5 ms·

"At Google we believe in designing products with speed as a core principle. The Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) format helps ensure that content reliably loads f

by c0l0 10y ago

"At Google we believe in designing products with speed as a core principle. The Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) format helps ensure that content reliably loads fast [...]" Yeah, that's certainly one way to look at it. Yet in my book, the "AMP 'format'" (emph. mine), above all, ensures the continued assimilation of the open web, and with it most of ad revenue collected there, into the huge moloch that is Google (and its AdWords and Analytics infrastructure). I think it's a disgusting technology to adopt, and none of its supposed benefits are worth the drawback that you're giving away control over the end-to-end communication with your actual users.

CaptSpify 10y ago
"Instead of helping sites to solve the problem, we'll take care of it for them! And no need to worry about vendor lock-in, we're 'not evil', remember?" I wish they'd just push to solve the actual problem, instead of using this as a chance to push people into their system. The issue they are trying to solve is absolutely real, but adding more layers and complexity to prevent layers and complexity is the opposite approach that they should be taking.
- cmac2992 10y ago
  I think they have been trying to push people in that direction. They penalize you for having slow load times and too small of touch zones among a variety of other ux factors. But the progress has been slow.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Have they? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious because I guess I don't ever see that happening. Whenever I search for something that has a bunch of results, like weather, I end up with 30s loading, JS-filled, nightmare sites that are slow, bulky and don't show the information in a clean format. Yet there are good, simple sites like http://myfreeweather.com/ http://myfreeweather.com/ that are ~8 pages into the results. I don't pretend to know half of the metrics they use to rank a site, but IME, it doesn't seem like speed is at all relevant.
    - accountface 10y ago
      It's part of the algorithm, but it's not enough to offset the fact that a bloated site like weather.com gets astronomical amounts of traffic from all sources (direct, paid, organic). It's more like if you had two sites with identical traffic and identical content relevancy the faster site would rank higher... which makes sense. If your site is incredibly popular, it's logical to think that people are finding it useful and therefore it should rank higher. That's less true than it used to be, but it's still valid as one of the primary ranking metrics.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        I guess I see it as chicken and egg problem: Is the site popular because it's one of the top results? or is it the top result because it's popular? I've seen too many of the former to believe Google is trying to push the later.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
LeanderK 10y ago
i agree, but i don't think google is 100% to blame. The web-designers etc. have failed to provide fast, mobile optimised pages that perform the same optimisation that google now produces. Google is just taking advantage of the neglect for providing a mobile-friendly, bandwith-adapting web experience.
- pmlnr 10y ago
  For AMP? Hell they are. For bloated [anything involves computers]? No. That's on us.

by c0l0 10y ago

CaptSpify 10y ago

"Instead of helping sites to solve the problem, we'll take care of it for them! And no need to worry about vendor lock-in, we're 'not evil', remember?" I wish they'd just push to solve the actual problem, instead of using this as a chance to push people into their system. The issue they are trying to solve is absolutely real, but adding more layers and complexity to prevent layers and complexity is the opposite approach that they should be taking.

cmac2992 10y ago
I think they have been trying to push people in that direction. They penalize you for having slow load times and too small of touch zones among a variety of other ux factors. But the progress has been slow.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Have they? I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely curious because I guess I don't ever see that happening. Whenever I search for something that has a bunch of results, like weather, I end up with 30s loading, JS-filled, nightmare sites that are slow, bulky and don't show the information in a clean format. Yet there are good, simple sites like http://myfreeweather.com/ http://myfreeweather.com/ that are ~8 pages into the results. I don't pretend to know half of the metrics they use to rank a site, but IME, it doesn't seem like speed is at all relevant.
  - accountface 10y ago
    It's part of the algorithm, but it's not enough to offset the fact that a bloated site like weather.com gets astronomical amounts of traffic from all sources (direct, paid, organic). It's more like if you had two sites with identical traffic and identical content relevancy the faster site would rank higher... which makes sense. If your site is incredibly popular, it's logical to think that people are finding it useful and therefore it should rank higher. That's less true than it used to be, but it's still valid as one of the primary ranking metrics.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      I guess I see it as chicken and egg problem: Is the site popular because it's one of the top results? or is it the top result because it's popular? I've seen too many of the former to believe Google is trying to push the later.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

LeanderK 10y ago

i agree, but i don't think google is 100% to blame. The web-designers etc. have failed to provide fast, mobile optimised pages that perform the same optimisation that google now produces. Google is just taking advantage of the neglect for providing a mobile-friendly, bandwith-adapting web experience.

pmlnr 10y ago
For AMP? Hell they are. For bloated [anything involves computers]? No. That's on us.