20 ms·

Stealing traffic also means stealing information about how many hits a page has if such is recorded via the webserver logs. Honestly third party websites servi

Stealing traffic also means stealing information about how many hits a page has if such is recorded via the webserver logs. Honestly third party websites serving a proxy/cdn/transparent cache of a website is something that should require affirmative consent from either side of the party. Something Google is not getting, and as such stealing traffic is an acceptable critique. It also reduces the security of the website by allowing users to get used to it being hosted from a google search page. SEO an imposter website that shows the same fake ui border and phish logins, the user wouldn't notice as it looks absolutely normal. (Something I might make a grey hat attempt at just because it's likely the only way to get google to stop doing it.)

niftich 8y ago
The publisher of the AMP content can configure hooks into their analytics solution [1]. These events can fire during any AMP pageview. Given this, I'm not convinced they'll mourn the lack of httpd logs. The typical practice for CDNs is that only the publisher consents; the CDN assumes responsibility for routing and serving the content (and has the private key for the origin's cert, to masquerade as them), and the requester doesn't get a choice. This isn't whataboutism, just an observation that CDNs are always the choice of the content originator, and never the content requester, who possesses few tools to convincingly tell the two apart. [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/analytics/analytics_amp https://www.ampproject.org/docs/analytics/analytics_amp
- lucideer 8y ago
  I think the main point here from an analytics perspective is that, even if you don't choose to use Google Analytics or opt for any other service from Google, if you implement the (allegedly non-Google) AMP specification, Google gets to analyse your users while they browse your content, even after they've clicked away from the Google results page and are—for all intents and purposes—browsing a non-Google property. This is in contravention of both user and publisher expectations, and is non-optional for both parties.

niftich 8y ago

The publisher of the AMP content can configure hooks into their analytics solution [1]. These events can fire during any AMP pageview. Given this, I'm not convinced they'll mourn the lack of httpd logs. The typical practice for CDNs is that only the publisher consents; the CDN assumes responsibility for routing and serving the content (and has the private key for the origin's cert, to masquerade as them), and the requester doesn't get a choice. This isn't whataboutism, just an observation that CDNs are always the choice of the content originator, and never the content requester, who possesses few tools to convincingly tell the two apart. [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/analytics/analytics_amp https://www.ampproject.org/docs/analytics/analytics_amp

lucideer 8y ago
I think the main point here from an analytics perspective is that, even if you don't choose to use Google Analytics or opt for any other service from Google, if you implement the (allegedly non-Google) AMP specification, Google gets to analyse your users while they browse your content, even after they've clicked away from the Google results page and are—for all intents and purposes—browsing a non-Google property. This is in contravention of both user and publisher expectations, and is non-optional for both parties.