3 ms·

You can do your part as a developer and tell managers about the dangers of AMP. It is a stupid idea technically (we have HTML, you can build a slim sites, Googl

You can do your part as a developer and tell managers about the dangers of AMP. It is a stupid idea technically (we have HTML, you can build a slim sites, Google can rank them higher) and stupid business wise by giving away the control, branding, options. I have convinced one project manager to not implement AMP and will continue to try in the future. Please do your part by spreading word of the dangers of GOOG and FB.

golergka 9y ago
Great idea from the user's standpoint though. While many publishers can, technically, build slim sites, almost none do.
- acdha 9y ago
  Depends on the user – if they like fast page views, AMP's 100KB of render-blocking JavaScript is a problem, and if they care about sharing the fact that it makes the real URL hard to get is also annoying. If they like not being phished, AMP is really bad since it leads a lot of people to believe they're reading something Google has vouched for. This is the inevitable conflict from Google putting their marketing needs ahead of the user experience. If they used site performance as the rating metric, AMP would just be one option for better performance but since the goal was to keep traffic on google.com we're stuck with a worse experience because that's better for Google.
  - nobleach 9y ago
    I'm really concerned with this current crop of "have to please Google" that is become so prevalent by SEO. The current trend is one of reactionary fear. "We have a great website... it would be a shame for its ranking to slip". I can't say that Google is actively, passively, or even part and parcel to promoting that fear. Unfortunately, the biggest reason I see AMP being adopted by many, has nothing to do with it being faster or a better experience. It has everything to do with pressure by Google. (and a belief that it'll improve search ranking)
    - acdha 9y ago
      Google is most definitely actively encouraging that. Right now the proposition is that you either use AMP and let Google host your pages on their server or your competitors' content will appear above your content on search results pages. The fact that they're technically not changing the search ranking isn't significant as long as the prominent carousel which appears first is restricted to hosted AMP content.
- scott_karana 9y ago
  AMP doesn't need to exist to encourage slim pages. Weight loading times higher in the Pagerank algorithm, and voila. (They do this already, but it's mild) Where AMP gets a disproportionately high representation in search results, making an obvious target for content creators, and encouraging lock-in.

golergka 9y ago

Great idea from the user's standpoint though. While many publishers can, technically, build slim sites, almost none do.

acdha 9y ago
Depends on the user – if they like fast page views, AMP's 100KB of render-blocking JavaScript is a problem, and if they care about sharing the fact that it makes the real URL hard to get is also annoying. If they like not being phished, AMP is really bad since it leads a lot of people to believe they're reading something Google has vouched for. This is the inevitable conflict from Google putting their marketing needs ahead of the user experience. If they used site performance as the rating metric, AMP would just be one option for better performance but since the goal was to keep traffic on google.com we're stuck with a worse experience because that's better for Google.
- nobleach 9y ago
  I'm really concerned with this current crop of "have to please Google" that is become so prevalent by SEO. The current trend is one of reactionary fear. "We have a great website... it would be a shame for its ranking to slip". I can't say that Google is actively, passively, or even part and parcel to promoting that fear. Unfortunately, the biggest reason I see AMP being adopted by many, has nothing to do with it being faster or a better experience. It has everything to do with pressure by Google. (and a belief that it'll improve search ranking)
  - acdha 9y ago
    Google is most definitely actively encouraging that. Right now the proposition is that you either use AMP and let Google host your pages on their server or your competitors' content will appear above your content on search results pages. The fact that they're technically not changing the search ranking isn't significant as long as the prominent carousel which appears first is restricted to hosted AMP content.
scott_karana 9y ago
AMP doesn't need to exist to encourage slim pages. Weight loading times higher in the Pagerank algorithm, and voila. (They do this already, but it's mild) Where AMP gets a disproportionately high representation in search results, making an obvious target for content creators, and encouraging lock-in.