4 ms·
Is it? It was not the deal as I understood it when it was introduced. Granted, maybe I missed it. For me, I understood it as a HTML subset, a method for image
by onli 10y ago
Is it? It was not the deal as I understood it when it was introduced. Granted, maybe I missed it.
For me, I understood it as a HTML subset, a method for image scaling, and an overall goal of having clutter free sites that work well on mobile. I knew there was a cache somewhere, too. But that users stay on googles site and the url won't be shown was not clear to me.
There was a very popular article on here about someone who implemented AMP and got surprised by this, the header change of copying the original url goes back to this.
- callahad 10y agoIf you want the AMP "lightning bolt of trust" and want to be eligible for the "Top Stories" carousel, you have to allow Google to cache and re-serve your content from their AMP Cache. Opting out of caching requires making your page intentionally invalid, and thus you lose all of the presentation and pre-rendering benefits of AMP.
- onli 10y agoYeah, I realize that now, just saying that this did not match what I understood what AMP should be, when it was released. I don't think it was obvious that "users will stay on google's site" was the clear point of it. By now I read all the horror stories, have a better picture of what it technically actually is, and opted not to support it for my sites.