4 ms·

Again, this is a made up problem. We don't need to pre-cache results. We just need faster loading websites without the bullshit JavaScript that does... Nothing

Again, this is a made up problem. We don't need to pre-cache results. We just need faster loading websites without the bullshit JavaScript that does... Nothing. Google can, and has since inception, shown a 2-sentence description plus a title. If I as a searcher find that useful, I click through to the publisher site. This is a good system. AMP simply steals the entirety of the content from the publisher and serves it for them. That's not Google's job. And that's absolutely terrible for publishers. The solution is to provide tools and guidelines for publishers to follow for a better user experience, not cut them out completely. Fix the problem at the root.

ec109685 7y ago
How is showing a page in < 100ms versus 2+ seconds a made up problem? There is no way without pre-fetching to deliver an instant experience. Also, what do you mean that google steals content from publishers? Publishers are in control of the ads running on amp pages (and receive the revenue), with over 100 ad networks supported by it.
- username444 7y ago
  I don't need a page to show up in 100ms. 2 seconds isn't a problem. 5 seconds is, but I'll wait it out for something I'm really interested in. Regardless, this stuff can all be done externally with current tech. Fairly easily. Serving up cached pages and lazy loading images resolves 90% of pagespeed issues. Removing JavaScript where it's not needed (almost everywhere) is another huge step. There is no legitimate reason - zero - for Google to go so hamfisted with this. The only reason it's being shoved down everyone's throat is because it gives them more control over publishers.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    I care about 2 seconds. Tech should be instant. 100ms is near enough instant in my book. Anything more is sub-par. It's wasting human time and attention. It's slowing people down from doing what they want to do. Imagine pages loaded in 100ms. You could flick through them by holding down a key like scrubbing through a video for a scene you like. You could eliminate tabs in a browser because there's no need to have many open at once when you can switch to any webpage with no delay. Think about it - tabs are simply a crutch to have a small set of webpages ready-loaded and quick to switch to! Thats how badly we need instant load webpages - we have invented workarounds! Just because people have become normalized to something taking too long isn't a reason to not strive to make it better.
    - ilikehurdles 7y ago
      >Think about it - tabs are simply a crutch to have a small set of webpages ready-loaded and quick to switch to! Usually not because the page takes long to load, but because we need to quickly switch between contexts. The biggest slow down here is not the page load speed, but the _human_ interactions required to get to that other context. Tabs exist because we don't have enough screen real estate to display all the multiple contexts we need at the same time. Frankly I don't perceive a performance difference between AMP results and regular results. There are abysmally slow pages, but those are the minority of pages I visit, and they often do not invest in AMPifying their page. I mean really, if AMP was so valued by users, Google wouldn't have to artificially pin all AMP results at the top of their search results. They wouldn't have to limit the ability to opt-out. They could offer an AMP sibling result and see which one wins out the SEO war. But by forcing AMP links to the top, they force publishers to give over their content to Google's servers or be dropped from search results. This is a monopolizing play, not an openness play.
    - username444 7y ago
      I'm with you. 100ms would be amazing. But AMP is too high of a cost to pay. It's just not the right answer. The negatives greatly outweigh the benefits.

ec109685 7y ago

How is showing a page in < 100ms versus 2+ seconds a made up problem? There is no way without pre-fetching to deliver an instant experience. Also, what do you mean that google steals content from publishers? Publishers are in control of the ads running on amp pages (and receive the revenue), with over 100 ad networks supported by it.

username444 7y ago
I don't need a page to show up in 100ms. 2 seconds isn't a problem. 5 seconds is, but I'll wait it out for something I'm really interested in. Regardless, this stuff can all be done externally with current tech. Fairly easily. Serving up cached pages and lazy loading images resolves 90% of pagespeed issues. Removing JavaScript where it's not needed (almost everywhere) is another huge step. There is no legitimate reason - zero - for Google to go so hamfisted with this. The only reason it's being shoved down everyone's throat is because it gives them more control over publishers.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  I care about 2 seconds. Tech should be instant. 100ms is near enough instant in my book. Anything more is sub-par. It's wasting human time and attention. It's slowing people down from doing what they want to do. Imagine pages loaded in 100ms. You could flick through them by holding down a key like scrubbing through a video for a scene you like. You could eliminate tabs in a browser because there's no need to have many open at once when you can switch to any webpage with no delay. Think about it - tabs are simply a crutch to have a small set of webpages ready-loaded and quick to switch to! Thats how badly we need instant load webpages - we have invented workarounds! Just because people have become normalized to something taking too long isn't a reason to not strive to make it better.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    >Think about it - tabs are simply a crutch to have a small set of webpages ready-loaded and quick to switch to! Usually not because the page takes long to load, but because we need to quickly switch between contexts. The biggest slow down here is not the page load speed, but the _human_ interactions required to get to that other context. Tabs exist because we don't have enough screen real estate to display all the multiple contexts we need at the same time. Frankly I don't perceive a performance difference between AMP results and regular results. There are abysmally slow pages, but those are the minority of pages I visit, and they often do not invest in AMPifying their page. I mean really, if AMP was so valued by users, Google wouldn't have to artificially pin all AMP results at the top of their search results. They wouldn't have to limit the ability to opt-out. They could offer an AMP sibling result and see which one wins out the SEO war. But by forcing AMP links to the top, they force publishers to give over their content to Google's servers or be dropped from search results. This is a monopolizing play, not an openness play.
  - username444 7y ago
    I'm with you. 100ms would be amazing. But AMP is too high of a cost to pay. It's just not the right answer. The negatives greatly outweigh the benefits.