5 ms·

Put your site behind a CDN like Cloudflare and cache it aggressively. It's really not rocket science.

by dbbk 7y ago

lern_too_spel 7y ago
That doesn't make it instant. AMP pages load instantly because AMP prerenders just the part of the page above the fold for multiple links efficiently. If you don't understand the problem AMP solves, you aren't going to be able to offer an alternative solution; and Google, Bing, Baidu, Cloudflare, and the other AMP users are going to ignore you as a crank.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  But you have to give up so much for that "instant load". Personally, as a user, I couldn't care less if a page loads instantly or not. I do care that AMP pages tend to be terrible in multiple ways, though. The solution, of course, is to make it possible for the user to choose whether or not they will get AMP pages. I think that it's telling that Google refuses to address this despite cries for this ability from day 1.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Personally, as a user, I couldn't care less if a page loads instantly or not. Google's, Bing's, Baidu's, Yahoo! Japan's, and others' metrics show otherwise. If not, they wouldn't use it. I know I prefer instantly loading pages, so I personally seek out results with the lightning logo. > I do care that AMP pages tend to be terrible in multiple ways, though. The people who say this tend to be people who use terrible browsers (i.e., all browsers on iOS) where the instant loading comes at the expense of triggering browser bugs that the user can't avoid by switching to a better browser. For people with non-buggy browsers, the experience is fantastic. > The solution, of course, is to make it possible for the user to choose whether or not they will get AMP pages. That already exists. Use the basic HTML search page. All the aforementioned search engines, including Google, provide one.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      > Google's, Bing's, Baidu's, Yahoo! Japan's, and others' metrics show otherwise. I didn't realize that they had metrics about what my personal preference was, let alone that their metrics demonstrates that I'm wrong about what I prefer. > For people with non-buggy browsers, the experience is fantastic. Not for me. I don't have a problem with bugs as you describe. I have a problem with the contents of the AMP pages (generally speaking -- I have seen one or two that weren't awful). > That already exists. That's insufficient. I do that, but I still manage to get AMP links in various ways. I admit, it's merely an annoyance as I can generally edit the URL to get the real page, but it's annoying nonetheless.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > I'm wrong about what I prefer. You're certainly in the tiny minority. > I have a problem with the contents of the AMP pages And more people have problems with the contents of non-AMP pages. What problems do you have with AMP pages that can't be solved by the AMP publishers? > I still manage to get AMP links in various ways. You were specifically talking about Google search. If you get them from other sources and have some (so far, it seems) irrational hatred of them, you can probably find a way to solve that too.
        JohnFen 7y ago
        > You're certainly in the tiny minority. Probably so, but that's irrelevant to my comment. > have some (so far, it seems) irrational hatred of them Since I'm expressing my opinion rather than making a technical argument, I'll admit to the "irrational" part. AMP pages are less useful to me, bring unnecessary third parties into the exchange, and I dislike them. I don't hate them in the sense that you imply, though. I don't care if others see AMP pages. I just don't want them myself. That's no more "hatred" than saying that I prefer not to eat a certain type of food.
    - dbbk 7y ago
      > The people who say this tend to be people who use terrible browsers (i.e., all browsers on iOS) where the instant loading comes at the expense of triggering browser bugs that the user can't avoid by switching to a better browser. For people with non-buggy browsers, the experience is fantastic. Yes there are browser issues, but the issue is also the pages themselves. AMP pages are horrible, crippled crap. Take a look at this AMP page on a desktop browser. How is this not a step backwards? http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/doug-jones-alabama-abortion-ban-shameful/ http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/doug-jones-a...
- dbbk 7y ago
  Why does it have to be instant? We're talking about the difference of perhaps 100-200ms.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Because the metrics of these search engines show that instant is better for their users and because their non-web proprietary competitors are instant (Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News). Otherwise, they wouldn't bother with the extra infrastructure costs.

