4 ms·

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 obvi

by 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.
      - tigershark 9y ago
        So you are confirming what is the mainstream thought in this thread: Google is actually ranking higher AMP pages compared to normal content. Because I think that each top ranking news website has also a non AMP-ed version. But, as per you admission and the anecdota in this thread, all the news are litterally dominated by AMP results. So I can't really see how people can still assert that AMP has no whatsoever influence in ranking when all the news results have a huge skew toward the AMP-ed version of any website instead of the original one.
        slackingoff2017 9y ago
        I reckon the deeper purpose behind AMP is to fight ad blockers. Another google source in a thread from a few months back mentioned that the AMP team was within Google's advertising division. The goal is to get all the content onto google servers so they can serve ads from the same origin that cannot be blocked. Amp in combination with chrome's built in "ad blocker" is part of a broader Google strategy to protect their advertising model.
      - JoshMnem 9y ago
        > It is true that all the news results are AMPed, but there was certainly a time when not everyone was onboard yet Not everyone is on board. Many sites don't want AMPified pages. Google takes AMP pages and puts a giant "back" button that takes the website's users back to Google Search rather than deeper into the website. It breaks URLs and referrers, because the AMP pages are now hosted on google.com, not on the destination websites' own domains. AMP is a terrible attack on the open WWW. Google is saying, let us appify your content on our own platform (not on your own independent website) and restrict your markup/monitization options or we will drop you out of the top spot of the rankings.
    - GuB-42 9y ago
      Searching "wwdc" on google.fr The very first result (top story) is not an AMP page. The other top stories are AMP pages. Then, in the regular search results, only the last one is an AMP page. Searching "wwdc iphone 8" (not in the "people also searched" list for me) yields about 50% AMP pages. The first result is but the second isn't. I don't really see a pattern here. The only part where AMP seems mandatory is the news carousel.
  - untog 9y ago
    Try searching for pretty much any trending term on Google, on mobile. How many results in that top carousel aren't AMP pages? I'm yet to see a single one.
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

by wand3r 9y ago

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.
    - tigershark 9y ago
      So you are confirming what is the mainstream thought in this thread: Google is actually ranking higher AMP pages compared to normal content. Because I think that each top ranking news website has also a non AMP-ed version. But, as per you admission and the anecdota in this thread, all the news are litterally dominated by AMP results. So I can't really see how people can still assert that AMP has no whatsoever influence in ranking when all the news results have a huge skew toward the AMP-ed version of any website instead of the original one.
      - slackingoff2017 9y ago
        I reckon the deeper purpose behind AMP is to fight ad blockers. Another google source in a thread from a few months back mentioned that the AMP team was within Google's advertising division. The goal is to get all the content onto google servers so they can serve ads from the same origin that cannot be blocked. Amp in combination with chrome's built in "ad blocker" is part of a broader Google strategy to protect their advertising model.
    - JoshMnem 9y ago
      > It is true that all the news results are AMPed, but there was certainly a time when not everyone was onboard yet Not everyone is on board. Many sites don't want AMPified pages. Google takes AMP pages and puts a giant "back" button that takes the website's users back to Google Search rather than deeper into the website. It breaks URLs and referrers, because the AMP pages are now hosted on google.com, not on the destination websites' own domains. AMP is a terrible attack on the open WWW. Google is saying, let us appify your content on our own platform (not on your own independent website) and restrict your markup/monitization options or we will drop you out of the top spot of the rankings.
  - GuB-42 9y ago
    Searching "wwdc" on google.fr The very first result (top story) is not an AMP page. The other top stories are AMP pages. Then, in the regular search results, only the last one is an AMP page. Searching "wwdc iphone 8" (not in the "people also searched" list for me) yields about 50% AMP pages. The first result is but the second isn't. I don't really see a pattern here. The only part where AMP seems mandatory is the news carousel.
- untog 9y ago
  Try searching for pretty much any trending term on Google, on mobile. How many results in that top carousel aren't AMP pages? I'm yet to see a single one.

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