9 ms·
The mysterious case of missing URLs and Google's AMP
- dagenix 8y ago> If this sounds all conspiracy theory, then good for you - you’ve just earned the Junior Meta Sceptic Badge. At least the author seems to be aware that the article isn't anything more than a conspiracy theory. What is not clear, is why they then published it. There are plenty of things to complain about with AMP. But, it also does address some very real problems - slow, inneficient, hard ti use web pages. What I'd love to hear about is a different approach to address these issues - and not something handwavy about how it could be done in a weekend. Actual code.
- ricardobeat 8y agoYou don’t need a different approach. It’s absolutely possible to build fast websites today without AMP - it’s just a collection of good practices and strict limits. In fact, you can even use AMP itself without any of the Google garden parts.
- dagenix 8y agoSo, your alternative is to do nothing. That's a valid alternative. My experience, however, is that the web is clogged up with slow, painful to use web pages. Despite AMP's short comings, I do know that when I click on an AMP page, it's going to load quickly and behave consistently. IMO, those are pretty big benefits it would be good to bring to a larger portion of the web, regardless of it's via AMP or some other mechanism.
- ricardobeat 8y agoGoogle has already made speed a stronger part of their ranking system, and they could do more; when it comes to performance, they can prioritize fast and bloat-free websites regardless of AMP - I see it being more about controlling the platform, and the advertising revenue that comes with it than an improvement in tech.
- dwild 8y agoGoogle Search prioritize good content, they decided that AMP was better content (for good reason, it's faster), thus prioritize AMP. Sure they could prioritize website well built, they probably already do and will do it better and better, but they also prioritize AMP.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago> it’s just a collection of good practices and strict limits. No, it's a subset of HTML that a third party can validate is safe to prerender.
- UncleMeat 8y agoYet we observed a decade of increasing bloat with no sign of it changing. Ultimately, content producers want scripts for analytics. They have an incentive to stick more crap on the page. They have very little incentive to reduce bloat. Therefore the status quo will not lead to lean sites.
- pixl97 8y agoIf you joined Google to make the world a better place, it's time to look for greener pastures.
- dmitrygr 8y agoSure, please point to some that pay equally well and offer equally interesting coworkers and tasks.
- meesterdude 8y agoor take the pay cut and stop selling out future generations for your greed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y agoI don't foresee any likely path by which encouraging the adoption of a particular open source publishing technology is going to do serious damage to future generations.
- scarface74 8y agoYou mean like HTML/Javascript/CSS?
- jphalimi 8y agoTelling Google is open-source is like telling MacDonald's is healthy because it has a slice of tomato and salad. Android is not entirely open-source. Chrome browser is not entirely open-source. Google Web Apps are not open source. Google Search is not open source.
- gowld 8y agoParent said AMP is open-source. https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/ Do you disagree?
- 8y ago
- _dmurph 8y agoOriginal article was mostly garbage from someone who is upset they can't continue making slow & bloated websites. It's amazing how little people seem to actually know about AMP, what it does, and what Google does. But hating on Google is popular and easy so....
- sctb 8y ago> Original article was mostly garbage from someone who is upset they can't continue making slow & bloated websites. This is totally out of thin air and we're trying to have more substantive conversation here, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jwr 8y agoI understand quite a bit about AMP, what it does, and what Google does, and I find these articles right on point. We should fight this and keep the web independent.
- vertline3 8y agoIs it odd that instead of a large company, I think W3C should be setting standards? Lockout is a game I've seen played by nearly all of the big tech companies, why is this different? Another concern, I write hobby JavaScript web apps, this AMP seems to limit JavaScript. Is the Canvas still able to be seen?
- vanadium 8y agoIf by "limit" JavaScript you mean "no custom JavaScript can be written, nor other JavaScript used other than what AMP gives you (except for AMP-supported analytics packages)", you'd be right.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoThere are plenty of reasons to dislike what Google is currently doing by trying to hide www and pushing amp. None of which are connected with making slow or bloated sites. If Google really disliked slow and bloated sites they could apply a search penalty for page load and weight. Promoting amp is promoting Google not solving the problem of heavy sites.
