4 ms·
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
by 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 agow3c is an easier standard than amp
- vntok 8y agoThat cannot possibly be true, as AMP is literally a subset of HTML.
- anoncoward111 8y agoWe 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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 agoIn 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 agoIt 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 agoYou 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 agoNot 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.