4 ms·
But anybody (Bing, Yahoo, etc) can "insert themselves in the URL" if they decide to cache the AMP content. In fact they could also cache non-AMP pages if they w
by mrb 7y ago
But anybody (Bing, Yahoo, etc) can "insert themselves in the URL" if they decide to cache the AMP content. In fact they could also cache non-AMP pages if they wanted. This isn't a problem created by AMP in and of itself.
You can't even make the argument that AMP degrades privacy, because regardless of whether you click an AMP link or a non-AMP link in the search results, in both cases many search engines will ping back or use a redirect through a search engine-controlled domain, so they will be aware of the URL you click anyway, AMP or non-AMP.
- leereeves 7y agoAnyone else who inserts themselves in the URL should be fought as well. I guess you're making a minor technical point, and it's technically correct. Someone else could do AMP better. But until someone does, why not shorten "Google's implementation of AMP" to simply "AMP"? Is there any other?
- mrb 7y agoBing also caches AMP content: https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introducing-Bing-AMP-viewer-and-Bing-AMP-cache https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu... I agree that there is a UX problem to solve (the address bar should show the original URL, copying it should preserve the original URL, etc) but whether the webpage got loaded from the original site or from some AMP cache is irrelevant.
- leereeves 7y agoInteresting, thanks for that. I don't really follow what Bing does. It looks like Bing has the same problem, and serves AMP from bing-amp.com.