4 ms·
I agree with all of this, but until google provides a way to appear in the discover box without having AMP-published pages, this is a non-starter for publishers
by justinph 7y ago
I agree with all of this, but until google provides a way to appear in the discover box without having AMP-published pages, this is a non-starter for publishers. Ironically, by creating AMP, google has disincentivized publishers from making their canonical pages faster.
Publishers hate that google holds them hostage with AMP in this manner, but the situation is what it is, until someone from the Justice Department starts making the lords of Mountain View antsy.
- mcv 7y agoI think the fact that Google gives higher ranking in their search results to sites that use Google technologies should be addressed in anti-trust investigations.
- noelsusman 7y ago>Ironically, by creating AMP, google has disincentivized publishers from making their canonical pages faster. In theory, maybe, but I think history has clearly demonstrated that publishers will not make their pages faster if AMP didn't exist. That's why AMP has been so successful in the first place.
- detaro 7y agoIt would have been interesting if Google had openly added the same incentive (access to carousel at top of search results, search prioritization, special marker (lightning symbol)) to pages that follow the same guidelines AMP enforces (generally, avoid techniques that block page rendering or cause large layout changes), and published AMP as a reference implementation.
- RonanTheGrey 7y ago100% agree with that and part of the issue is that they didn't. They had the option to begin aggressively de-prioritizing pages that have performance issues and are otherwise detrimental to user experience.. that would have resulted in some pretty swift changes to bad UX. Instead they created AMP and told publishers "you want to be on mobile search results, use this".