26 ms·

The problem with AMP is not that it limits what website creators can do. The problem is that everything is served via Google's servers and that you can have a p

by pvorb 7y ago

The problem with AMP is not that it limits what website creators can do. The problem is that everything is served via Google's servers and that you can have a perfectly optimized, mobile-friendly website and still have no chance in Google's search results because there is a similar result that uses AMP.

tiborsaas 7y ago
> still have no chance Is that proven? I highly doubt it.
- acdha 7y ago
  For the first few years, the carousel at the top of the results page was restricted to AMP content. They changed that recently after backlash (and likely legal questions) but they still appear to weight AMP more than page load time.
  - whalabi 7y ago
    Google still requires AMP for the articles carousel: "The Top stories carousel requires that your content be published in AMP. For more information, see AMP with structured data." https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/mark-up-content https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/mark-up-con... I talked about this and more here: https://unlikekinds.com/article/google-amp-page-speed https://unlikekinds.com/article/google-amp-page-speed
noobquestion81 7y ago
One thing I don’t understand here is whether AMP = google? I hate privacy abuse as much as anyone, but I thought it was a standard for less insane HTML pages that any “renderer” could show. Didnt cloudflare etc do this? Basically can someone ELI5 where the actual hate comes from (aside from being annoyed because you use google search)? Because I am all for news sites being anything other than what we get today (20mb of js ads and tracking crapware etc) edited for clarity in my questions
- jml7c5 7y ago
  Let's say I make a page for my site that loads in 100ms in the average browser. The AMP page for some other site loads in 100ms too. In a sane world, these would have the same hope of appearing in search results. In the real world, my site will receive a ding in search ranking, even though it's just as fast. My choice is either to be less visible, or make an AMP page for no reason and cede some control to Google (well, Bing as well I suppose, but it's really Google's game here).

by pvorb 7y ago

tiborsaas 7y ago

> still have no chance Is that proven? I highly doubt it.

acdha 7y ago
For the first few years, the carousel at the top of the results page was restricted to AMP content. They changed that recently after backlash (and likely legal questions) but they still appear to weight AMP more than page load time.
- whalabi 7y ago
  Google still requires AMP for the articles carousel: "The Top stories carousel requires that your content be published in AMP. For more information, see AMP with structured data." https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/mark-up-content https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/mark-up-con... I talked about this and more here: https://unlikekinds.com/article/google-amp-page-speed https://unlikekinds.com/article/google-amp-page-speed

noobquestion81 7y ago

One thing I don’t understand here is whether AMP = google? I hate privacy abuse as much as anyone, but I thought it was a standard for less insane HTML pages that any “renderer” could show. Didnt cloudflare etc do this? Basically can someone ELI5 where the actual hate comes from (aside from being annoyed because you use google search)? Because I am all for news sites being anything other than what we get today (20mb of js ads and tracking crapware etc) edited for clarity in my questions

jml7c5 7y ago
Let's say I make a page for my site that loads in 100ms in the average browser. The AMP page for some other site loads in 100ms too. In a sane world, these would have the same hope of appearing in search results. In the real world, my site will receive a ding in search ranking, even though it's just as fast. My choice is either to be less visible, or make an AMP page for no reason and cede some control to Google (well, Bing as well I suppose, but it's really Google's game here).