8 ms·

This. AMP was a blessing for me honestly. I can now maintain a version of our new site that isn't bogged down with tracking and flavor-of-the-month JS feature g

This. AMP was a blessing for me honestly. I can now maintain a version of our new site that isn't bogged down with tracking and flavor-of-the-month JS feature garbage. I've been fighting against adding additional tracking forever, but constantly get railroaded by marketing because "they're the ones that know how to make us profitable." Fundamentally I hate what it means for the internet, but I finally have a little power to say "no we can't do that."

Angostura 8y ago
Can you simply replace AMP with GDPR?
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  Nah, blame the EU for all of those pop-over ads that you see on sites like Tedium. You first saw pop-overs to harass people abut cookies as required in the EU, thus everybody learned how to make pop-overs and pop-overs were legitimized because they aren't just advertising but something perceived to be required by regulation.
  - acdha 8y ago
    > You first saw pop-overs to harass people abut cookies as required in the EU That's a rather a-historical way to describe that. The various cookie notifications used what was already common code to implement it since most people didn't want to spend much time on what they saw as a formality.
  - nkkollaw 8y ago
    Sure, blame the EU for trying to stop companies from keeping your contacts, pictures, location history or whatever just because you signed up to write a review or comment an article. If companies can't manage to offer their service without exploiting your data and have to blacklist Europe, that's a win to me.
    - mrep 8y ago
      But is it worth the cost of forcing all EU users into not even having the option to use said service for data? Thankfully, I don't live in the EU because I would be super pissed about all the websites blocking me because the EU no longer wants to give me the option to trade some data for a free service and I expect it to get a LOT worse once they start actually enacting fines and every company realizes that that they have really been force opting in people to data collection so it is no longer profitable to serve the EU. In my opinion, it would be far far better to force companies to offer a "fair price" paid service in exchange for not collecting data (I'm 100% for taking them to court if they misrepresent the value your data provides so they don't overprice it forcing people to choose the free option). That way, I can choose to keep getting my free service in exchange for data and you guys can pay to protect your privacy. Does this option sound reasonable to you?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - bkor 8y ago
        > But is it worth the cost of forcing all EU users into not even having the option to use said service for data? Pretty much everything you stated here is completely wrong. GDPR states that personal information can only be collected on an opt-in basis. Your entire statement therefore is completely off. Because it has to be freely opt-in you cannot just do an opt-out. > In my opinion, it would be far far better to force companies to offer a "fair price" paid service in exchange for not collecting data The GDPR doesn't force to use anything for free.
        mrep 8y ago
        > GDPR states that personal information can only be collected on an opt-in basis. I said "use said service for data" which means all or nothing, no ability to use a service and selectively decline the exchange of data that makes the company you are exchanging with money. > The GDPR doesn't force to use anything for free. I didn't say anything about that. I just don't like that free online content like the la times is now blocking all of the EU because their business model is incompatible with GDPR and so I would prefer if the law still allowed EU users the choice to accept said business model, or use one that contributes revenue in proportion to the old one so their business model works while also satisfying your wants. Does that make sense/sound reasonable?
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    It's more to do with declining ad revenues. GDPR has a role to play, but so do ad blockers. You're making nothing at all from 20-30% of your visitors, because they're blocking ads. If you're actually following the GDPR, then your average CPM for EU users has tanked because you can't track them and can't serve targeted ads without an explicit opt-in. Your average revenue per page view is declining, so what do you do? More aggressive ad units and more of them. Popovers and interstitials aren't new, they're just becoming more widespread because many publishers are starting to get desperate. Your bounce rate will increase, users will eventually learn not to click your links, you'll push even more people to use ad blocking, but none of that matters right now because you've got revenue targets to hit.
- notatoad 8y ago
  maybe temporarily, but as soon as all the third-party js that slows down your site start advertising themselves as GDPR-compliant, that goes away.
PaulHoule 8y ago
It is astonishing how hard it can be to internally sell any kind of web quality features to management in both for profit and non-profit organizations. There is also a real herd effect. Many people will do whatever Matt Cutts tells them because they think it will be good for their SEO. Yeah right. Some of the people who are good at SEO either went to work for huge brands or quasi-competitors of Google (like about.com) that might have some ability to bring Google to anti-trust court; most of the others switched to paid advertising once they figured out that Google won't let you win at SEO. Certainly people who write for Spamium (aka Tedium) are the ones who try herd-following methods of getting traffic and they tend to be impressed when they get 100 hits on their blog.
- grivescorbett 8y ago
  Why not provide the bottom / top line impact of page optimization? Your business’s profitability is the most important thing to your bosses. They do not care about making the web good, nor should they IMHO. Your job is to show why both parties’ incentives are actually aligned, not opposed.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Death by a thousand cuts. Everyone wants to add just one little resource, until you end up with 8MB pages with 20 seconds time to interactive. They can all make a plausible argument for how their one little resource will improve the bottom line, even considering the performance impact. If you have one person or one team responsible for performance, they're constantly fighting on all fronts just to stand still. You need a business-wide performance-oriented culture, which is very difficult to develop and maintain.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      You" need a business-wide performance-oriented culture, which is very difficult to develop and maintain." How about customer-centric culture? One where UX is #1, and not out of sight?
KallDrexx 8y ago
> This. AMP was a blessing for me honestly. I can now maintain a version of our new site that isn't bogged down with tracking and flavor-of-the-month JS feature garbage. That doesn't sound like it relieves you of maintaining a bogged down version of the site, it just means in addition to maintaining the bogged down version you have to now also maintain the amp version, and keep them consistent.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  Yes, and execs will give you more budget to maintain the additional site, which they're encouraged to do due to Business Deals or whatever they read on LinkedIn.
gehsty 8y ago
Seems like it is more of a problem with how the company is ran than a positive of using AMP.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  It's a problem with how almost every company is run.
- deadbunny 8y ago
  Just like every other issue in every company ever.

