8 ms·

AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen How about making the site fast and usable in the first place?

by TekMol 8y ago

vntok 8y ago
Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, it is way more optimized for mobile usage than trimming down your website, it brings better placement in search results and it is backed by the leading search engine itself, thus ensuring your team is not wasting resources trying to guess how Google works and how to exploit it.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  w3c is an easier standard than amp
  - vntok 8y ago
    That cannot possibly be true, as AMP is literally a subset of HTML.
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      We just had a thread the other day about how AMP is an anachronistic, proprietary platform that breaks functionality that is otherwise completely fine for nearly all devices.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        It's technically correct though. Every AMP page is an HTML page, but not vice versa. Ergo AMP is a (shitty) subset of HTML.
    - Twisol 8y ago
      I have no particular stake in the specifics of AMP here, but X being a subset of Y does _not_ mean that X is necessarily no more complex than Y. Adding restrictions on something necessarily gives a subset of the original thing, but abiding by those restrictions may be complex. The example that comes to mind is that every formal language on {a, b} is a subset of the regular language given by /[ab]⁎/. It's incredibly easy to recognize the latter language, but there are literally undecidable languages that are a subset of it.
      - vntok 8y ago
        In that case it is no more complex. AMP is more structured than HTML, has fewer valid tags and attributes, and has an official implementation documentation that expresses how to design the perfect AMP UI in a much more concise and simple way than the HTML docs.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  It shouldn't take more work to make a simple, mobile optimized web site--it should take less work. These web sites have their developers spending effort adding all these horrible things at first, then complain that they have to turn around and spend more effort to "optimize" and be mobile friendly. Just don't add all that junk in the first place!
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  > it brings better placement in search results This is the only reason anyone bothers with AMP. And the reason Google does that--and the only reason Google pushes AMP at all--is so that they can become an intermediary between the publisher and their customers. If you're concerned about walled gardens, and you think AMP is the solution, I'd suggest you're not thinking clearly about what AMP actually is.
  - joegahona 8y ago
    > it brings better placement in search results Recent data suggests otherwise: http://blog.chartbeat.com/2018/08/23/research-study-1-3-publishers-see-clear-traffic-boost-amp/ http://blog.chartbeat.com/2018/08/23/research-study-1-3-publ... What AMP does is allow product ppl to use Google's authority to cut out all the script crap that Sales lobbies for, even if they have to lie a bit. I.e., "If we don't do AMP, we'll make Google mad and sink in organic rankings" is a much stronger argument than "We ought to remove all these modals and trackers and stuff because no sane user wants this crap thrown at them."
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      You can't get into the top stories carousel on mobile SERPs unless you provide an AMP page and let Google cache it. Of course, not everyone who provides an AMP page and lets Google cache it gets into that carousel, so not everyone gets the benefits. But the point is, you can't even give yourself the opportunity for that traffic bump unless you play the game exactly as Google demands.
- TekMol 8y ago
  Not simpler to set up. Quite the opposite. AMP adds complexity. It's not a new technology. It's just a set of rules what type of html/css/js your page can/must use.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  > Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, ... This needs a reference.
notatoad 8y ago
that would be awesome. but how do you expect it to happen? AMP is actually making news easier to read in a real practical way right now. sitting back and suggesting we throw it away in exchange for idealistic nonsense that has been proven not to work by the last 20 years is not making anything better. I'd love for AMP to be replaced by something better. but "just make nice websites" is not better. it's the status quo, and it sucks.
- marssaxman 8y ago
  I've never encountered an AMP site so far as I know, but the real practical way I make news easier to read is to put everything in reader mode. Simple, straightforward, lightweight, ad-free, does not depend on cooperation from the server.
  - mrep 8y ago
    > ad free So are you suggesting all news agencies switch to subscription models with paywalls?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Yes please. Or find another way of making money (that doesn't involve the electronic equivalent of spitting at peoples' faces), and treat the free part as marketing expense.
    - marssaxman 8y ago
      I suggest nothing; their profit models are not my problem. If they would rather not make their content available on the open web, that's their right. If they are willing to publish their hypertext, however, I feel no obligation to follow all of the image links they offer; I'll look at the images I care about and ignore the ones I don't, because it's my computer and my attention and my time, and I'll spend it how I choose.
- 43920 8y ago
  It's (more or less) possible to objectively measure web page performance, though. If Google started measuring how long it takes for news sites to load, and removing any sites that took longer than a certain amount from the top stories section (and added a warning in the search console that your page was being hidden), they could force publishers to change their websites without creating a new standard.
lllr_finger 8y ago
That's what happened originally. Then bigger and bigger ad deals came in, then you needed more tracking to sell better deals. The current revenue model is completely at odds with performance. If you're an established media company you can't just bail on principle and give up millions in revenue, unfortunately.

AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen How about making the site fast and usable in the first place?

by TekMol 8y ago

AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen How about making the site fast and usable in the first place?

Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, it is way more optimized for mobile usage than trimming down your website, it brings better placement in search results and it is backed by the leading search engine itself, thus ensuring your team is not wasting resources trying to guess how Google works and how to exploit it.

anoncoward111 8y ago
w3c is an easier standard than amp
- vntok 8y ago
  That cannot possibly be true, as AMP is literally a subset of HTML.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    We just had a thread the other day about how AMP is an anachronistic, proprietary platform that breaks functionality that is otherwise completely fine for nearly all devices.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      It's technically correct though. Every AMP page is an HTML page, but not vice versa. Ergo AMP is a (shitty) subset of HTML.
  - Twisol 8y ago
    I have no particular stake in the specifics of AMP here, but X being a subset of Y does _not_ mean that X is necessarily no more complex than Y. Adding restrictions on something necessarily gives a subset of the original thing, but abiding by those restrictions may be complex. The example that comes to mind is that every formal language on {a, b} is a subset of the regular language given by /[ab]⁎/. It's incredibly easy to recognize the latter language, but there are literally undecidable languages that are a subset of it.
    - vntok 8y ago
      In that case it is no more complex. AMP is more structured than HTML, has fewer valid tags and attributes, and has an official implementation documentation that expresses how to design the perfect AMP UI in a much more concise and simple way than the HTML docs.
ryandrake 8y ago
It shouldn't take more work to make a simple, mobile optimized web site--it should take less work. These web sites have their developers spending effort adding all these horrible things at first, then complain that they have to turn around and spend more effort to "optimize" and be mobile friendly. Just don't add all that junk in the first place!
snowwrestler 8y ago
> it brings better placement in search results This is the only reason anyone bothers with AMP. And the reason Google does that--and the only reason Google pushes AMP at all--is so that they can become an intermediary between the publisher and their customers. If you're concerned about walled gardens, and you think AMP is the solution, I'd suggest you're not thinking clearly about what AMP actually is.
- joegahona 8y ago
  > it brings better placement in search results Recent data suggests otherwise: http://blog.chartbeat.com/2018/08/23/research-study-1-3-publishers-see-clear-traffic-boost-amp/ http://blog.chartbeat.com/2018/08/23/research-study-1-3-publ... What AMP does is allow product ppl to use Google's authority to cut out all the script crap that Sales lobbies for, even if they have to lie a bit. I.e., "If we don't do AMP, we'll make Google mad and sink in organic rankings" is a much stronger argument than "We ought to remove all these modals and trackers and stuff because no sane user wants this crap thrown at them."
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    You can't get into the top stories carousel on mobile SERPs unless you provide an AMP page and let Google cache it. Of course, not everyone who provides an AMP page and lets Google cache it gets into that carousel, so not everyone gets the benefits. But the point is, you can't even give yourself the opportunity for that traffic bump unless you play the game exactly as Google demands.
TekMol 8y ago
Not simpler to set up. Quite the opposite. AMP adds complexity. It's not a new technology. It's just a set of rules what type of html/css/js your page can/must use.
chooseaname 8y ago
> Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, ... This needs a reference.

notatoad 8y ago

that would be awesome. but how do you expect it to happen? AMP is actually making news easier to read in a real practical way right now. sitting back and suggesting we throw it away in exchange for idealistic nonsense that has been proven not to work by the last 20 years is not making anything better. I'd love for AMP to be replaced by something better. but "just make nice websites" is not better. it's the status quo, and it sucks.

marssaxman 8y ago
I've never encountered an AMP site so far as I know, but the real practical way I make news easier to read is to put everything in reader mode. Simple, straightforward, lightweight, ad-free, does not depend on cooperation from the server.
- mrep 8y ago
  > ad free So are you suggesting all news agencies switch to subscription models with paywalls?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Yes please. Or find another way of making money (that doesn't involve the electronic equivalent of spitting at peoples' faces), and treat the free part as marketing expense.
  - marssaxman 8y ago
    I suggest nothing; their profit models are not my problem. If they would rather not make their content available on the open web, that's their right. If they are willing to publish their hypertext, however, I feel no obligation to follow all of the image links they offer; I'll look at the images I care about and ignore the ones I don't, because it's my computer and my attention and my time, and I'll spend it how I choose.
43920 8y ago
It's (more or less) possible to objectively measure web page performance, though. If Google started measuring how long it takes for news sites to load, and removing any sites that took longer than a certain amount from the top stories section (and added a warning in the search console that your page was being hidden), they could force publishers to change their websites without creating a new standard.

lllr_finger 8y ago

That's what happened originally. Then bigger and bigger ad deals came in, then you needed more tracking to sell better deals. The current revenue model is completely at odds with performance. If you're an established media company you can't just bail on principle and give up millions in revenue, unfortunately.