9 ms·

AMP is essentially Google's answer to people creating terrible web experiences. It's been discussed and documented a lot. Common webpages today load content fro

by hannob 10y ago

AMP is essentially Google's answer to people creating terrible web experiences. It's been discussed and documented a lot. Common webpages today load content from dozens of different ad, tracking and whatever hosts, take several megabytes to load. All well known, but people don't stop doing it. Now Google comes along and says: You can't do it, let us do it. Which is perfectly reasonable from their point of view. And when I surf google news on my slow mobile connection I'm always happy when I see that a link is going to an amp target - because then I know it'll be loaded fast. But you don't need Google to do that. If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. Limit the amount of stuff you load into your page, reduce the third party content that you include to a sane number of hosts (something like 3 instead of 50), optimize your javascript, deploy HTTP/2. None of that is magic and you can have your fast webpage without any AMP.

spiderfarmer 10y ago
What's stopping Google from promoting fast webpages without AMP? I have spent weeks improving load times for my websites, with A A A A A ratings op webpagetest.org as a result. AMP is just a fraction faster, why should I have to create a seperate AMP version? Also, my websites are essentially all dynamic content. People come for the comments, like on HN. I gues I'll have to use some cache-busting javascript if Google caches my content?
- jasoncartwright 10y ago
  They do promote fast pages: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-in-web-search-ranking.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-i... "we've decided to take site speed into account in our search rankings"
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Sure, but then they put a lightning bolt next to any AMP page, even if your non-AMP page is faster.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    I really doubt that that factor has any real influence on ranking. In my niche there are notoriously slow websites at the top that aren't even responsive in some cases. Just like the promised benefits of HTTPS. I have yet to hear about a case where search traffic increased after switching to HTTPS.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  The AMP Cache is an option that you can opt in to. The wordpress plugin by default opts in. The author said as much. The problem isn't that Google "steals" traffic in the sense it's going against the wishes of the site publisher, but that the author didn't know what he was buying in to and thus was surprised. There is the other thing which is the AMP Cache is probably more local and faster than your site. Small sites usually dont use CDNs so there it is.
  - gergles 10y ago
    No, it is not optional. If you publish a valid AMP page and Google finds out about it, it will be cached. https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq > Can I stop content from being cached? > 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.
    - spiderfarmer 10y ago
      So cache-busting Javascript will be needed, which will kind of defeat the purpose.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    > Small sites usually dont use CDNs so there it is. I think it's easier to use a CDN like CDN77 than to convert the average site to AMP.
walshemj 10y ago
Every time I look at a website its shocking how no one even does basic image optimisation using PS on the images. This is such a trivial optimisation it makes you wonder about the level of competency of the average web development company.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?
  - criddell 10y ago
    http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php You can insert ImageMagick somewhere into your production pipeline. It's excellent software.
    - lmm 10y ago
      Well other than being riddled with security holes. It has its place, but never use it on user-submitted images.
      - microcolonel 10y ago
        While that may have been true in 2014, today it's hard to find an exploitable bug affecting a major image format parser in ImageMagick. Assuming you aren't using unsanitized user-provided parameters on the command line with it, it should be fine unless your attacker is very motivated.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        There was an RCE vulnerability this year: https://imagetragick.com/ https://imagetragick.com/
        tetromino_ 10y ago
rebelde 10y ago
> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. The AMP symbol tells users that the site loads quickly. Google doesn't indicate the same thing about non-AMP sites that still load quickly. Guess which site the user will tend to choose. I am not sure AMP will be optional for sites that want to get chosen.
- AznHisoka 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure non tech users don't even know what AMP is for.
  - lmm 10y ago
    They don't have to though. If there's a symbol and sites with that symbol are faster, they'll learn to look for the symbol, perhaps not even consciously.
    - criley2 10y ago
      >They don't have to though. If there's a symbol and sites with that symbol are faster, they'll learn to look for the symbol, perhaps not even consciously. Totally disagree. I didn't know what AMP is and I keep seeing it. I avoided it thinking it was yet-another Google adware property like DoubleClick, another cleverly named way to trick users. For the vast majority of users on 4G connections, AMP loads aren't that much faster (When you download 8MB/sec on 4G, a 2MB page is just not a deal breaker) and I doubt that very many users at all in America are noticing that dramatic of difference on their devices, enough to subconsciously learn to like it.
      - mthoms 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure Google has extensively tested the CTR's of SERP pages with and without the AMP logo. There's absolutely no way they would have implemented it if it resulted in a lower click-through rate. That would run counter to their own stated goals with AMP. Google tests and re-tests the crap out of things like this.
      - 10y ago
pk22 10y ago
Would you rather have an internet where every website has a design like an article from Wikipedia? Google is probably in their right to highlight pages using AMP (it's their search engine) but probably unfair.
- mark_edward 10y ago
  Oh God yes please. So many sites would actually be readable. This is how you get things like Readability getting popular
- x1798DE 10y ago
  It would be amazing if every website were designed like Wikipedia. With the exception of MediaViewer, Wikipedia is one of the best-designed websites out there. It's light, content-prominent, progressively enhanced, HTTPS-only. Even their mobile site is pretty good (though basically all mobile experiences are bad nowadays). What exactly is wrong with Wikipedia's design?
  - NoGravitas 10y ago
    Wikipedia's mobile site is fantastic, IMO. I really wish all mobile sites were like Wikipedia's. The pain of browsing the web on mobile would go away completely.
    - x1798DE 10y ago
      I think it's mostly OK. A lot of my problems with mobile would be alleviated if I could get a browser to reflow text on demand. It used to be you could set your zoom level, double tap and the page would reflow to the new zoom level. This doesn't seem possible now, so I'm always scrolling side to side if I want to be zoomed in a bit more. I have a few other minor problems about how Wikipedia's mobile page handles without Javascript enabled, but one big thing is that there's a minimum zoom level set. I can zoom in, but I can't zoom out, which means if I want more text per line, there's nothing to be done. This again feeds in to the lack of reflow in mobile browsers. I have no idea why this feature went away, but it completely ruined the mobile web for me.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Diet pill mentality. People don't want to put in an effort to lose 25 lbs, they'd rather take a pill. Same here. People don't want to put in the effort to make something better, they want Google to do it.
- savanaly 10y ago
  I don't agree with this analogy. It's not like google is offering to redo your site in AMP for you. You still have to do the lightweight optimization yourself. You're just using a library that will guide you in how to do it by imposing restrictions like not loading from too many sources. It's more like people don't feel like following a weight loss program until a trusted professional outlines an easy to follow and precise method.
untog 10y ago
> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. Yes and no. Google ranks AMP-ed pages differently, as well as showing that lightning bolt icon. It is definitely not a level playing field.

