4 ms·

I think you are missing the disagreements with AMP entirely. Google, with less effort, could have released a series of requirements for a page to be considered

I think you are missing the disagreements with AMP entirely. Google, with less effort, could have released a series of requirements for a page to be considered "AMP"ed: (examples) 0 blocking script requests, less than 500KB in total page load, page loads in under 1s, etc. Once your pages meet these requirements, they gain the AMP moniker. Instead, google built an entirely new presentation method itself. This engineering effort can not be ignored and it was not on accident that this happened. They are quite literally stealing the traffic of users who implement AMP.

fixermark 10y ago
What you're describing has already been done. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/ https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/ https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/ https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/ It didn't work. And given that the solution to Google "stealing" a site's AMP traffic is that site just stops supporting AMP, the "stealing" argument doesn't hold a lot of water. If I'm a small publisher, Google caches taking page hits on popular topics instead of my server is a boon, not a hindrance.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  It didn't work because Google didn't create it as a strong signal. Make it matter and the majority of sites will change the next time. One Tweet from Matt Cutts and everyone's already re-doing sites for SEO purposes. Set clear guidelines and rest will follow. But Google wants to build its own news portal to compete with FB.
- liquidise 10y ago
  A few disagreements with your analysis: AMP was given a wide spread announcement that generated an unusual amount of press. It was impossible to ignore. If page speed was such an important (and viable) solution, google could simply have announced they would more heavily favor sites that performed well. Also, not supporting AMP is not a casual decision for some companies. My blog doesn't earn me revenue so i can happily tell google to pound sand before i support AMP. Can revenue-driven publishers due the same and sacrifice their SEO like that? I doubt it. > Google caches taking page hits on popular topics instead of my server is a boon, not a hindrance I simply cannot disagree with this more. Your most popular posts/topics are what generally drive the viewership and discovery of your site. I want those viewers. With AMP, they are looking at google, with a google URL, and a nice big "X" to close the window, never to see my site again. I don't see how this can be defensed at all. It is the exact opposite of what you are aiming for as a publisher, big or small.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    What stops you from providing links to additional content on your site on the amp-enabled page? You seem to be assuming there's a category of user who is casual enough that they'll page away after reading the one amp story, yet if they'd been on your content-originating site instead, they'd be like "Oh, now that I've read that, I should go click these links and read other things from this source!" I'm not sure why we think those users exist.
humanrebar 10y ago
> Instead, google built an entirely new presentation method itself. I'm not a web dev, but I understand there were also requirements about deterministically sizing elements, as having things jump around the page is really disruptive to a mobile user. I thought the presentation method stuff was to help prevent presentation issues, including dark patterns. Is there a way to use static or dynamic analysis to prevent that sort of thing?
- kevingadd 10y ago
  The google search spider literally loads webpages in a specialized browser to analyze them, a little instrumentation or even a brute-force comparison would let them detect bad behavior (and monitor load times).

fixermark 10y ago

What you're describing has already been done. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/ https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/ https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/ https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/ It didn't work. And given that the solution to Google "stealing" a site's AMP traffic is that site just stops supporting AMP, the "stealing" argument doesn't hold a lot of water. If I'm a small publisher, Google caches taking page hits on popular topics instead of my server is a boon, not a hindrance.

angry-hacker 10y ago
It didn't work because Google didn't create it as a strong signal. Make it matter and the majority of sites will change the next time. One Tweet from Matt Cutts and everyone's already re-doing sites for SEO purposes. Set clear guidelines and rest will follow. But Google wants to build its own news portal to compete with FB.
liquidise 10y ago
A few disagreements with your analysis: AMP was given a wide spread announcement that generated an unusual amount of press. It was impossible to ignore. If page speed was such an important (and viable) solution, google could simply have announced they would more heavily favor sites that performed well. Also, not supporting AMP is not a casual decision for some companies. My blog doesn't earn me revenue so i can happily tell google to pound sand before i support AMP. Can revenue-driven publishers due the same and sacrifice their SEO like that? I doubt it. > Google caches taking page hits on popular topics instead of my server is a boon, not a hindrance I simply cannot disagree with this more. Your most popular posts/topics are what generally drive the viewership and discovery of your site. I want those viewers. With AMP, they are looking at google, with a google URL, and a nice big "X" to close the window, never to see my site again. I don't see how this can be defensed at all. It is the exact opposite of what you are aiming for as a publisher, big or small.
- fixermark 10y ago
  What stops you from providing links to additional content on your site on the amp-enabled page? You seem to be assuming there's a category of user who is casual enough that they'll page away after reading the one amp story, yet if they'd been on your content-originating site instead, they'd be like "Oh, now that I've read that, I should go click these links and read other things from this source!" I'm not sure why we think those users exist.

humanrebar 10y ago

> Instead, google built an entirely new presentation method itself. I'm not a web dev, but I understand there were also requirements about deterministically sizing elements, as having things jump around the page is really disruptive to a mobile user. I thought the presentation method stuff was to help prevent presentation issues, including dark patterns. Is there a way to use static or dynamic analysis to prevent that sort of thing?

kevingadd 10y ago
The google search spider literally loads webpages in a specialized browser to analyze them, a little instrumentation or even a brute-force comparison would let them detect bad behavior (and monitor load times).