4 ms·

>Content should remain on the publisher's site. Publishers are free to implement their own cache and host their own content. AMP is open source and they can mo

>Content should remain on the publisher's site. Publishers are free to implement their own cache and host their own content. AMP is open source and they can modify it however they like.

richdougherty 9y ago
I mean that when you click a search result in Google you should go to the publisher's site, not to Google's cache of the content. It may have changed since, but that's how it was implemented originally by Google: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-amp-speeding-web-changing-works/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-amp-speeding-web-chang... "…but there’s a big catch: if readers decide to share a link to an AMP page they’ve clicked on through a Google search, the link points to Google.com (for example, google.com/amp/yoursite.com/yourpage/amp), not to your site. A Google spokesperson confirms that there isn’t a way to both have your AMP-optimized appear in Google’s prioritized search listings without having that content hosted on Google’s AMP Cache servers."
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  I was under the impression that the publisher could elect to use their own servers for their AMP content. Is this not possible anymore?
  - callahad 9y ago
    There's a lot of doublespeak around this. 1. You can (and must) host AMP content on servers of your own choosing. 2. Google's crawlers ingest your AMP content, validate it, and re-host it in Google's AMP Cache. Bing and other folks run similar crawlers and caches. 3. Google search results will only link to AMP content on Google's own cache. So yes, you can host your content on your own servers. And you can give people direct URLs to that content. But Google users will only ever see links to the copy of your content that Google hosts; your servers never see that traffic. There is no way to opt-out and still be considered a valid AMP page.
jwlato 9y ago
Publishers already host their own AMP content. Google caches that content, but anyone can go to the publisher's URL and get it directly. Disclaimer: I work for Google and have some involvement with AMP.
- 0x0 9y ago
  If by "anyone" you mean "my tech savvy friends at google" then yes. I've seen many friends end up on a google-hosted AMP version of a webpage, unable to complete whatever ticket purchase etc they needed because whatever autoAMPifyer the origin site uses produced half broken pages. These users have no idea what AMP is or why the page doesn't work (or that they could have reached the origin site directly if they click around on several unlabeled half-invisible icons in the fake-address-bar on top). In fact, they don't even realize they aren't browsing the origin site. They just give up.
  - Laforet 9y ago
    Conceptually this isn't all that different from having a website that works in browser A but not B due to insufficient testing. Why did they not fix it?
    - 0x0 9y ago
      Because how many website operators continuously google their own web site on mobile devices to click through to experience their google-hosted AMP editions? I would wager it's a fairly small % of the number of websites running an auto-AMP-ifying wordpress plugin, for example.
      - Laforet 9y ago
        I've seen plenty of badly designed mobile websites over the years and these sites seems to have turned out okay - most mobile browsers keep the option of "Request Desktop site" very accessible for a good reason. The worse case I've seen is a site in which every page crashed Mobile Safari without fail regardless of which version you ask for. It was eventually fixed but I never figured out why. If the sites are just running some script without checking then the admins have failed their line of duty.

>Content should remain on the publisher's site. Publishers are free to implement their own cache and host their own content. AMP is open source and they can modify it however they like.

richdougherty 9y ago

I mean that when you click a search result in Google you should go to the publisher's site, not to Google's cache of the content. It may have changed since, but that's how it was implemented originally by Google: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-amp-speeding-web-changing-works/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-amp-speeding-web-chang... "…but there’s a big catch: if readers decide to share a link to an AMP page they’ve clicked on through a Google search, the link points to Google.com (for example, google.com/amp/yoursite.com/yourpage/amp), not to your site. A Google spokesperson confirms that there isn’t a way to both have your AMP-optimized appear in Google’s prioritized search listings without having that content hosted on Google’s AMP Cache servers."

bitmapbrother 9y ago
I was under the impression that the publisher could elect to use their own servers for their AMP content. Is this not possible anymore?
- callahad 9y ago
  There's a lot of doublespeak around this. 1. You can (and must) host AMP content on servers of your own choosing. 2. Google's crawlers ingest your AMP content, validate it, and re-host it in Google's AMP Cache. Bing and other folks run similar crawlers and caches. 3. Google search results will only link to AMP content on Google's own cache. So yes, you can host your content on your own servers. And you can give people direct URLs to that content. But Google users will only ever see links to the copy of your content that Google hosts; your servers never see that traffic. There is no way to opt-out and still be considered a valid AMP page.

jwlato 9y ago

Publishers already host their own AMP content. Google caches that content, but anyone can go to the publisher's URL and get it directly. Disclaimer: I work for Google and have some involvement with AMP.

0x0 9y ago
If by "anyone" you mean "my tech savvy friends at google" then yes. I've seen many friends end up on a google-hosted AMP version of a webpage, unable to complete whatever ticket purchase etc they needed because whatever autoAMPifyer the origin site uses produced half broken pages. These users have no idea what AMP is or why the page doesn't work (or that they could have reached the origin site directly if they click around on several unlabeled half-invisible icons in the fake-address-bar on top). In fact, they don't even realize they aren't browsing the origin site. They just give up.
- Laforet 9y ago
  Conceptually this isn't all that different from having a website that works in browser A but not B due to insufficient testing. Why did they not fix it?
  - 0x0 9y ago
    Because how many website operators continuously google their own web site on mobile devices to click through to experience their google-hosted AMP editions? I would wager it's a fairly small % of the number of websites running an auto-AMP-ifying wordpress plugin, for example.
    - Laforet 9y ago
      I've seen plenty of badly designed mobile websites over the years and these sites seems to have turned out okay - most mobile browsers keep the option of "Request Desktop site" very accessible for a good reason. The worse case I've seen is a site in which every page crashed Mobile Safari without fail regardless of which version you ask for. It was eventually fixed but I never figured out why. If the sites are just running some script without checking then the admins have failed their line of duty.