4 ms·

I've been pushing back hard on adding AMP as a feature on our product and I am glad I did. We host/publish millions of articles for our clients and I just don't

I've been pushing back hard on adding AMP as a feature on our product and I am glad I did. We host/publish millions of articles for our clients and I just don't feel comfortable enabling AMP and allowing the big boys to get away with this crap. All large CMS players and publishing platforms should read this post.

tboyd47 9y ago
I think a decent compromise (one I'd like to see more sites adopt) is only putting a subset of your page's content on the AMPed version, with a "Read the full article on XYZ.com" banner at the bottom. It gives you that preferred real estate while also acting as a funnel to your site.
- geofft 9y ago
  I've seen a bunch of sites do that, and honestly I appreciate that as an end user because I want to get to the actual site, but at that point, AMP's story that it makes the web faster is actively untrue: you have to wait for the AMP page to load, scroll, and then load the normal page.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Doesn't that make it win-win? It both gives the site the advantageous position AMP offers it, while undermining AMP's entire purpose and hence discouraging support of it.
    - cobookman 9y ago
      Even in that case I find it useful. You get enough context to quickly drop out if the content didn't meet your needs. Try looking for recipes. I only click read more if the recipe met my needs. Else I swiped right to get the next matching recipe.
- vanadium 9y ago
  So, lean splash pages? I mean, you can already see many publishers (Reddit, ebay, some newspapers like USA Today) doing it. Already gaming AMP. Technically speaking then, AMP isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot, and risks being relegated to "splash page technology", if that becomes a trend. I'm curious how long it'll take for spammers to start inundating AMP, personally.

4 ms·

I've been pushing back hard on adding AMP as a feature on our product and I am glad I did. We host/publish millions of articles for our clients and I just don't

by digitalbase 9y ago

tboyd47 9y ago
I think a decent compromise (one I'd like to see more sites adopt) is only putting a subset of your page's content on the AMPed version, with a "Read the full article on XYZ.com" banner at the bottom. It gives you that preferred real estate while also acting as a funnel to your site.
- geofft 9y ago
  I've seen a bunch of sites do that, and honestly I appreciate that as an end user because I want to get to the actual site, but at that point, AMP's story that it makes the web faster is actively untrue: you have to wait for the AMP page to load, scroll, and then load the normal page.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Doesn't that make it win-win? It both gives the site the advantageous position AMP offers it, while undermining AMP's entire purpose and hence discouraging support of it.
    - cobookman 9y ago
      Even in that case I find it useful. You get enough context to quickly drop out if the content didn't meet your needs. Try looking for recipes. I only click read more if the recipe met my needs. Else I swiped right to get the next matching recipe.
- vanadium 9y ago
  So, lean splash pages? I mean, you can already see many publishers (Reddit, ebay, some newspapers like USA Today) doing it. Already gaming AMP. Technically speaking then, AMP isn't accomplishing a whole hell of a lot, and risks being relegated to "splash page technology", if that becomes a trend. I'm curious how long it'll take for spammers to start inundating AMP, personally.