4 ms·

How do you suggest publishers who are dependent on traffic from Google cope with AMP in the short-term? It seems like there is no way to compete with AMP-enable

by tboyd47 10y ago

How do you suggest publishers who are dependent on traffic from Google cope with AMP in the short-term? It seems like there is no way to compete with AMP-enabled content on Google ranking except by adopting AMP.

state_less 10y ago
Therein lies the problem, Google owns 80% of the market. Google is a de-facto monopoly. They can force you to act against your long term interests for a short term gain. I personally find the gain suspicious, it's already possible to make fast pages. Soon, we'll all merely be Google content providers.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
I don't think if you're running a business there's any way to avoid optimizing for Google in the short-term. You simply have to do it, if you want to be seen. Not optimizing for Google won't hurt Google, it'll just hurt you. Because Google can always just promote someone else. But you should also support antitrust legislation and judicial action against Google. Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google (now referred to as Alphabet[1] on most donor lists). The long game is requiring open oversight of Google's search ranking methodologies and forbidding them from modifying them to benefit their own products and services. [1] http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2016&id=D000067823 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2016&id=D00...
- josho 10y ago
  As an outsider observing the US election the statement of yours "Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google" strikes me as ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, your logic is correct. But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda. The real solution is to vote for candidates pushing for campaign finance reform (reading Lawrence Lessig may be insightful)
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, when Congress moves to increase the salary of Congress, the bill tends to pass with flying colors. ;) Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by someone entirely different. It's a juggling act of corruption!
    - josho 10y ago
      > Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. While the electorate is bickering over distractions like this cycle you are correct. However, limiting special interest influence strikes me as a non-partisan issue, so if the citizens spoke up I think they'd have sufficient influence.. But, then maybe I'm being an idealist. Regardless, your short term solution works.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        The problem is, it's a non-partisan issue in that almost all our representatives, regardless of political party, are totally comfortable with it. ;) And the reason we're uncomfortable with special interest influence is... that it absolutely freaking works. The power money has on election results is so strong, that almost anyone who isn't accepting it probably isn't getting elected. So the likelihood of gaining a majority of Congresspeople who would move against it is pretty much impossible.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    > But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda. This is funny considering you think "donations" from Google don't have an agenda. Lets call it what they are without double speak - a fucking bribe.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
djsumdog 10y ago
Stop using amp and find other ways to optimize and minifity their websites for mobile? Foundation has the ability to include only the components you want if you build it using SASS and by including/minifiying the individual Javascript files during your build process. The more I look at AMP the more I absolutely hate it. This is just another thing to make me not want to use it. If Google points to a site, they should serve your site. If they're serving from cache, put in a DMCA and tell them hands off your content.
- malka 10y ago
  It would be sooo bad if your business suffered a search rank penalty due to the lack of AMP. It would be a real shame.

by tboyd47 10y ago

state_less 10y ago

Therein lies the problem, Google owns 80% of the market. Google is a de-facto monopoly. They can force you to act against your long term interests for a short term gain. I personally find the gain suspicious, it's already possible to make fast pages. Soon, we'll all merely be Google content providers.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

I don't think if you're running a business there's any way to avoid optimizing for Google in the short-term. You simply have to do it, if you want to be seen. Not optimizing for Google won't hurt Google, it'll just hurt you. Because Google can always just promote someone else. But you should also support antitrust legislation and judicial action against Google. Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google (now referred to as Alphabet[1] on most donor lists). The long game is requiring open oversight of Google's search ranking methodologies and forbidding them from modifying them to benefit their own products and services. [1] http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2016&id=D000067823 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2016&id=D00...

josho 10y ago
As an outsider observing the US election the statement of yours "Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google" strikes me as ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, your logic is correct. But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda. The real solution is to vote for candidates pushing for campaign finance reform (reading Lawrence Lessig may be insightful)
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, when Congress moves to increase the salary of Congress, the bill tends to pass with flying colors. ;) Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by someone entirely different. It's a juggling act of corruption!
  - josho 10y ago
    > Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. While the electorate is bickering over distractions like this cycle you are correct. However, limiting special interest influence strikes me as a non-partisan issue, so if the citizens spoke up I think they'd have sufficient influence.. But, then maybe I'm being an idealist. Regardless, your short term solution works.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      The problem is, it's a non-partisan issue in that almost all our representatives, regardless of political party, are totally comfortable with it. ;) And the reason we're uncomfortable with special interest influence is... that it absolutely freaking works. The power money has on election results is so strong, that almost anyone who isn't accepting it probably isn't getting elected. So the likelihood of gaining a majority of Congresspeople who would move against it is pretty much impossible.
- tdkl 10y ago
  > But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda. This is funny considering you think "donations" from Google don't have an agenda. Lets call it what they are without double speak - a fucking bribe.
- snowwrestler 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

djsumdog 10y ago

Stop using amp and find other ways to optimize and minifity their websites for mobile? Foundation has the ability to include only the components you want if you build it using SASS and by including/minifiying the individual Javascript files during your build process. The more I look at AMP the more I absolutely hate it. This is just another thing to make me not want to use it. If Google points to a site, they should serve your site. If they're serving from cache, put in a DMCA and tell them hands off your content.

malka 10y ago
It would be sooo bad if your business suffered a search rank penalty due to the lack of AMP. It would be a real shame.