6 ms·

> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved

> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.

endorphone 9y ago
>This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.
- wand3r 9y ago
  I mean, it's a closed source algorithm. Google provides guidance directly and indirectly but no one knows how the rank weights work outside of Google. Amp obviously ranks higher it is the top hit in search for me. Results appear under it...
  - alanfalcon 9y ago
    Exactly. Obscure AMP results appear higher thanbigher quality non-AMP results; What needs to be cited?
    - kartickv 9y ago
      Which search result, and which obscure AMP result ranks higher than which non-AMP result? That's what needs to be cited, not an assertion free of evidence. Second, even if that does happen, the question is whether it would have happened without AMP. In other words, is it a bug in the search algorithm, independent of AMP.
      - albedoa 9y ago
        I agree with the other comments that you seem overly invested in this, but I'll play along: Do a search for "wwdc" on mobile. This was my first and only test against your challenge. It isn't just a matter of the AMP results being ranked higher — they are segmented from non-AMP pages. The eleven (!) "Top Stories" are all AMP pages. Under that is "People also searched for > WWDC iPhone 8", which consists of five (!) AMP pages. Only then does it go into non-AMP pages, starting with Apple's own WWDC page. That's not just rank prioritization. There is a visual break between AMP and non-AMP pages. It is crazier for you to blindly trust Google on this than it is for us to infer from a pattern we see over and over again, and for you to require that we provide proof that you acknowledge we can't obtain might be crazier.
        kartickv 9y ago
        I don't see us having a constructive exchange of views, where each person gets a perspective they didn't have earlier, so I won't reply. Have a good day.
        eridius 9y ago
        > where each person gets a perspective they didn't have earlier That's not really how arguments work. I mean, sure, sometimes it works that way, but other times, like this time, one person is clearly in the wrong, and is simply refusing to listen to the other side.
        albedoa 9y ago
        lol okay thanks for coming back to the court to make us aware that you left the court in case we cared and didn't notice.
        boulos 9y ago
        Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on search). You're confusing an important thing here: Google places news higher than the original source. Given that WWDC is over, this is actually preferable. It is true that all the news results are AMPed, but there was certainly a time when not everyone was onboard yet and the carousel included non-AMP results (I assume if you can find a news topic sufficiently obscure to have a non-AMP publisher, yet important enough for Top Stories it might show up). If you instead search for "Iceland hikes" you get a useful one box of info, then an AMPed page then a non-AMPed result and so on. tl;dr: Popular news publications are certainly all AMPified these days, and Top News is clearly prioritized. Regular search results aren't as clearly AMP leaning.
  - kartickv 9y ago
    Google said that they prioritise fast pages, not AMP pages. You can use some other way to make your pages load fast, and it won't make a difference. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe you over believing Google.
    - eanzenberg 9y ago
      Do you work there or something? I've never seen someone so hyped about the 2nd biggest corp in the world.
      - kartickv 9y ago
        Rather than respoding to the points I made about AMP, you're focusing on an ad-hominem criticism of me personally. Please stop doing that.
    - untog 9y ago
      Is it really that surprising that Google finds crawling pages stored on their own CDN to be faster than pages stored... anywhere else? They don't even need to leave the Google network.
    - risyasin 9y ago
      I do not really believe that. I have a site which is served way faster than it's Amp version. Obviously Google never really care to check whether original page is faster than AMP. Yes I have numbers. AMP version loads about 400ms. While the original was about 300ms. Almost certain for all pages.
      - majewsky 9y ago
        That was likely a singular measurement, likely from your notebook. A user at some other location might very much disagree, unless your site has a CDN as extensive as Google.
        JoshMnem 9y ago
- fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
  Agreed, I like AMP for many of the same reasons I liked Google Reader and RSS feeds: I'd rather consume my content in a form that's optimized for reading.
  - metaobject 9y ago
    For someone with poor vision, I frequently have to zoom my browser (in landscape mode) on my iPhone in order to be able to read the text/font. When on an AMP page, the scroll mechanism gets locked when I zoom in and I have to i zoom out completely before I can scroll the page. Of course this doesn't happen on non-AMP pages. I'd have a lot less problems with it if it didn't break my zoom functionality.
    - rohmish 9y ago
      on my phone if i increase/decrease the default font size, AMP uses that.
- JupiterMoon 9y ago
  I feel somewhat insulted by this. I am anti-AMP from a consumer perspective - I don't want to consume all my content via a Google CDN and I fear that this may be the end game that Google are playing for.
johnsmith21006 9y ago
It is absolutely true. How can you say otherwise? Business is free to chose.

