3 ms·
They are. You don't have to publish an AMP version.
by mathw 10y ago
They are. You don't have to publish an AMP version.
- rch 10y agoThat's what I thought as well. If you're publishing special images and JS then don't include AMP metadata. Some of the concerns really should be addressed though: a clickable and copyable link could be handled with a widget at the bottom of the page, for instance.
- pmlnr 10y ago> You don't have to publish an AMP version. For now. I do have a bad feeling that Google will keep pushing towards this.
- fragmede 10y agoExcept with Google's stranglehold on Google Search Engine results, not publishing an AMP version means you will probably rank below a similiar AMP-"enhanced" version from a competitor. That's not really an option, unless you're trying to go after the Bing/DuckDuckGo market.
- MBCook 10y agoWhat about me as a user? I have NO WAY to control it, I just get it shoved down my throat. I don't like it and don't want it, but get no choice in the matter.
- angry-hacker 10y agoAnd no one is forcing you to work, don't ever whine about your salary. It's voluntary agreement. Google own the web and people have no choice. Monopoly.