3 ms·
Hi all! I'm an engineer who worked on this feature. I can't speak to the general concerns about AMP, but I can say that we didn't remove the original url here i
by googleimagesguy 6y ago
Hi all! I'm an engineer who worked on this feature. I can't speak to the general concerns about AMP, but I can say that we didn't remove the original url here intentionally - we actually never added it to the Images version. Sorry for the oversight, we're working on bringing it back now!
- SCdF 6y agohttps://www.ruinedby.design/ https://www.ruinedby.design/ Please read this book. The future internet will thank you.
- king_magic 6y agoAre you and your team generally aware of the concerns about AMP? What does the AMP team think about how negatively pretty much the entire world views it?
- robertoandred 6y agoSorry, but the AMP team doesn't have much credibility left. Sounds like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
- 8K832d7tNmiQ 6y agoah, the good ol’ goopsie again for the N-th time.
- third_I 6y agoHi team! Is there a way AMP could have an opt-out option? (maybe a permanent setting, maybe a per-search trigger) Ideally at user discretion, but I suppose it must be enabled by the first-party content provider (the website). That would make everyone happier I think. I don't mind AMP some of the time, but sometimes it's undesirable for security concerns notably.
- pembrook 6y agoI’ve been trying to get a straight answer out of google for a while on this, wondering if you can clear it up. Does Chrome mobile’s “articles for you” section prioritize AMP content along with Google news? From my experience this seems to be the case. I find it alarming as the only sites that support AMP are often the big clickbait news fear factories. Meanwhile the little sites who never bloated their pages with tracking scripts in the first place end up getting screwed.