4 ms·

I've tried AMP a couple times only to get rid of it. It's a nice bar to set for websites to compete against. I think Google rightfully so should penalize bloat

I've tried AMP a couple times only to get rid of it. It's a nice bar to set for websites to compete against. I think Google rightfully so should penalize bloated & slow sites. It's easy to create something better than AMP's experience. It takes a little time optimizing your site to create a pleasant interface & experience. The majority of sites I see that are below the AMP bar, are sites that choose to be that way with lots of ads & pop ups. They do it because these things help them make money. So for them they have little incentive to use AMP. A lot of them make some of that money with Google Ads though. So at the end of the day, I really don't see who AMP is for.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
It’s tough. At the same time, I think website content should matter over style.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  Agreed. The obsession with page load times tilts the equation toward sites that spend more money on developers than content creators. Nothing against developers, but people indeed are looking for content rather than fast sites. I'd be happy to wait another second if the site I'm going to visit has more relevant stuff to what I searched for. Perhaps if a site is terribly slow, that's one thing, but differentiating sites based on microsecond differences is preposterous.
  - joegahona 8y ago
    I agree, but is there proof that Google is differentiating sites "based on microsecond differences"?
    - yostrovs 8y ago
      The ranking algorithm is secret, so one can't know much about how it actually works. But, considering how much effort is spent to increase site speeds, the reality is that that's the impression that developers and site owners have.
      - joegahona 8y ago
        Agree with you that that's the impression those people have. I wish Google would be more transparent about the reality. The only thing I've heard actual Google employees say is stuff like "the speed portion of the algorithm will affect only the slowest sites." So if a shitty site like Forbes or CNN is reducing their mobile time from 20 seconds (likely on their bloated regular site) to less than 1 second (AMP) maybe that will give them a boost. But if my site loads in 3 seconds now and goes to less than 1 second on AMP, is it really worth it for me...

stochastic_monk 8y ago

It’s tough. At the same time, I think website content should matter over style.

yostrovs 8y ago
Agreed. The obsession with page load times tilts the equation toward sites that spend more money on developers than content creators. Nothing against developers, but people indeed are looking for content rather than fast sites. I'd be happy to wait another second if the site I'm going to visit has more relevant stuff to what I searched for. Perhaps if a site is terribly slow, that's one thing, but differentiating sites based on microsecond differences is preposterous.
- joegahona 8y ago
  I agree, but is there proof that Google is differentiating sites "based on microsecond differences"?
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    The ranking algorithm is secret, so one can't know much about how it actually works. But, considering how much effort is spent to increase site speeds, the reality is that that's the impression that developers and site owners have.
    - joegahona 8y ago
      Agree with you that that's the impression those people have. I wish Google would be more transparent about the reality. The only thing I've heard actual Google employees say is stuff like "the speed portion of the algorithm will affect only the slowest sites." So if a shitty site like Forbes or CNN is reducing their mobile time from 20 seconds (likely on their bloated regular site) to less than 1 second (AMP) maybe that will give them a boost. But if my site loads in 3 seconds now and goes to less than 1 second on AMP, is it really worth it for me...