3 ms·

Your arguments are circular and repetitive. Publishers do not want AMP. Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes n

Your arguments are circular and repetitive. Publishers do not want AMP. Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. AMP is not necessary to make sites fast enough. Google can influence site speed through SERP rankings, speed that is lacking primarily because of its other products, but instead it's forcing AMP pages. This is the fundamental problem that you are not acknowledging. There is no way around AMP if you don't want to lose ranking on an existing search results page. FB doesn't treat IA ranking differently from links. RSS doesn't treat content differently. Apple News doesn't even support the web and can already accept RSS feeds. They also get plenty of critique that you're ignoring. Have you ever worked with a publisher?

lern_too_spel 7y ago
Your arguments are unsupported by evidence. > Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. Then why does every major search engine support it? They're trying to please their users, so they just need fast, not instant > "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. Instant means actually instant, not just fast. Of course it makes a difference, or the search engines, Apple, and Facebook would not put in the resources to enable it. Your current problem is that you're confusing your hatred for Google's search results ranking with AMP. If you don't like how Google ranks its results, just use a different search engine. Bing ranks differently and also uses AMP.
- manigandham 7y ago
  The comments on this page alone are evidence, let alone the 100s of publishers my company has business relationships with and the feedback I get. The only speed that search engines are responsible for is the results page. AMP has nothing to do with their user experience. And as stated several times, Bing joined for the same reason Google forces it, for more control over data by never leaving their domains. And no, the ranking is not my problem. I don't know where you came up with that. The argument is that publishers lose ranking unless they use AMP and the same effective speed can be provided in much more neutral and friendly ways that doesn't require an extra copy of the site. Anyways, it's clear that you're religiously defending AMP at this point with no acknowledgement of any of the arguments by myself or others on this page so I'll end it here.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > The comments on this page alone are evidence.... AMP has nothing to do with their user experience. The comments on this page are from people who don't understand what AMP does and have a blind hatred for anything produced by Google, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. If people actually didn't like AMP, Bing wouldn't spend the money to support it. > And as stated several times, Bing joined for the same reason Google forces it, for more control over data by never leaving their domains. Where has that been stated several times? This is the first time you have used "Bing" in any comment in this thread. If it were really the case that people prefer slower loading articles, it would be a competitive advantage for a search engine not to support AMP. > And no, the ranking is not my problem. I don't know where you came up with that. Let me refresh your memory: "There is no way around AMP if you don't want to lose ranking on an existing search results page. FB doesn't treat IA ranking differently from links. RSS doesn't treat content differently." Notice how you even confuse a publishing technology (RSS) with ranking. > The argument is that publishers lose ranking unless they use AMP Because users prefer fast loading results! If users preferred slower loading results, a competing search engine could rank non-AMP results higher than AMP results or not show AMP results at all to win users from the search engine that shows instant loading AMP results. > with no acknowledgement of any of the arguments by myself or others I've quoted your arguments and addressed each one. As I've shown above, you've pretended arguments were made that weren't, and now you're blaming me for not acknowledging these phantom arguments.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Saying things like "blind hatred for anything produced by Google" isn't accurate or productive. Bing cares about control like Google, that's why they also implemented it. I stated this, you quoted this, and yet you're changing the argument to be about slow sites for some reason. They are not related. Users can get fast sites as a secondary benefit of more control by search engines through AMP. Nobody is confused about RSS, but you brought it up first and said AMP was the same. However using RSS does not give you higher placement. Are you disagreeing with that? As for the rest, I'll try one last time: Users want fast sites, and nobody said they didn't, but Google can influence this speed through rankings without AMP. Rank sites by speed and you get the same outcome with sites that are fast enough. Instant is not necessary and doesn't nearly outweigh the extra cost of implementation and maintenance. This has been the argument this whole time, one that you haven't provided any rebuttal against.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

Your arguments are unsupported by evidence. > Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. Then why does every major search engine support it? They're trying to please their users, so they just need fast, not instant > "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. Instant means actually instant, not just fast. Of course it makes a difference, or the search engines, Apple, and Facebook would not put in the resources to enable it. Your current problem is that you're confusing your hatred for Google's search results ranking with AMP. If you don't like how Google ranks its results, just use a different search engine. Bing ranks differently and also uses AMP.

manigandham 7y ago
The comments on this page alone are evidence, let alone the 100s of publishers my company has business relationships with and the feedback I get. The only speed that search engines are responsible for is the results page. AMP has nothing to do with their user experience. And as stated several times, Bing joined for the same reason Google forces it, for more control over data by never leaving their domains. And no, the ranking is not my problem. I don't know where you came up with that. The argument is that publishers lose ranking unless they use AMP and the same effective speed can be provided in much more neutral and friendly ways that doesn't require an extra copy of the site. Anyways, it's clear that you're religiously defending AMP at this point with no acknowledgement of any of the arguments by myself or others on this page so I'll end it here.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > The comments on this page alone are evidence.... AMP has nothing to do with their user experience. The comments on this page are from people who don't understand what AMP does and have a blind hatred for anything produced by Google, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. If people actually didn't like AMP, Bing wouldn't spend the money to support it. > And as stated several times, Bing joined for the same reason Google forces it, for more control over data by never leaving their domains. Where has that been stated several times? This is the first time you have used "Bing" in any comment in this thread. If it were really the case that people prefer slower loading articles, it would be a competitive advantage for a search engine not to support AMP. > And no, the ranking is not my problem. I don't know where you came up with that. Let me refresh your memory: "There is no way around AMP if you don't want to lose ranking on an existing search results page. FB doesn't treat IA ranking differently from links. RSS doesn't treat content differently." Notice how you even confuse a publishing technology (RSS) with ranking. > The argument is that publishers lose ranking unless they use AMP Because users prefer fast loading results! If users preferred slower loading results, a competing search engine could rank non-AMP results higher than AMP results or not show AMP results at all to win users from the search engine that shows instant loading AMP results. > with no acknowledgement of any of the arguments by myself or others I've quoted your arguments and addressed each one. As I've shown above, you've pretended arguments were made that weren't, and now you're blaming me for not acknowledging these phantom arguments.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Saying things like "blind hatred for anything produced by Google" isn't accurate or productive. Bing cares about control like Google, that's why they also implemented it. I stated this, you quoted this, and yet you're changing the argument to be about slow sites for some reason. They are not related. Users can get fast sites as a secondary benefit of more control by search engines through AMP. Nobody is confused about RSS, but you brought it up first and said AMP was the same. However using RSS does not give you higher placement. Are you disagreeing with that? As for the rest, I'll try one last time: Users want fast sites, and nobody said they didn't, but Google can influence this speed through rankings without AMP. Rank sites by speed and you get the same outcome with sites that are fast enough. Instant is not necessary and doesn't nearly outweigh the extra cost of implementation and maintenance. This has been the argument this whole time, one that you haven't provided any rebuttal against.