by hannob 10y ago

spiderfarmer 10y ago

What's stopping Google from promoting fast webpages without AMP? I have spent weeks improving load times for my websites, with A A A A A ratings op webpagetest.org as a result. AMP is just a fraction faster, why should I have to create a seperate AMP version? Also, my websites are essentially all dynamic content. People come for the comments, like on HN. I gues I'll have to use some cache-busting javascript if Google caches my content?

jasoncartwright 10y ago
They do promote fast pages: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-in-web-search-ranking.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-i... "we've decided to take site speed into account in our search rankings"
- jonknee 10y ago
  Sure, but then they put a lightning bolt next to any AMP page, even if your non-AMP page is faster.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  I really doubt that that factor has any real influence on ranking. In my niche there are notoriously slow websites at the top that aren't even responsive in some cases. Just like the promised benefits of HTTPS. I have yet to hear about a case where search traffic increased after switching to HTTPS.
ryanobjc 10y ago
The AMP Cache is an option that you can opt in to. The wordpress plugin by default opts in. The author said as much. The problem isn't that Google "steals" traffic in the sense it's going against the wishes of the site publisher, but that the author didn't know what he was buying in to and thus was surprised. There is the other thing which is the AMP Cache is probably more local and faster than your site. Small sites usually dont use CDNs so there it is.
- gergles 10y ago
  No, it is not optional. If you publish a valid AMP page and Google finds out about it, it will be cached. https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq > Can I stop content from being cached? > 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.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    So cache-busting Javascript will be needed, which will kind of defeat the purpose.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  > Small sites usually dont use CDNs so there it is. I think it's easier to use a CDN like CDN77 than to convert the average site to AMP.

