7 ms·

It's funny how no one was up in arms when facebook (the leading source of publisher traffic) did their version of accelerated pages. AMP serves a purpose for t

It's funny how no one was up in arms when facebook (the leading source of publisher traffic) did their version of accelerated pages. AMP serves a purpose for the end user and it does so well, it loads instantly and doesn't consume much data in the process. As for their "demands": 1. Google already states that AMP pages are ranked higher because they're faster to load. 2. I'm not sure if it's related but they they addressed that only yesterday: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-...

Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago
So are you saying -- all else equal -- that if your webpage can respond just as quickly as an AMP one, that your search rank won't be docked? E.g., your site is just as performant as AMP, but you're not using AMP.
- dontnotice 9y ago
  Yup, that was in the the blog post announcing AMP, and subsequent press comments. I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    I wonder how Google manages the network topology for testing this so that the fact that AMP is served from a Google-local cache does not give it a speed advantage to Google's speed-testing bot beyond any it may have in typical, outside of Google, use.
    - ec109685 9y ago
      Google preferches the amp content.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    I don't care at all about AMP really, but this: > I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way. I don't get why anybody says this. Of course they are in control. Nobody can force them to do it differently (maybe the government but whatever). Most people aren't saying that Google has no right to do what they're doing. People are saying that Google _should_ be doing it differently.
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    > I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way. Of course they can legally do it, and we're not judges debating that. There's a difference between what they are allowed to do legally, and what they can do that keep me coming back as a user. This is legal, but it makes me use DuckDuckGo instead.
- ec109685 9y ago
  Your site will never be faster than AMP because google can’t prefetch content from your site.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    They can't? Or they won't?
    - jariz 9y ago
      They could've made an open standard that not only websites but other search engines could implement as well, but then again why would they do that? They'd lose a competitive advantage. I think AMP is very deliberately locked in to google.
      - ec109685 9y ago
        Any site can implement an amp reader. E.g. Cloudflare has setup an amp cache third parties can use. I believe twitter makes use of this. This new open standard they are pushing will eliminate the need to even have an amp cache for a site to consume amp, win win.
- dx034 9y ago
  Good luck trying to get to AMP performance without using AMP. That will likely be more work and in the end you come up with AMP in all but name.
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> It's funny how no one was up in arms when facebook (the leading source of publisher traffic) did their version of accelerated pages. Hmm, I guess it depends where you look. I saw quite a LOT of people upset by it. Many participated because they felt like they had to in order to get views.
guy98238710 9y ago
Who cares about facebook? This is the web! AMP threatens to force even small blogs to convert from open web to walled garden where Google decides what will be published and what will get blocked.
- dx034 9y ago
  Why convert? I find it pretty easy keeping an amp and non-amp version on the same codebase. Just a few switches what's activated where. And many of the restrictions (images with set sizes, no style tags, no use of !important) make a lot of sense for any page. And going once through Bootstrap CSS and deleting everything you don't need also helps improving user experience. If anything, supporting AMP has accelerated my non-AMP pages a lot.
kuschku 9y ago
> 1. Google already states that AMP pages are ranked higher because they're faster to load. Cool, so how do I get my plain text page which loads faster than the motherfuckingwebsite.com into the AMP carousel?
- mbid 9y ago
  Look at the source of motherfuckingwebsite.com. You'll find that it loads a certain analytics script. Motherfucker indeed.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Exactly. Which is why I have sites that load even faster than motherfuckingwebsite.com, yet they don't get any of the search ranking benefits.
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    And it's well aware, right before loading the script in the HTML is:  The script is also loaded async, so it's not that bad.

Y7ZCQtNo39 9y ago

So are you saying -- all else equal -- that if your webpage can respond just as quickly as an AMP one, that your search rank won't be docked? E.g., your site is just as performant as AMP, but you're not using AMP.

dontnotice 9y ago
Yup, that was in the the blog post announcing AMP, and subsequent press comments. I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  I wonder how Google manages the network topology for testing this so that the fact that AMP is served from a Google-local cache does not give it a speed advantage to Google's speed-testing bot beyond any it may have in typical, outside of Google, use.
  - ec109685 9y ago
    Google preferches the amp content.
- pitaj 9y ago
  I don't care at all about AMP really, but this: > I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way. I don't get why anybody says this. Of course they are in control. Nobody can force them to do it differently (maybe the government but whatever). Most people aren't saying that Google has no right to do what they're doing. People are saying that Google _should_ be doing it differently.
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  > I'm of the persuasion that they can rank and display the results however they please, it's their site after all, so it's a non issue either way. Of course they can legally do it, and we're not judges debating that. There's a difference between what they are allowed to do legally, and what they can do that keep me coming back as a user. This is legal, but it makes me use DuckDuckGo instead.
ec109685 9y ago
Your site will never be faster than AMP because google can’t prefetch content from your site.
- yorwba 9y ago
  They can't? Or they won't?
  - jariz 9y ago
    They could've made an open standard that not only websites but other search engines could implement as well, but then again why would they do that? They'd lose a competitive advantage. I think AMP is very deliberately locked in to google.
    - ec109685 9y ago
      Any site can implement an amp reader. E.g. Cloudflare has setup an amp cache third parties can use. I believe twitter makes use of this. This new open standard they are pushing will eliminate the need to even have an amp cache for a site to consume amp, win win.
dx034 9y ago
Good luck trying to get to AMP performance without using AMP. That will likely be more work and in the end you come up with AMP in all but name.

BinaryIdiot 9y ago

> It's funny how no one was up in arms when facebook (the leading source of publisher traffic) did their version of accelerated pages. Hmm, I guess it depends where you look. I saw quite a LOT of people upset by it. Many participated because they felt like they had to in order to get views.

guy98238710 9y ago

Who cares about facebook? This is the web! AMP threatens to force even small blogs to convert from open web to walled garden where Google decides what will be published and what will get blocked.

dx034 9y ago
Why convert? I find it pretty easy keeping an amp and non-amp version on the same codebase. Just a few switches what's activated where. And many of the restrictions (images with set sizes, no style tags, no use of !important) make a lot of sense for any page. And going once through Bootstrap CSS and deleting everything you don't need also helps improving user experience. If anything, supporting AMP has accelerated my non-AMP pages a lot.

kuschku 9y ago

> 1. Google already states that AMP pages are ranked higher because they're faster to load. Cool, so how do I get my plain text page which loads faster than the motherfuckingwebsite.com into the AMP carousel?

mbid 9y ago
Look at the source of motherfuckingwebsite.com. You'll find that it loads a certain analytics script. Motherfucker indeed.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Exactly. Which is why I have sites that load even faster than motherfuckingwebsite.com, yet they don't get any of the search ranking benefits.
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  And it's well aware, right before loading the script in the HTML is:  The script is also loaded async, so it's not that bad.