19 ms·
Google to end the “top stories carousel” benefit to AMP next spring
- solinent 6y agoI honestly see a successful AMP as the end of the web as we know it--there's no way for us to know if the content isn't censored by Google. I'm certain their plan is to sell their hosting service and show providers that they could use Google services. What's the logical next step?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> I honestly see a successful AMP as the end of the web as we know it--there's no way for us to know if the content isn't censored by Google. Is there any way to tell.that the content of an HTML page isn't censored by the hosting provider used by the page owner, or by the browser vendor? Doesn't seem AMP adds anything to that. Sure, you can't know, in theory, that the host (which may not be Google, Microsoft and others run AMP hosts) has censored it, but what does that actually change vs. HTML?
- solinent 6y agoWhoever owns the server can serve you whatever content the want. They can change it even, depending on the user.
- mybrid 6y agoOuch! My eyes! What is up with the Mark Up web site? They seriously need to hire the Norman Nielson Group to give them usability feedback.
- spiderfarmer 6y agoI think Core Web Vitals were incorporated into their approach to prepare for the retirement of AMP. Pushing publishers towards industry-wide best practices is a good thing. Forcing AMP as a solution really wasn't.
- ProAm 6y agoIt's not Googles job to push 'industry wide-best practices' to third parties.
- Spivak 6y agoTrue but it is in their interest. Google benefits when the web is fast and full of content that can be indexed and worth surfacing.
- _jal 6y agoIt is their job to turn their power in to money, and AMP is just a power play. It is what tech companies do - if we don't like it, something about the fundamentals has to change. My only complaint is the smirky, chipper PR front they package with it. Microsoft, at least, wasn't too insecure to show some fang without the Candyland faux-earnest horse shit when they were king.
- oblio 6y agoIt looks like it's no one's job, though. And the incentives for those third parties are even worse aligned with user interests, in many cases, than Google's incentives. And I say this as someone that thinks that Google is the scariest company out there, right now.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoIt's not their job, but it's certainly in their interest (since it gives their users a better experience), and it's not illegal, so it's understandable that they do.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> It's not Googles job to push 'industry wide-best practices' to third parties. It's absolutely Google’s job to decide what quality signals to incorporate into their search rankings.
- ProAm 6y agoId argue its their job to index the internet, not dictate how people build their webpages to determine the order they are displayed. They want their crawler to be faster and to capture market share/screen time.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoI hate AMP so much, breaks my browsing all the time.
- ce4 6y agoI was in the same boat until i switched to Firefox (even mobile) and installed the "redirect amp to html" addon. This has silenced my AMP anger. Edit: and switching from Google Search to DuckDuckGo. The addon only needs to take care of amp links i get sent via messenger/mail/etc
- vaccinator 6y agoThat doesn't work too well with Firefox for Android, because Mozilla disabled most addons (there's like only 11 addons that are approved). I think it is possible to enable them in Firefox for Android Nightly[1] by creating an "add-on collection", which is kind of a pain and the first extension that I tried doesn't appear to work correctly (Redirector) and the browser just crashed after disabling the addon. Another way would be to stick with Fennec v68 from fdroid, but that is not such a great idea, but at least the extensions do work. 1. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...
- ce4 6y agoYou're right, thats why i switched to an older version of Firefox' Fennec fork on F-Droid. Mozilla should really fix this
- rapnie 6y agoOh nice, I might try that out. The new FF Android has been such a bad experience for me from the start, and has a long way to go to catch up with the old version, imho.
- vaccinator 6y ago
- martin-adams 6y agoThe thing that frustrated me most from an e-commerce perspective, is that Google were pushing AMP shopping experiences and claiming improved user experience, but provided no data to support this.
- vanadium 6y agoThey made a full-court press in the SEM environment as well, especially for lead-gen/landing pages. Otherwise, same song and dance.
- arusahni 6y agoIf AMP becomes irrelevant, does this end the war against URLs? Or, with Google owning the most popular browser, does this not matter?
- Spivak 6y agoProbably doesn’t matter since the war on urls is mostly a myth perpetuated by outrage-bait blogspam. By default (i.e. until you click the bar) only showing the part of the URL that the site doesn’t control is really good for security and avoiding phishing. Now apple.paypal.secure.wendys.scamsite.info/payus/wwwcitibank just shows scamsite.info. This is a good thing! And doubly because URL paths and fragments have been made largely irrelevant to end users as app routes. If you're going to rant about the death of the URL you should complain to HN as well that only shows the domain next to posts.