endorphone 9y ago

>This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.

wand3r 9y ago
I mean, it's a closed source algorithm. Google provides guidance directly and indirectly but no one knows how the rank weights work outside of Google. Amp obviously ranks higher it is the top hit in search for me. Results appear under it...
- alanfalcon 9y ago
  Exactly. Obscure AMP results appear higher thanbigher quality non-AMP results; What needs to be cited?
  - kartickv 9y ago
    Which search result, and which obscure AMP result ranks higher than which non-AMP result? That's what needs to be cited, not an assertion free of evidence. Second, even if that does happen, the question is whether it would have happened without AMP. In other words, is it a bug in the search algorithm, independent of AMP.
    - albedoa 9y ago
      I agree with the other comments that you seem overly invested in this, but I'll play along: Do a search for "wwdc" on mobile. This was my first and only test against your challenge. It isn't just a matter of the AMP results being ranked higher — they are segmented from non-AMP pages. The eleven (!) "Top Stories" are all AMP pages. Under that is "People also searched for > WWDC iPhone 8", which consists of five (!) AMP pages. Only then does it go into non-AMP pages, starting with Apple's own WWDC page. That's not just rank prioritization. There is a visual break between AMP and non-AMP pages. It is crazier for you to blindly trust Google on this than it is for us to infer from a pattern we see over and over again, and for you to require that we provide proof that you acknowledge we can't obtain might be crazier.
      - kartickv 9y ago
        I don't see us having a constructive exchange of views, where each person gets a perspective they didn't have earlier, so I won't reply. Have a good day.
        eridius 9y ago
        > where each person gets a perspective they didn't have earlier That's not really how arguments work. I mean, sure, sometimes it works that way, but other times, like this time, one person is clearly in the wrong, and is simply refusing to listen to the other side.
        albedoa 9y ago
        lol okay thanks for coming back to the court to make us aware that you left the court in case we cared and didn't notice.
      - boulos 9y ago
        Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on search). You're confusing an important thing here: Google places news higher than the original source. Given that WWDC is over, this is actually preferable. It is true that all the news results are AMPed, but there was certainly a time when not everyone was onboard yet and the carousel included non-AMP results (I assume if you can find a news topic sufficiently obscure to have a non-AMP publisher, yet important enough for Top Stories it might show up). If you instead search for "Iceland hikes" you get a useful one box of info, then an AMPed page then a non-AMPed result and so on. tl;dr: Popular news publications are certainly all AMPified these days, and Top News is clearly prioritized. Regular search results aren't as clearly AMP leaning.
- kartickv 9y ago
  Google said that they prioritise fast pages, not AMP pages. You can use some other way to make your pages load fast, and it won't make a difference. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe you over believing Google.
  - eanzenberg 9y ago
    Do you work there or something? I've never seen someone so hyped about the 2nd biggest corp in the world.
    - kartickv 9y ago
      Rather than respoding to the points I made about AMP, you're focusing on an ad-hominem criticism of me personally. Please stop doing that.
  - untog 9y ago
    Is it really that surprising that Google finds crawling pages stored on their own CDN to be faster than pages stored... anywhere else? They don't even need to leave the Google network.
  - risyasin 9y ago
    I do not really believe that. I have a site which is served way faster than it's Amp version. Obviously Google never really care to check whether original page is faster than AMP. Yes I have numbers. AMP version loads about 400ms. While the original was about 300ms. Almost certain for all pages.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      That was likely a singular measurement, likely from your notebook. A user at some other location might very much disagree, unless your site has a CDN as extensive as Google.
      - JoshMnem 9y ago
fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
Agreed, I like AMP for many of the same reasons I liked Google Reader and RSS feeds: I'd rather consume my content in a form that's optimized for reading.
- metaobject 9y ago
  For someone with poor vision, I frequently have to zoom my browser (in landscape mode) on my iPhone in order to be able to read the text/font. When on an AMP page, the scroll mechanism gets locked when I zoom in and I have to i zoom out completely before I can scroll the page. Of course this doesn't happen on non-AMP pages. I'd have a lot less problems with it if it didn't break my zoom functionality.
  - rohmish 9y ago
    on my phone if i increase/decrease the default font size, AMP uses that.
JupiterMoon 9y ago
I feel somewhat insulted by this. I am anti-AMP from a consumer perspective - I don't want to consume all my content via a Google CDN and I fear that this may be the end game that Google are playing for.

johnsmith21006 9y ago

It is absolutely true. How can you say otherwise? Business is free to chose.