6 ms·
In the present case, the failure to provide an opt-out speaks volumes. If AMP was a good faith attempt to improve UX, it would have been provided early on. Th
by ttctciyf 6y ago
In the present case, the failure to provide an opt-out speaks volumes.
If AMP was a good faith attempt to improve UX, it would have been provided early on.
The faceless imposition of AMP is a clear signal of malign intent, IMO.
- enos_feedler 6y agomalign? I think the imposition of AMP was the only solution to a problem with 3 constraints: 1) make web pages fast, without shitty popups on mobile 2) make this happen for large coverage of heavily visited pages 3) make this happen quickly (OKRs are on quarter/annual cadence) Imagine you owned Google Search and you were afraid for your life that everything was moving into native apps because the experience was better. As a search engine, you only control the front door and not the content. What do you do?
- stevenjohns 6y ago...start punishing slow websites by de-ranking them? The same way they have punished poor content in the past? The same method that worked every single time they've done it? You seem to believe that they don't have any other options which is wrong. They have a lot of options at their disposal and they intentionally chose a very hostile one.
- enos_feedler 6y agoit isn't about slow web pages. It is about unwinding a shitty user experience that mobile magnified. How do you punish a shitty UX?
- ttctciyf 6y agoIf you want to avoid looking like malware, you can attempt to improve mobile browsing but let the user choose to opt out via search settings. Pretty simple solution, no?