- zbrozek 6y agoWhy not just bold that part and leave the rest?
- Spivak 6y agoIf we're at the point where we're de-emphasizing something because it's almost always visual noise and you don't need to see it often why is "hide it until the bar is selected" worse?
- zbrozek 6y agoI work at an Alphabet company, so at work I use Chrome. Lots of internal tools are really buggy on anything but Chrome, so I have little choice. There's lots of copy-paste of URLs, including fragments, and it's really jarring to have the text suddenly change right after a mouse-up. It's surprising and unpleasant. And of course the browser tries to modify the selection between mouse-up and copy to make sure I get the whole thing, so now the software is not doing what I told it to. It seems harmless to show the full URL and not bait-and-switch the text upon interaction. I don't see it as the browser's job to protect users from their incompetence.
- sida 6y agoI hate AMP as a user. It breaks my browsing experience in strange and sometimes unexpected ways. (like certain scroll features can stop working, sometimes weird features like search in page can also break. Sometimes when you try to highlight some text, it will highlight a whole section. And the solution is always --> click the button to get to the actual page and then it is fine)
- shakezula 6y agoNo to mention it’s practically a dark pattern that they push on you. I hate how they’ll send me to AMP links and then the UX to get the original URL I wanted and not some abomination of a google amp URL is terrible and they purposefully make it as subtle as possible that you’re not on the actual domain or site that you wanted. It feels like a benevolent phishing scheme.
- yagya 6y agoThe funny part is that when I tried the latest version on Chrome on Android 11 back in September, whenever I clicked on an AMP link, it would think Google's AMP domain was a phishing site.
- torb-xyz 6y agoMy frustrations with AMP (as a user) was originally what pushed me to DuckDuckGo. Now I rarely encounter AMP-versions of sites.
- alexfromapex 6y agoI have been using DDG full time for a month or so now but they really need to work on making their search results more readable. I might use a browser plug-in to customize the styling myself when I get some free time.
- czottmann 6y agoIIRC, DDG lets you configure fonts, sites and colors for results, somewhere in the settings. Works well for me, especially in conjunction with their "cloud save" feature.
- tester34 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Web_Accelerator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Web_Accelerator
- lxgr 6y agoAwesome, that's the one tombstone on https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/ I've been waiting for.
- smt88 6y agoAbsolutely not. AMP is still around and already integrated deeply into thousands of high-traffic sites. Google is probably just trying to reduce the likelihood of being broken up. AMP is widely adopted, so the damage of their preferential treatment has already been done.
- gruturo 6y agoHow do we help it die then, it's the most unwelcome, undesirable crap I've seen in years. Google used all its power to force it down everyone's throats, but it sucks so badly and nobody wants it. Not publishers, who recognize it for what it is (a very, very thinly veiled attempt at stealing users, traffic and analytics, and Google building its own walled garden). Not users, for whom navigation is broken, links and scrolling behave weirdly or break completely, and the address bar can't be trusted any more.
- lxgr 6y ago
- tyingq 6y agoGuessing this will start a talent drain on the AMP team, and eventually kill it off.
- tbodt 6y agoYou'll never guess whose idea this was
- jonplackett 6y agoThe thing I hate most about AMP is how when you want to share the page you can't just copy the URL and send to people without it being the AMP URL. I wish apple would create a no-AMP option in Safari and just auto redirect to the normal page.
- kmeisthax 6y agoGoogle's solution to this is to basically build the distributed web so that browsers can show the correct origin and URL when they hit Google's AMP proxy.
- jonplackett 6y agoThis is even worse. Sometimes now you click to get the real URL, and it’s still a god damn AMP page. I hate AMP with a firey passion.
- Spivak 6y agoI think you've got this backwards. This is "democratized CDNs" not "AMP for Everything." Web Bundles are a replacement for AMP that's not Google specific. With Web Bundles the only thing that a cache can do is serve you an immutable asset that is signed by the original publisher exactly as if you had connected to the origin server.
- jonplackett 6y agoIs the thing you’re talking about when you get a url like amp.whateverdomain.com? If so I don’t like that either. They always feel a little bit broken compared to the real url.
