3 ms·

> Just don't implement AMP. ... you can still get excellent results without it; it's a very small boost. What evidence do you have that it's only a small boost

> Just don't implement AMP. ... you can still get excellent results without it; it's a very small boost. What evidence do you have that it's only a small boost? That may be the case for very specific searches. But if you search anything where there is a lot of competition between publishers (coverage of major news stories, product reviews, etc), Google serves almost exclusively AMP results, with the exception of the odd result from Wikipedia or Twitter. Failing to implement AMP would be suicide for many publishers.

heyyyouu 7y ago
I do this for a living. As head of digital and editorial for a major publisher It's absolutely not suicide as we are extremely successful with our Google traffic without AMP. In fact MANY publishers don't use AMP -- I would say most don't (at least that I talk to). Most of us don't like the trade-offs And I talk to a lot of people who do exactly what I do (conferences, private mailing lists, etc.). And its absolutely not true that Google serves almost exclusively in AMP, as we get 80-90 percent of our site traffic from Google and, again, we don't implement AMP. Remember that page load as a factor is looked at completely independently from AMP (Google has verified this -- one of the few factors they've verified how it works), so it can help you with load but if you build your pages correctly and don't use it it's not a punishment. Even within Google news you can turn off Google pointing to AMP versions of your story -- it's an option right there you can click. So yes, I would disagree with you that not using AMP hurts you, and I've talked to publishers who have gone back and forth and that's how I know it's minor boost. But I'm just some strange on the internet so no need to listen to me -- you can believe what you want.

3 ms·

> Just don't implement AMP. ... you can still get excellent results without it; it's a very small boost. What evidence do you have that it's only a small boost

by playpause 7y ago

heyyyouu 7y ago
I do this for a living. As head of digital and editorial for a major publisher It's absolutely not suicide as we are extremely successful with our Google traffic without AMP. In fact MANY publishers don't use AMP -- I would say most don't (at least that I talk to). Most of us don't like the trade-offs And I talk to a lot of people who do exactly what I do (conferences, private mailing lists, etc.). And its absolutely not true that Google serves almost exclusively in AMP, as we get 80-90 percent of our site traffic from Google and, again, we don't implement AMP. Remember that page load as a factor is looked at completely independently from AMP (Google has verified this -- one of the few factors they've verified how it works), so it can help you with load but if you build your pages correctly and don't use it it's not a punishment. Even within Google news you can turn off Google pointing to AMP versions of your story -- it's an option right there you can click. So yes, I would disagree with you that not using AMP hurts you, and I've talked to publishers who have gone back and forth and that's how I know it's minor boost. But I'm just some strange on the internet so no need to listen to me -- you can believe what you want.