3 ms·

> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp https://deve

> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp It's pretty blatantly the case that AMP provides a SEO boost. What hosting service could possibly compete with the speed at which Google can retrieve content from their _own_ servers? That's the whole point of this legislation: to give news orgs means to stop Google from twisting their arm in this way.

realmod 6y ago
Literally ANY content delivery network would be able to compete with google. AMP sites are sites that the companies themselves build for google(could be any cdn) to just cache. The news organizations themselves gains a lot from google crawling and indexing their sites (which do cost google money) and now this legislation would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship?
- Spivak 6y ago
  > would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship? This is not what the legislation is about. This is about Google's practice of excerpting the actual content of the articles and putting it at the top of the page. Google is algorithmically republishing copyrighted content from these news orgs and hoping that surrounding it in quotes is enough to protect them.
  - sidibe 6y ago
    You are ignoring that whether the snippets are shown is already entirely up to the news orgs. In fact I think they're the ones that decide what's in the snippets
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    So the news sites can add a single "*" to their robots.txt. Problem solved.
shakna 6y ago
> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search. That seems to say that is isn't blatantly the case that AMP provides an SEO boost. But that speed does. And there are many CDNs that are on the same edge. AMP isn't about to beat Akamai, for example.

realmod 6y ago

Literally ANY content delivery network would be able to compete with google. AMP sites are sites that the companies themselves build for google(could be any cdn) to just cache. The news organizations themselves gains a lot from google crawling and indexing their sites (which do cost google money) and now this legislation would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship?

Spivak 6y ago
> would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship? This is not what the legislation is about. This is about Google's practice of excerpting the actual content of the articles and putting it at the top of the page. Google is algorithmically republishing copyrighted content from these news orgs and hoping that surrounding it in quotes is enough to protect them.
- sidibe 6y ago
  You are ignoring that whether the snippets are shown is already entirely up to the news orgs. In fact I think they're the ones that decide what's in the snippets
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  So the news sites can add a single "*" to their robots.txt. Problem solved.

shakna 6y ago

> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search. That seems to say that is isn't blatantly the case that AMP provides an SEO boost. But that speed does. And there are many CDNs that are on the same edge. AMP isn't about to beat Akamai, for example.