3 ms·

We added that button to Google Search on the web about a month ago.

djrogers 10y ago
You added an obscure icon that when tapped reveals the link, which then must be also be tapped. That's a little more obtuse and undiscoverable than 'added that button'. The fact that people here on HN are still requesting it says it's far from well implemented - I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read it somewhere when you added it. The more conspiratorial among us probably assume that implementing it poorly is intentional.
- cramforce 10y ago
  It'll be replaced with a standard share button once navigator.share() API launches.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Given that you are the tech lead on AMP at Google, maybe you can clarify a bit on this...but why the decision to group this interaction under Sharing? It seems like people are trying to just visit the original site, not share it, and one of the big criticisms has been that this is buried. Presumably putting it under Sharing is also a bit confusing because to many, "sharing" implies sending content to someone which describes a very different interaction than opening the original page. Is it because "Sharing" in this case us meant to imply pushing the content to another medium (such as an external browser) vs. just the implied meaning of "sharing with another person?" I'd love any context you can share from internal discussions around how prominent to make that functionality. I think it is hard to deny that Google benefits from it being harder to find, which is where the criticism from the parent is likely coming from.
    - cramforce 10y ago
      Only a tiny percentage of users wants to use the "click through to original" feature. Sharing is a major use case that strongly benefits publisher. In the end one has to make trade offs what to make prominent in a UI.
      - thescribe 10y ago
        As a user who frequently wants to change the rendering, I don't think I would have ever thought to look under share. I associate the 'share' section with tracking code and buttons for social networks.
      - chickenfries 10y ago
        And yet, it's what a search engine is supposed to do: link you to someone else's site.
christian_wilde 10y ago
Yes, solution is sub-optimal, as djrogers says :) Also: using browser's native sharing option, shares the Google URL's, not the "real" one
- cramforce 10y ago
  On our radar to get browsers to change and they have been receptive to our proposal.
  - christian_wilde 10y ago
    Cool! That's good news :)
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Nope. I literally loaded Chrome for Android after reading your comment, searched for a Reddit thread, and no button, nor any other way to bypass AMP without having clicked the AMP link already. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/Xnrlzcs.png http://i.imgur.com/Xnrlzcs.png
- christian_wilde 10y ago
  They refer to the moment you open a AMP result. Before, there was no way to get the original URL. Now they display a "link" icon on the top so you can get the original URL. From the results themselves, no, there is no way to bypass AMP (like there is with App-indexing)

You added an obscure icon that when tapped reveals the link, which then must be also be tapped. That's a little more obtuse and undiscoverable than 'added that button'. The fact that people here on HN are still requesting it says it's far from well implemented - I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read it somewhere when you added it. The more conspiratorial among us probably assume that implementing it poorly is intentional.

cramforce 10y ago
It'll be replaced with a standard share button once navigator.share() API launches.
- shostack 10y ago
  Given that you are the tech lead on AMP at Google, maybe you can clarify a bit on this...but why the decision to group this interaction under Sharing? It seems like people are trying to just visit the original site, not share it, and one of the big criticisms has been that this is buried. Presumably putting it under Sharing is also a bit confusing because to many, "sharing" implies sending content to someone which describes a very different interaction than opening the original page. Is it because "Sharing" in this case us meant to imply pushing the content to another medium (such as an external browser) vs. just the implied meaning of "sharing with another person?" I'd love any context you can share from internal discussions around how prominent to make that functionality. I think it is hard to deny that Google benefits from it being harder to find, which is where the criticism from the parent is likely coming from.
  - cramforce 10y ago
    Only a tiny percentage of users wants to use the "click through to original" feature. Sharing is a major use case that strongly benefits publisher. In the end one has to make trade offs what to make prominent in a UI.
    - thescribe 10y ago
      As a user who frequently wants to change the rendering, I don't think I would have ever thought to look under share. I associate the 'share' section with tracking code and buttons for social networks.
    - chickenfries 10y ago
      And yet, it's what a search engine is supposed to do: link you to someone else's site.

christian_wilde 10y ago

Yes, solution is sub-optimal, as djrogers says :) Also: using browser's native sharing option, shares the Google URL's, not the "real" one

cramforce 10y ago
On our radar to get browsers to change and they have been receptive to our proposal.
- christian_wilde 10y ago
  Cool! That's good news :)

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

Nope. I literally loaded Chrome for Android after reading your comment, searched for a Reddit thread, and no button, nor any other way to bypass AMP without having clicked the AMP link already. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/Xnrlzcs.png http://i.imgur.com/Xnrlzcs.png

christian_wilde 10y ago
They refer to the moment you open a AMP result. Before, there was no way to get the original URL. Now they display a "link" icon on the top so you can get the original URL. From the results themselves, no, there is no way to bypass AMP (like there is with App-indexing)