Put your site behind a CDN like Cloudflare and cache it aggressively. It's really not rocket science.

by dbbk 7y ago

Put your site behind a CDN like Cloudflare and cache it aggressively. It's really not rocket science.

That doesn't make it instant. AMP pages load instantly because AMP prerenders just the part of the page above the fold for multiple links efficiently. If you don't understand the problem AMP solves, you aren't going to be able to offer an alternative solution; and Google, Bing, Baidu, Cloudflare, and the other AMP users are going to ignore you as a crank.

JohnFen 7y ago
But you have to give up so much for that "instant load". Personally, as a user, I couldn't care less if a page loads instantly or not. I do care that AMP pages tend to be terrible in multiple ways, though. The solution, of course, is to make it possible for the user to choose whether or not they will get AMP pages. I think that it's telling that Google refuses to address this despite cries for this ability from day 1.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Personally, as a user, I couldn't care less if a page loads instantly or not. Google's, Bing's, Baidu's, Yahoo! Japan's, and others' metrics show otherwise. If not, they wouldn't use it. I know I prefer instantly loading pages, so I personally seek out results with the lightning logo. > I do care that AMP pages tend to be terrible in multiple ways, though. The people who say this tend to be people who use terrible browsers (i.e., all browsers on iOS) where the instant loading comes at the expense of triggering browser bugs that the user can't avoid by switching to a better browser. For people with non-buggy browsers, the experience is fantastic. > The solution, of course, is to make it possible for the user to choose whether or not they will get AMP pages. That already exists. Use the basic HTML search page. All the aforementioned search engines, including Google, provide one.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > Google's, Bing's, Baidu's, Yahoo! Japan's, and others' metrics show otherwise. I didn't realize that they had metrics about what my personal preference was, let alone that their metrics demonstrates that I'm wrong about what I prefer. > For people with non-buggy browsers, the experience is fantastic. Not for me. I don't have a problem with bugs as you describe. I have a problem with the contents of the AMP pages (generally speaking -- I have seen one or two that weren't awful). > That already exists. That's insufficient. I do that, but I still manage to get AMP links in various ways. I admit, it's merely an annoyance as I can generally edit the URL to get the real page, but it's annoying nonetheless.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > I'm wrong about what I prefer. You're certainly in the tiny minority. > I have a problem with the contents of the AMP pages And more people have problems with the contents of non-AMP pages. What problems do you have with AMP pages that can't be solved by the AMP publishers? > I still manage to get AMP links in various ways. You were specifically talking about Google search. If you get them from other sources and have some (so far, it seems) irrational hatred of them, you can probably find a way to solve that too.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        > You're certainly in the tiny minority. Probably so, but that's irrelevant to my comment. > have some (so far, it seems) irrational hatred of them Since I'm expressing my opinion rather than making a technical argument, I'll admit to the "irrational" part. AMP pages are less useful to me, bring unnecessary third parties into the exchange, and I dislike them. I don't hate them in the sense that you imply, though. I don't care if others see AMP pages. I just don't want them myself. That's no more "hatred" than saying that I prefer not to eat a certain type of food.
  - dbbk 7y ago
    > The people who say this tend to be people who use terrible browsers (i.e., all browsers on iOS) where the instant loading comes at the expense of triggering browser bugs that the user can't avoid by switching to a better browser. For people with non-buggy browsers, the experience is fantastic. Yes there are browser issues, but the issue is also the pages themselves. AMP pages are horrible, crippled crap. Take a look at this AMP page on a desktop browser. How is this not a step backwards? http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/doug-jones-alabama-abortion-ban-shameful/ http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/doug-jones-a...
dbbk 7y ago
Why does it have to be instant? We're talking about the difference of perhaps 100-200ms.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Because the metrics of these search engines show that instant is better for their users and because their non-web proprietary competitors are instant (Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News). Otherwise, they wouldn't bother with the extra infrastructure costs.