4 ms·

One Month Without AMP

23 points by akras14 9y ago

linopolus 9y ago
> My average position also went down from 26.5 to 44.4 > [..] > Since not having AMP support does not result in a Google Search penalty, why bother? Maybe it DID get penalized?
- akras14 9y ago
  Good question. I drilled down into top 3 search terms from the last month an updated the article. Results are: - Git Tips – Average position declined from 2.4 to 2.9 - Angular Performance – Average position improved from 2.4 to 2.3 - Node JS Memory Leak – Average position improved from 3.4 to 2.9 Based on that, in comparison with other observations I am pretty sure that my site did not get penalized. Please let me know if you disagree or if you think I should pull some other stats. Edit. Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14857006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14857006
omnifischer 9y ago
I for one still like AMP pages, especially for sites like BBC/verge/arstechnica when browsing from mobile. Sorry I do not want to use all my precious data for your tracking+analytics. A typical cdn.ampproject(google hosted) page for bbc transfers about 500kB whereas the same bbc mobile page 900kB. I made an android app that requests and loads the CDN version of the current page if possible, based on https://gist.githubusercontent.com/adewale/125f0cb2cb46b6af916a2178064efcc8/raw/55038df2ef3f40834620c25d72c5651d187c326f/gistfile1.txt https://gist.githubusercontent.com/adewale/125f0cb2cb46b6af9...
- akras14 9y ago
  To each his own Edit: I guess a larger point, if Google would penalize for size of download instead of promoting AMP, I am sure sites like BBC would work hard to shrink their mobile download size.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Google probably forward-thought the answer to the inevitable question "OK so you're telling me to reduce data transfer, how exactly do you want me to go about it?" by giving them a practical solution envisioning a win-win.
    - akras14 9y ago
      I actually don't doubt that people at Google had and continue to have good intentions. I still find the concept of AMP cache very troublesome, even if it was built with good intentions.
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  AMP would have been fine and so much less controversial with a simple change. Make the AMP icon (or some other element) lead to the AMP page and leave the normal link as the main search result. I hate AMP for completely practical reasons and have no issue with the ideology. It messes up my back button, the top bar is annoying, and most importantly I frequently have AMP pages fail to load with a white screen but had the normal page load. It's bad enough they're tricking me into visiting an AMP page (I've never intended to visit one), but then it's broken when the source page isn't.
  - akras14 9y ago
    Good idea re 2 linked just like they do with a cached version
inkubus 9y ago
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6211453#search_analytics https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6211453#search_... "July 14 - onward An incremental improvement in Google's logging system now provides better accounting for results in lower positions. This change might cause increase in impressions, but also a decrease in average positions. This change only affects Search Console reporting, not your actual performance on Google Search. "
- akras14 9y ago
  Nice, thank you.

23 points by akras14 9y ago

> My average position also went down from 26.5 to 44.4 > [..] > Since not having AMP support does not result in a Google Search penalty, why bother? Maybe it DID get penalized?

akras14 9y ago
Good question. I drilled down into top 3 search terms from the last month an updated the article. Results are: - Git Tips – Average position declined from 2.4 to 2.9 - Angular Performance – Average position improved from 2.4 to 2.3 - Node JS Memory Leak – Average position improved from 3.4 to 2.9 Based on that, in comparison with other observations I am pretty sure that my site did not get penalized. Please let me know if you disagree or if you think I should pull some other stats. Edit. Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14857006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14857006

omnifischer 9y ago

I for one still like AMP pages, especially for sites like BBC/verge/arstechnica when browsing from mobile. Sorry I do not want to use all my precious data for your tracking+analytics. A typical cdn.ampproject(google hosted) page for bbc transfers about 500kB whereas the same bbc mobile page 900kB. I made an android app that requests and loads the CDN version of the current page if possible, based on https://gist.githubusercontent.com/adewale/125f0cb2cb46b6af916a2178064efcc8/raw/55038df2ef3f40834620c25d72c5651d187c326f/gistfile1.txt https://gist.githubusercontent.com/adewale/125f0cb2cb46b6af9...

akras14 9y ago
To each his own Edit: I guess a larger point, if Google would penalize for size of download instead of promoting AMP, I am sure sites like BBC would work hard to shrink their mobile download size.
- ksk 9y ago
  Google probably forward-thought the answer to the inevitable question "OK so you're telling me to reduce data transfer, how exactly do you want me to go about it?" by giving them a practical solution envisioning a win-win.
  - akras14 9y ago
    I actually don't doubt that people at Google had and continue to have good intentions. I still find the concept of AMP cache very troublesome, even if it was built with good intentions.
BoorishBears 9y ago
AMP would have been fine and so much less controversial with a simple change. Make the AMP icon (or some other element) lead to the AMP page and leave the normal link as the main search result. I hate AMP for completely practical reasons and have no issue with the ideology. It messes up my back button, the top bar is annoying, and most importantly I frequently have AMP pages fail to load with a white screen but had the normal page load. It's bad enough they're tricking me into visiting an AMP page (I've never intended to visit one), but then it's broken when the source page isn't.
- akras14 9y ago
  Good idea re 2 linked just like they do with a cached version

inkubus 9y ago

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6211453#search_analytics https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6211453#search_... "July 14 - onward An incremental improvement in Google's logging system now provides better accounting for results in lower positions. This change might cause increase in impressions, but also a decrease in average positions. This change only affects Search Console reporting, not your actual performance on Google Search. "

akras14 9y ago
Nice, thank you.