12 ms·
"It also has under development a Web Share API that would allow AMP viewers to pull the original URL into the native sharing flow on the platform, instead of th
by awinder 10y ago
"It also has under development a Web Share API that would allow AMP viewers to pull the original URL into the native sharing flow on the platform, instead of the AMP Viewer URL."
Holy Moly, this is a huge amount of rigamarole just to support a degraded experience that helps ONE company do ONE thing in order to make further lock-in and profits in ONE way. It's hard to believe that any company would ever invest this amount of technical effort on a flawed product offering -- unless of course, it was one company with enough damned vertical integration to make it possibly worth their while.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> a degraded experience I like AMP over publishers' own formats, which I have to put into Reader mode to make, well, pleasantly readable. I don't like AMP's implications. But I don't think your rendering is fair.
- pdog 10y ago> I like AMP over publishers' own formats... Back in the day, we called them websites.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoAnd I still visit them! POLITICO, The Information and others have me at their sites every day. Other publications, e.g. the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal have me Googling for AMP versions. Note that my main search engine is Duck Duck Go. For me, Google's doing something meaningfully helpful with AMP.
- vonklaus 10y agoI use ddg for search. I like it but it is a hassle to have to toggle safe mode every time. I wish they had a url/alternative to toggle this literally every browser load.
- mmel 10y agoI think https://duckduckgo.com/?kp=-1&q=%s https://duckduckgo.com/?kp=-1&q=%s does what you wish.
- LukeShu 10y agoAre you looking for "!safeoff"?
- vonklaus 10y agoThis appears to work. The "settings" tab appears to say that safesearch is on but this overrides it. Not sure if for the session or just a oneoff but nice to know and gets the job done. Going to check out some other "bangs" now im aware.
- throwaway91111 10y agoMeanwhile, if you find AMP doesn't fit your needs, you're stuck.... dumping google. I spent this weekend writing a google proxy to inject the actual urls into the results. Ultimately I would have switched to bing, or maybe yandex.
- Spivak 10y agoUse DuckDuckGo with the !g bang. It will use encrypted.google.com and bypass AMP pages. I end up just using DDG's results most of the time though since they're pretty good.
- deno 10y agoIf you’re really “googling” for AMP versions I recommend you should get the “AMP Validator[1]” extension. Aside from validating, it parses the <meta> tags on current website and lets you click-through to go to AMP version. [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amp-validator/nmoffdblmcmgeicmolmhobpoocbbmknc?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amp-validator/nmof...
- gcb0 10y agoinstall firefox and disable scripts. you will be surprised at how many "websites" are still available to you.
- andy_ppp 10y agoAMP is not the problem - the AMP cache is pure evil and if it wasn't for Google forcing it on people through their SERPs there would be no reason for Google to add it or have to work around it... I want to visit publishers own sites and not weird walled Google land.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Kalium 10y agoSpeaking only and solely for just myself, I do not care whose site I read the material on. I just want it presented in a reasonable, readable manner. A number of publishers seem to struggle with this.
- andy_ppp 10y agoI think the fact AMP (cache) was at least initially broken for lots of people is very concerning; next there is duplicating and breaking pieces of the web (links!). In my opinion the AMP cache should be opt in then quite a few of my concerns go away.
- Kalium 10y agoTo my knowledge, AMP - and thus AMP cache - is already opt-in. A few minutes of research suggests this is indeed the case. Are your concerns addressed sufficiently?
- andy_ppp 10y agoOkay so as a user of Google how do I never see an AMP link again? I'm actually seriously thinking of moving to bing or duck duck go because of this!
- Kalium 10y agoSure! All you have to do is not click on any. That's 100% your choice and entirely within your control. AMP is opt-in on the publisher's end. Publishers choose if you get their site or AMP.
- CaptSpify 10y agoThe issue is that google has been pushing these slow, bulky pages to the top of their results, then they swoop in with AMP to fix the problem. The problem AMP is trying to solve is very real, but the answer isn't to consolidate things further into google's ecosystem.
- grrowl 10y agoIf we were able to provide quick and light pages with an equivalent experience to AMP and have these pages receive the speed and SEO boosting which AMP pages enjoy, that would be fair. Currently, because the New York Times' website is overloaded with ads and bullshit, Google takes it upon themselves to identify "accelerated" sites and penalising everyone who doesn't implement AMP regardless of the speed of their site.
- unixhero 10y agoThat sentiment sounds to me like coming from a typical iOS user. All this backseat content consumption-only will bite us sooner or later.
- rhizome 10y agoOh, I'm guessing there's much more to this initiative than faster pageloads and an ersatz reader mode.
- SquareWheel 10y agoAMP is built on WebComponents, an open HTML5 platform. Google's AMP Cache service isn't even exclusive as Cloudflare offers one as well. What "lock-in" are you talking about? As for a "degraded experience" that's subjective, but users seem to far prefer it.
- awinder 10y agoIf I can't get from the search engine to the source page, that's a degraded experience. If I can't copy-paste the url but there's some ridiculous browser-defined JS method for inserting whatever the site host says the link is into my clipboard, that's a degraded experience. And we'll see further degraded experiences as Google turns "We screwed up web linking!" from a despised practice into a first-class, browser-supported practice.
- SquareWheel 10y ago>from a despised practice into a first-class, browser-supported practice Browsers already support WebComponents. This is just Javascript, there's nothing proprietary about it. It sounds like you're not even complaining about how AMP itself works, but the CDN/caching services such as Google AMP Cache. Regardless, none of this results in lock-in as your original comment claimed. And again, degradation is too subjective to compare directly.
- wmf 10y agoThe Google AMP viewer/cache is how AMP works in reality. Google has indicated that they are not willing to turn the cache off so it's fair to evaluate AMP in that context.
- SquareWheel 10y ago>Google has indicated that they are not willing to turn the cache off Can you elaborate? Google's AMP Cache is an optional feature. Cloudflare also provides an AMP cache.
- rvanmil 10y agoAMP was the final straw for me. I've switched to DuckDuckGo and I won't be coming back this time.
- orik 10y agosame boat; duckduckgo + safari has been working really well together. I set the custom theme to hide the search bar in the page because I just use the address bar, and bangs have been really useful.
- epistasis 10y agoMe too. I've been really liking DuckDuckGo's results too. Web searches feel much more useful than they have for years.