- arn 6y agoApple sort of does this on mobile Safari and its a frustrating / unexpected experience. If you are on a website in mobile safari, and you hit the share button, and select Copy. What gets copied into the clipboard is actually the Canonical url rather than the actual one you are at. So for /amp/ pages, it ends up copying the non-amp url. imo, it's a bad experience because sometimes canonicals and non canonicals aren't exactly the same. For example, if I'm looking at a specific filter or sort, then it might make sense for the canonical to be the non-sorted version. But if I'm sharing a specific url, I want it to share exactly what I'm looking at.
- crazygringo 6y agoThe article and some of the comments here seem to be over-interpreting this change. This is NOT ending AMP, and I don't know where anyone's getting that idea. It will continue to rank by "page experience signals", and presumably AMP pages will continue to be the standard to beat. In other words, if you can go ahead and replicate AMP's loading speed on your own (maybe self-hosted AMP?) then awesome. I do hope sites do that, because sites loading instantly rather than taking 5 seconds is a huge win. But in practice non-AMP news sites are still filled with bloat that makes them take 5 seconds to load. AMP has massively increased the performance of many news publishers forced to switch to AMP. We'll see if publishers are now motivated to try to make their native sites equally fast. I'm not holding my breath, though. I assume they'll stick with AMP because they don't want to re-architect their sites, or don't have the technical bandwidth to do so. But this way Google appears more neutral with "objective" page performance measures, rather than explicitly favoring any single standard. EDIT: the URL and title have since been changed by mods to a Google blog post. The original article/submission I was referring to was: https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/11/19/as-antitrust-pressure-mounts-google-to-pull-back-benefit-to-news-sites-that-adopted-its-preferred-mobile-technology https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/11/19/as-antitru...
- mason55 6y agoYeah I hate AMP on principle but unless I’m really mindful about it my brain unconsciously clicks the AMP links because the experience is so much better
- tyingq 6y agoIt's ending the biggest incentive to bother using AMP. Over enough time there's not much difference from ending AMP. The article has a quote from the New York Times that suggests they will move away.
- crazygringo 6y agoIt's not, though. If the fastest pages still get promoted to the top, and AMP results in the fastest pages, then the incentive remains just as large as before. And the NYT quote doesn't suggest they'll move away at all. It just says it's "important" for Google not to make AMP a "requirement".
- king_magic 6y agoGod I hope this at least reduces AMP. AMP is a cancer on the web.
- tssva 6y agoGoing to be an unpopular opinion here but as an end user I am disappointed to hear this because AMP was a great improvement to the performance of my mobile browsing experience. I understand that AMP isn't required for a great performing mobile site but before AMP no one seemed to take the steps to deliver one without it.
- whatatita 6y agoI have to, begrudgingly, agree to that point. Most major news sites are barely usable without multiple content filters (ad blockers, etc.). AMP really pushed them into making things load quicker and with less weight.
- gowld 6y agoThe point of this change is that it now allows more high-performance sites into Google Search, by allowing both AMP and non-AMP sites that are high-performance. It's good news. Nothing here makes AMP less able to deliver high-performance pages.
- lxgr 6y agoInteresting – my own AMP experience has been one of ugly and/or functionally broken sites. Maybe this is platform dependent? I'm using iOS.
- tssva 6y agoMy experience is with Chrome and the chromium based Microsoft Edge on Android. Of course ugly is also in the eye of the beholder.
- Mindwipe 6y agoIt's definitely no better on Android.
- kall 6y agoI have the same experience: unbelievably broken on iOS. It just has to be better on android because somehow their own engineers have to use it day to day and ship it in good conscience at the same time, right?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cblackthornekc 6y agoI know that AMP isn't going away, but man I won't miss it. Android and AMP just never seem to get along. The number of times I've clicked a link to watch some video that won't load because of AMP is too high.
- EGreg 6y agoJust the other day, I saw almost everything I searched on Google being AMP, and sharing was broken. I had to find and click the little share icon by scrolling up and having it appear. Terrible for most users who won't discover it!
- egl2020 6y agoCaching is part of what makes AMP fast, and publishers may find that they also have to run caching servers to get AMP-like speeds.
- acdha 6y agoPublishers have used CDNs since the late 90s. They know.
- vaccinator 6y agoMozilla should ask money from google for not automatically redirecting AMP URLs to original URLs.
- invalidusernam3 6y agoGreat news, I'm working on a personal project and this weekend I was scheduled to implement the AMP version. I'll put the time into the "normal" site optimisation rather
- micropoet 6y agoSenators treated them well.
