5 ms·
Indeed. I'm not saying there were no issues driving AMP. But there are many possible solutions that did not require Google hijacking your urls.
by alangibson 6y ago
Indeed. I'm not saying there were no issues driving AMP. But there are many possible solutions that did not require Google hijacking your urls.
- kristopolous 6y agoOk I'll bite, there's a number of other pre-amp sites that basically scraped the content and then displayed it in a nice form for reading. Those did the same solution. The only way around a centralized solution is a magical "disable garbage" ad block extension in the browser, and those also exist, and are maintained once again, by a centralized group. Ok so another solution, just stop indexing or boosting the garbage sites forcing them to change, that's what amp does yet again. I agree that I want some greener pasture alternative from over yonder, but what?
- alangibson 6y agoNone of the options you mentioned force sites to spend money maintaining a second version of their site, so they're all better than AMP. I also think you have an exotic definition centralization. > sites Sites is plural, so this is not a centralized solution. There are multiple competing options. > just stop indexing or boosting the garbage sites forcing them to change, that's what amp does yet again. No it doesn't. AMP is faster, so AMP sites get boosted based on being faster. It's an indirect effect, at least according to Google. Google could have stopped at applying a big penalty to dog slow sites. No lock-in promoting tech required. There was a huge missed opportunity for Firefox here to do some aggressive garbage removal in these sorts of pages. They'd probably have a much bigger share now if they had