) have a veto on what advertising-driven websites can do since they write the checks. So I think the idea is that it's a compromise that users, websites that depend on ad revenue, and advertisers will all accept, since they all get something they want. If any of them are too unhappy then the new standard won't succeed.