walshemj 10y ago

Every time I look at a website its shocking how no one even does basic image optimisation using PS on the images. This is such a trivial optimisation it makes you wonder about the level of competency of the average web development company.

jasonkostempski 10y ago
Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?
- criddell 10y ago
  http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php You can insert ImageMagick somewhere into your production pipeline. It's excellent software.
  - lmm 10y ago
    Well other than being riddled with security holes. It has its place, but never use it on user-submitted images.
    - microcolonel 10y ago
      While that may have been true in 2014, today it's hard to find an exploitable bug affecting a major image format parser in ImageMagick. Assuming you aren't using unsanitized user-provided parameters on the command line with it, it should be fine unless your attacker is very motivated.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        There was an RCE vulnerability this year: https://imagetragick.com/ https://imagetragick.com/
        tetromino_ 10y ago

rebelde 10y ago

> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. The AMP symbol tells users that the site loads quickly. Google doesn't indicate the same thing about non-AMP sites that still load quickly. Guess which site the user will tend to choose. I am not sure AMP will be optional for sites that want to get chosen.

AznHisoka 10y ago
I'm pretty sure non tech users don't even know what AMP is for.
- lmm 10y ago
  They don't have to though. If there's a symbol and sites with that symbol are faster, they'll learn to look for the symbol, perhaps not even consciously.
  - criley2 10y ago
    >They don't have to though. If there's a symbol and sites with that symbol are faster, they'll learn to look for the symbol, perhaps not even consciously. Totally disagree. I didn't know what AMP is and I keep seeing it. I avoided it thinking it was yet-another Google adware property like DoubleClick, another cleverly named way to trick users. For the vast majority of users on 4G connections, AMP loads aren't that much faster (When you download 8MB/sec on 4G, a 2MB page is just not a deal breaker) and I doubt that very many users at all in America are noticing that dramatic of difference on their devices, enough to subconsciously learn to like it.
    - mthoms 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure Google has extensively tested the CTR's of SERP pages with and without the AMP logo. There's absolutely no way they would have implemented it if it resulted in a lower click-through rate. That would run counter to their own stated goals with AMP. Google tests and re-tests the crap out of things like this.
    - 10y ago

pk22 10y ago

Would you rather have an internet where every website has a design like an article from Wikipedia? Google is probably in their right to highlight pages using AMP (it's their search engine) but probably unfair.

mark_edward 10y ago
Oh God yes please. So many sites would actually be readable. This is how you get things like Readability getting popular
x1798DE 10y ago
It would be amazing if every website were designed like Wikipedia. With the exception of MediaViewer, Wikipedia is one of the best-designed websites out there. It's light, content-prominent, progressively enhanced, HTTPS-only. Even their mobile site is pretty good (though basically all mobile experiences are bad nowadays). What exactly is wrong with Wikipedia's design?
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  Wikipedia's mobile site is fantastic, IMO. I really wish all mobile sites were like Wikipedia's. The pain of browsing the web on mobile would go away completely.
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    I think it's mostly OK. A lot of my problems with mobile would be alleviated if I could get a browser to reflow text on demand. It used to be you could set your zoom level, double tap and the page would reflow to the new zoom level. This doesn't seem possible now, so I'm always scrolling side to side if I want to be zoomed in a bit more. I have a few other minor problems about how Wikipedia's mobile page handles without Javascript enabled, but one big thing is that there's a minimum zoom level set. I can zoom in, but I can't zoom out, which means if I want more text per line, there's nothing to be done. This again feeds in to the lack of reflow in mobile browsers. I have no idea why this feature went away, but it completely ruined the mobile web for me.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Diet pill mentality. People don't want to put in an effort to lose 25 lbs, they'd rather take a pill. Same here. People don't want to put in the effort to make something better, they want Google to do it.

savanaly 10y ago
I don't agree with this analogy. It's not like google is offering to redo your site in AMP for you. You still have to do the lightweight optimization yourself. You're just using a library that will guide you in how to do it by imposing restrictions like not loading from too many sources. It's more like people don't feel like following a weight loss program until a trusted professional outlines an easy to follow and precise method.

untog 10y ago

> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. Yes and no. Google ranks AMP-ed pages differently, as well as showing that lightning bolt icon. It is definitely not a level playing field.