4 ms·
Are you saying you'd be completely fine with the above scenario, where Google downranks each webpage based on the number of external assets it loads and the amo
by Kalium 7y ago
Are you saying you'd be completely fine with the above scenario, where Google downranks each webpage based on the number of external assets it loads and the amount of dynamic content it has? Instead of using AMP?
Personally, I prefer AMP for security reasons. It's tightly restrictive and does a lot to limit the available space to mount attacks aimed at browsers. But I understand that's far down most people's lists, and tends to fall under the same sentiment as "devs should just write fast websites".
- saagarjha 7y agoYes, because I think that is a pretty accurate way to measure how much I would hate to go to that page, and it doesn't require AMP to work.
- Kalium 7y agoI suspect you may be an outlier, as most people seem to deeply resent the strong incentives to change how they author web pages. Shaping them slightly differently strikes me as unlikely to generate a dramatically different reaction.
- tedunangst 7y agoRewriting a page to use amp is not shaping it slightly differently.
- Kalium 7y agoYou're absolutely correct. Please accept my apologies for being uncolear. I was speaking specificially and narrowly of strong incentives to build weg pages differently being shaped slightly differently under a hypothetical regime. Again, please accept my apologies for my failure to communicate my point clearly.