3 ms·
New York Times and all the other publishers don't have to participate in this crap. It's shameful that they cede authority over their content so easily in exch
by jacob019 6y ago
New York Times and all the other publishers don't have to participate in this crap. It's shameful that they cede authority over their content so easily in exchange for a vuage promise of more visibility. There are so many better ways.
- untog 6y agoIt’s not a vague promise, it’s an extremely explicit one. Search results for news contain a “top carousel”, a horizontally scrolling box that shows cards for different articles. On most phones it takes up most of the screen. If you want to be in the carousel (i.e. if you want your site to be visible near the top of search results) you must use AMP. No ifs and buts about it. If NYTimes and every other news organisation refused to participate then yes, Google would be in trouble. But they can rely on good old divide and conquer: these news organisations all compete with each other. All it would take is for one to starting producing AMP content again and they’d vacuum up all the search traffic, and all the other sites would follow them immediately.
- lazyjones 6y ago> don't have to participate in this crap It's a tempting Ponzi scheme.
- dewey 6y agoIn an ideal world where they would not rely on ad revenue and page views but are supported by the readers that assumption would be correct. But right now we are not living in that ideal world and because all other publications are doing that they have to follow if they don't want to risk losing visibility against the competition. So of course they don't "have to" but they also kinda do.