Angostura 8y ago

Can you simply replace AMP with GDPR?

PaulHoule 8y ago
Nah, blame the EU for all of those pop-over ads that you see on sites like Tedium. You first saw pop-overs to harass people abut cookies as required in the EU, thus everybody learned how to make pop-overs and pop-overs were legitimized because they aren't just advertising but something perceived to be required by regulation.
- acdha 8y ago
  > You first saw pop-overs to harass people abut cookies as required in the EU That's a rather a-historical way to describe that. The various cookie notifications used what was already common code to implement it since most people didn't want to spend much time on what they saw as a formality.
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  Sure, blame the EU for trying to stop companies from keeping your contacts, pictures, location history or whatever just because you signed up to write a review or comment an article. If companies can't manage to offer their service without exploiting your data and have to blacklist Europe, that's a win to me.
  - mrep 8y ago
    But is it worth the cost of forcing all EU users into not even having the option to use said service for data? Thankfully, I don't live in the EU because I would be super pissed about all the websites blocking me because the EU no longer wants to give me the option to trade some data for a free service and I expect it to get a LOT worse once they start actually enacting fines and every company realizes that that they have really been force opting in people to data collection so it is no longer profitable to serve the EU. In my opinion, it would be far far better to force companies to offer a "fair price" paid service in exchange for not collecting data (I'm 100% for taking them to court if they misrepresent the value your data provides so they don't overprice it forcing people to choose the free option). That way, I can choose to keep getting my free service in exchange for data and you guys can pay to protect your privacy. Does this option sound reasonable to you?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - bkor 8y ago
      > But is it worth the cost of forcing all EU users into not even having the option to use said service for data? Pretty much everything you stated here is completely wrong. GDPR states that personal information can only be collected on an opt-in basis. Your entire statement therefore is completely off. Because it has to be freely opt-in you cannot just do an opt-out. > In my opinion, it would be far far better to force companies to offer a "fair price" paid service in exchange for not collecting data The GDPR doesn't force to use anything for free.
      - mrep 8y ago
        > GDPR states that personal information can only be collected on an opt-in basis. I said "use said service for data" which means all or nothing, no ability to use a service and selectively decline the exchange of data that makes the company you are exchanging with money. > The GDPR doesn't force to use anything for free. I didn't say anything about that. I just don't like that free online content like the la times is now blocking all of the EU because their business model is incompatible with GDPR and so I would prefer if the law still allowed EU users the choice to accept said business model, or use one that contributes revenue in proportion to the old one so their business model works while also satisfying your wants. Does that make sense/sound reasonable?
- jdietrich 8y ago
  It's more to do with declining ad revenues. GDPR has a role to play, but so do ad blockers. You're making nothing at all from 20-30% of your visitors, because they're blocking ads. If you're actually following the GDPR, then your average CPM for EU users has tanked because you can't track them and can't serve targeted ads without an explicit opt-in. Your average revenue per page view is declining, so what do you do? More aggressive ad units and more of them. Popovers and interstitials aren't new, they're just becoming more widespread because many publishers are starting to get desperate. Your bounce rate will increase, users will eventually learn not to click your links, you'll push even more people to use ad blocking, but none of that matters right now because you've got revenue targets to hit.
notatoad 8y ago
maybe temporarily, but as soon as all the third-party js that slows down your site start advertising themselves as GDPR-compliant, that goes away.

PaulHoule 8y ago

It is astonishing how hard it can be to internally sell any kind of web quality features to management in both for profit and non-profit organizations. There is also a real herd effect. Many people will do whatever Matt Cutts tells them because they think it will be good for their SEO. Yeah right. Some of the people who are good at SEO either went to work for huge brands or quasi-competitors of Google (like about.com) that might have some ability to bring Google to anti-trust court; most of the others switched to paid advertising once they figured out that Google won't let you win at SEO. Certainly people who write for Spamium (aka Tedium) are the ones who try herd-following methods of getting traffic and they tend to be impressed when they get 100 hits on their blog.

grivescorbett 8y ago
Why not provide the bottom / top line impact of page optimization? Your business’s profitability is the most important thing to your bosses. They do not care about making the web good, nor should they IMHO. Your job is to show why both parties’ incentives are actually aligned, not opposed.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Death by a thousand cuts. Everyone wants to add just one little resource, until you end up with 8MB pages with 20 seconds time to interactive. They can all make a plausible argument for how their one little resource will improve the bottom line, even considering the performance impact. If you have one person or one team responsible for performance, they're constantly fighting on all fronts just to stand still. You need a business-wide performance-oriented culture, which is very difficult to develop and maintain.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    You" need a business-wide performance-oriented culture, which is very difficult to develop and maintain." How about customer-centric culture? One where UX is #1, and not out of sight?

KallDrexx 8y ago

> This. AMP was a blessing for me honestly. I can now maintain a version of our new site that isn't bogged down with tracking and flavor-of-the-month JS feature garbage. That doesn't sound like it relieves you of maintaining a bogged down version of the site, it just means in addition to maintaining the bogged down version you have to now also maintain the amp version, and keep them consistent.

madeofpalk 8y ago
Yes, and execs will give you more budget to maintain the additional site, which they're encouraged to do due to Business Deals or whatever they read on LinkedIn.

gehsty 8y ago

Seems like it is more of a problem with how the company is ran than a positive of using AMP.

lallysingh 8y ago
It's a problem with how almost every company is run.
deadbunny 8y ago
Just like every other issue in every company ever.