5 ms·

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 sug

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.
- notatoad 8y ago
  it's easy enough to measure web page load speed. It's a lot harder to measure usability. AMP isn't just about making pages fast, it's about making pages readable.
salawat 8y ago
Break your dependence on Javascript and third-party ad networks. If the ONLY way you can make money is to sell your user's attention span, you're doing it wrong. Furthermore, people are willing to PAY for quality, but you also have to be willing to kick the 800 pound gorilla in the nuts. Google is actually one of the leading reasons why, from my understanding, normal news outlet's paywalls can't actually work. If you have to leave the barn door open because otherwise no one will find you... Yeah, you're in a bad spot. It's one of the reasons I'm increasingly moving in the direction of thinking that the ad subsidized web has pushed us into a situation where 90 percent of sites are mere aggregators\repeaters really only intended to grab ad revenue. Way back in the days of yore, it was more about getting your content out than doing a bunch of traffic with the rest of the world to facilitate botnet and monetizable surveillance. Use the tool for what it was designed for, (information dissemination) instead of stateful information gathering, and it's amazing how much you can get done with so little. Web 2.0 wasn't for Users. It was a breakthrough on the road to "monetizing" the Web for service providers. Further efforts to push implementation specific optimizations is just a Goliath throwing it's weight around, and trying to push the infrastructure toward a business favorable direction. Which is anti-competitive. Which is not okay.

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.

notatoad 8y ago
it's easy enough to measure web page load speed. It's a lot harder to measure usability. AMP isn't just about making pages fast, it's about making pages readable.

salawat 8y ago

Break your dependence on Javascript and third-party ad networks. If the ONLY way you can make money is to sell your user's attention span, you're doing it wrong. Furthermore, people are willing to PAY for quality, but you also have to be willing to kick the 800 pound gorilla in the nuts. Google is actually one of the leading reasons why, from my understanding, normal news outlet's paywalls can't actually work. If you have to leave the barn door open because otherwise no one will find you... Yeah, you're in a bad spot. It's one of the reasons I'm increasingly moving in the direction of thinking that the ad subsidized web has pushed us into a situation where 90 percent of sites are mere aggregators\repeaters really only intended to grab ad revenue. Way back in the days of yore, it was more about getting your content out than doing a bunch of traffic with the rest of the world to facilitate botnet and monetizable surveillance. Use the tool for what it was designed for, (information dissemination) instead of stateful information gathering, and it's amazing how much you can get done with so little. Web 2.0 wasn't for Users. It was a breakthrough on the road to "monetizing" the Web for service providers. Further efforts to push implementation specific optimizations is just a Goliath throwing it's weight around, and trying to push the infrastructure toward a business favorable direction. Which is anti-competitive. Which is not okay.