3 ms·
here's the idea: give pages amp ratings purely based on full-load page-speed. amp pages get it, vanilla hackernews gets it too.
by RodericDay 10y ago
here's the idea: give pages amp ratings purely based on full-load page-speed. amp pages get it, vanilla hackernews gets it too.
- apeace 10y agoIIRC Google already does this. But it doesn't solve the same problem as AMP does. With your solution, site A can load at 2s and site B at 3s, and site A will win. With AMP, sites A and B can both load in 200ms by easily integrating with an open standard. Also: all this talk of "lock-in" and "centralization". With the approach you proposed, the publisher with the most money to spend on dev resources wins the highest search ranking. Isn't that counter to decentralization? Isn't an open, simple standard like AMP a better solution (though not a perfect one)? What I'd like to hear from an AMP critic is: how can we achieve what AMP achieves--lightning-fast speeds that users love--without the "evil" AMP approach?
- RodericDay 10y agoreally? cause I don't see any discrete indicator that this page loads blazing fast. just rankings. meanwhile, people itt are claiming that they deliberately seek out the little thunderbolt as proof of quality. why can't the little thunderbolt be awarded to HackerNews too, even outside the AMP ecosystem?
- apeace 10y agoThat's a fair argument. Since this page loads as fast as AMP it should get the same nice thunder bolt. But that's different from the argument being made in the article, which is that AMP as a performance booster is "bad" because it "breaks links".
- RodericDay 10y agowell, I'm no genius, this surely came up at Google. the real question you should be asking is why Google didn't do it this way. This is what a lot of people are worried about.