- saudioger 8y agoThey're paralleling the days of AOL in a lot of ways.
- iDemonix 8y agoThis article, and the one it references about AMP, all throw the word 'force' around a lot. No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to be top of Google SERP is optional.
- bytematic 8y agoThat typically applies to all monopolies in free countries
- saagarjha 8y ago> No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to be top of Google SERP is optional. Not if you want people to be able to find you…
- reaperducer 8y agoMaybe it's time people stop giving a fig about Google search. It probably wouldn't work for a site that is trying to pull in a national or international audience, but local and regional web sites can. Someone I knew socially operated a very successful web site and did exactly zero SEO. Instead he went the old-fashioned route: Advertising. He started with ads in regional magazines, then went to billboards, public radio sponsorships (those HD2/HD3/HD4 channels are incredibly cheap to sponsor), and eventually some pretty craptastic local TV ads. It wouldn't work for every site, but it worked for him. His site is the leading property in its space in its region. He's proud to boast that not once did he get in the Google hamster wheel.
- saagarjha 8y ago> Instead he went the old-fashioned route: Advertising. Not the best point to bring up, considering that Google owns a significant portion of online advertising…
- reaperducer 8y agoReal advertising. Not online "advertising" that is so full of fraud and bogus traffic that it's worthless.
- SkyPuncher 8y agoYes, Google owns a significant portion of search but I don't think it qualifies as a monopoly. * They have no exclusive rights to "search". Bing, DDG, Yahoo, and more all compete in the same space. * They do not have a geographic right to any areas. * They are not prevent me from using another search engine I choose to use Google because it gives me the results I expect. Nobody is forcing me to use Google over other search engines. If anything, Google has raised the quality for all search engines by consistently producing the best product available.
- saas_sam 8y ago"Monopoly" now seems to mean "preferred by most people."
- rdlecler1 8y agoFrom the standpoint of the consumer they may not have a monopoly, but from the standpoint of the website they do.
- gowld 8y agoThe website makes effort to please Google because Google is the user's freely chosen search agent. If the users en masse chose Bing or Oath/Yahoo or DDG instead (or in addition), the website would make effort to please them instead.
- skybrian 8y agoThe first theory that some designers think URL's are bad for users seems more plausible. Most people don't think of themselves as the villains in a movie. What kind of conversations do you think Googlers have? We've seen this before with Gmail hiding email addresses. You can still show them with one click. These redesigns are annoying but world didn't come to an end.
- gowld 8y agoHiding email addresses is really annoying, and a security hole because email users can lie about their name. Look at the problem with the telephone system where scammers can spoof caller ID.
- skybrian 8y agoYes, it's very plausable, but I wonder why I haven't heard about more email scams being attributed to Gmail's UI?
- kyle-rb 8y agoPeople can already spoof email addresses pretty easily though.
- skybrian 8y agoYou can do it, but with SPIF and DKIM checking, it might be hard to avoid detection, at least for some domains. How good is Gmail at detecting this?
- Boulth 8y agoGood if you set up DMARC. Quarantine setting guarantee that fake email goes to spam. Reject setting drops the fake email altogether.
- jefftk 8y ago> The hiding of URLs fits perfectly with AMPs preferred method of making sites fast, which is to host them directly on Google’s servers, and to serve them from a Google domain. Hiding the URL from the user then makes a Google AMP site indistinguishable from an ordinary site. Hiding URLs isn't necessary for sites hosted on the AMP cache to look just like other sites; Web Packaging will allow this while preserving the URL: https://www.ampproject.org/latest/blog/a-first-look-at-using-web-packaging-to-improve-amp-urls/ https://www.ampproject.org/latest/blog/a-first-look-at-using... (Disclaimer: I work at Google)
- robotkdick 8y agoAt first glance, AMP will make life easier for Google's search robots, but the standard would also seem to benefit a competitor like Duck, Duck, Go by standardizing code organization, making it easier to find the true 'intention' of a website's pages. Is AMP contrived to benefit Google? For sure, but not sure it's a terrible idea.
- HIPisTheAnswer 8y agoDoesn't bother me. IPFS makes AMP obsolete.