3 ms·

AMP is slower for me because I have to press on my screen twice to get to the actual page I wanted to go to. Hence AMP requires at least 0.5s between the time

AMP is slower for me because I have to press on my screen twice to get to the actual page I wanted to go to. Hence AMP requires at least 0.5s between the time I click on a Google link and get to my real destination?

kurthr 7y ago
When it doesn't crash in chrome on an android phone from GoogleNews. When that happens only the amp is available and because it didn't render you can't get the actual site...
swixm 7y ago
Refusing to read the information you were looking for just because it is in an AMP page makes it look like you're following the "antigoogle" NetHack conduct.
- seieste 7y ago
  Go to a Reddit AMP page? Can’t upvote the post or comments or see your messages. Go to a wordpress AMP site? Can’t comment or access many comments. A lot of features aren’t present in AMP, so often I don’t want the AMP version. Sure, at some point AMP can implement all those things, but eventually AMP just becomes a parallel HTML standard, when the only speed benefit comes from caching. It makes no sense to anyone but Google.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    That's Google's fault for preferring a less relevant page, like showing a crippled mobile page instead of a user-preferred desktop page, not a problem with AMP. You would have the same problem with an Apple News article that you wanted to comment on and would have no escape hatch. In this case, Google (or any of the other AMP-implementing search engines) can personalize the results based on which publishers' AMP pages you click to the canonical version of.
    - millstone 7y ago
      They could start by allowing users to disable AMP at all.
- social_quotient 7y ago
  It’s easy to forget that the web isn’t just read only. I fear the reductionist mindset that made AMP, and your comment, a primary forced tech in the first place. If google really wanted a faster internet they would put a proper incentive model in place for it and not add this layer of abstraction. Curious what I mean here? For each extra 500ms penalize the page by +page in the results. What would this do? Overnight agencies and marketers would cease to create huge bulky platforms/sites/pages with sloppy plugins. We would be forced to really consider speed a function of UX. In addition to this a lot of the junk trackers like adroll would be gone or innovated to be faster.
- ehnto 7y ago
  As others are pointing out, AMP is often a poor substitute for the fully functional page. Like mobile sites used to be separate, barely functional versions of the desktop site, and Google penalized that behavior by deranking sites that had different content on mobile sites. If I built my own version of an AMP page a few years ago, and served it without AMP, it would have been penalized. I don't know if that's still true, as I don't follow the carnival that is SEO anymore.

kurthr 7y ago

When it doesn't crash in chrome on an android phone from GoogleNews. When that happens only the amp is available and because it didn't render you can't get the actual site...

swixm 7y ago

Refusing to read the information you were looking for just because it is in an AMP page makes it look like you're following the "antigoogle" NetHack conduct.

seieste 7y ago
Go to a Reddit AMP page? Can’t upvote the post or comments or see your messages. Go to a wordpress AMP site? Can’t comment or access many comments. A lot of features aren’t present in AMP, so often I don’t want the AMP version. Sure, at some point AMP can implement all those things, but eventually AMP just becomes a parallel HTML standard, when the only speed benefit comes from caching. It makes no sense to anyone but Google.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  That's Google's fault for preferring a less relevant page, like showing a crippled mobile page instead of a user-preferred desktop page, not a problem with AMP. You would have the same problem with an Apple News article that you wanted to comment on and would have no escape hatch. In this case, Google (or any of the other AMP-implementing search engines) can personalize the results based on which publishers' AMP pages you click to the canonical version of.
  - millstone 7y ago
    They could start by allowing users to disable AMP at all.
social_quotient 7y ago
It’s easy to forget that the web isn’t just read only. I fear the reductionist mindset that made AMP, and your comment, a primary forced tech in the first place. If google really wanted a faster internet they would put a proper incentive model in place for it and not add this layer of abstraction. Curious what I mean here? For each extra 500ms penalize the page by +page in the results. What would this do? Overnight agencies and marketers would cease to create huge bulky platforms/sites/pages with sloppy plugins. We would be forced to really consider speed a function of UX. In addition to this a lot of the junk trackers like adroll would be gone or innovated to be faster.
ehnto 7y ago
As others are pointing out, AMP is often a poor substitute for the fully functional page. Like mobile sites used to be separate, barely functional versions of the desktop site, and Google penalized that behavior by deranking sites that had different content on mobile sites. If I built my own version of an AMP page a few years ago, and served it without AMP, it would have been penalized. I don't know if that's still true, as I don't follow the carnival that is SEO anymore.