3 ms·
If Google allowed arbitrary pages in the carousel, and then preloaded those pages, then BBC and BuzzFeed could insert trackers that let them know what you searc
by underwater 8y ago
If Google allowed arbitrary pages in the carousel, and then preloaded those pages, then BBC and BuzzFeed could insert trackers that let them know what you searched for even if you never click on a result.
This is not true for AMP analytics because Google define the JS and can defer sending analytics events until after the user has clicked on an item in the carousel.
Google can either preload content, allow non-AMP pages, protect users from data leakage, but not all three at once. They have chosen to sacrifice non-AMP content.
- realusername 8y ago> If Google allowed arbitrary pages in the carousel, and then preloaded those pages, then BBC and BuzzFeed could insert trackers that let them know what you searched for even if you never click on a result. There's nothing you can do with the carousels that they can't do by just parsing the content or meta tags they could have defined. And when you click on the carousel, it could have redirected to their page. And before you talk about the "speed" of preloading like I've seen this argument over and over again on AMP threads, AMP could have defined an HTTP header which would have made the browser understand it's an AMP page and load the cached AMP JS (among other stuff like refusing to load non-AMP content), there's no technical need for an AMP server.
- joegahona 8y agoGoogle can choose to sacrifice non-AMP content. But the header above this feature should read something like "AMP Content," not "Top Stories." The latter strongly implies that those are the most relevant results from the user's web search, but they are not. They are a subset of the most relevant results from the user's web query. A more precise and less misleading heading would be appropriate.