- Reason077 6y agoIt would be nice if Google gave an option to disable AMP. I don’t have any philosophical objection to it, but too often it causes rendering glitches and other annoyances on my iPhone. It also makes it annoying to copy the link if I want to save it or forward it etc. The performance increase is from AMP is pretty marginal and not worth all the hassle for me.
- jerrygoyal 6y agoAndroid users can use kiwi browser (chromium) to disable amp plus some other cool stuff like extensions. secondly, almost all websites provide share button to copy absolute url of that webpage.
- millstone 6y agoTo my knowledge, Google has never explained why they don't offer a setting here. Here's someone requesting a way, and getting smoke blown back instead: https://support.google.com/webmasters/forum/AAAA2Jdx3sU8ogdv04Cm-k/ https://support.google.com/webmasters/forum/AAAA2Jdx3sU8ogdv... I guess it's in Google's interest to force AMP.
- Mindwipe 6y agoI hope this might be the first step at least to Samsung Internet offering an extension to block all AMP sites, so I can at least stop seeing AMP sites ever, ever again.
- kall 6y agoquick tip: if you use the system share button to copy the url, you get the real one. You can also take advantage of this with an app like Opener to navigate to the real page in the cases where the amp site is in such a broken state that you cannot get to the fake browser bar.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- penguinlover2 6y agoWhen I was struck in a developing country in March-April during pandemic, I was glad for AMP to minimise data and save costs. I am saddend that hn does not recognise the different (poor) parts of the world need quick/bloat free websites. Yes, ideally all webdevs would make the non-AMP page bloat free. But as you know many a world pages are horrible and load tons of trackers. Why is there is clear hate - AMP can be used for good and bad.
- acdha 6y agoBecause what Google is doing now is what they needed years ago: punish bloated sites based on real experiences. AMP was an attempt to block Facebook news and use search dominance to give them control over how publishers use the web. If it had just been about performance they wouldn’t have needed so much extra work and they wouldn’t have ignored the performance and reliability drawbacks to putting so much JavaScript into the critical path for page loads. Those 5+ second AMP mobile page views were completely avoidable if your goal was performance rather than control.
- UhDev 6y agoAmp pages aren't websites, they are google content.
- edjrage 6y agouMatrix + uBlock Origin solve this much better than AMP does... with the advantage that it works for exactly the websites you want with exactly the resources you choose - no more, no less. uBlock even allows you to block images if they're larger than a certain size.
- hda2 6y agoThis. uMatrix is a godsend for people who want to control loading 3rd party assets. It usually requires some configuration for new sites but once configured my phone runs like a dream. (ran, since firefox disabled the plugin on my phone)
- 6y ago
- z3t4 6y agoI hope they don't use Lighthouse and PageSpeed blindly - as the score does not correlate significantly with perceived load time and performance, and is also easy to game!
- mmcconnell1618 6y agoHave you tried running Lighthouse and PageSpeed on a site that serves up Google Ads via AdSense? My site can be optimized like crazy but still score low because of Google's javascript ad loading code.
- z3t4 6y agoLike spending two weeks optimizing site load - from 2 seconds to 200ms - and then adding Google and Facebook analytics/trackers and you are back to 2+ seconds load time again.
- cletus 6y agoI am sympathetic to the idea that mobile sites are terrible and Google wants to make that less terrible. But AMP as a solution to that seems to be completely misguided. Worse, I suspect the continued push for it demonstrates both a lack of leadership and the sort of ego-driven corporate politics where no one wants to admit they're wrong so just keep doubling down until you win. AMP still breaks for me on iOS in completely fixable ways. I have poor eyesight. I use higher default zoom. I suspect this is the reason why AMP rendered content doesn't fit on my screen and I can't scroll to the part that doesn't fit. It's super-annoying. On iOS you can force touch the link to render a preview and get the non-AMP version. There's no way to get that by default and that is a completely ridiculous situation. I, as a user, should be able to opt out of this crap. The fact that Google forced this down people's throats by giving AMP content ranking preference is an utterly stupid decision by leadership. It risks antitrust action, government investigations and all that entails. If you want to prefer sites that load fast, that's fast. If you want to prefer sites that use a technology that you created and control that's completely different. This is a textbook example of abusing your market power. I'm sure the executives found legal advice to the contrary. If so, such advice ignores just how malleable government action is and the negative PR consequences. Reducing that search ranking boost is a step in the right direction but it never should've happened in the first place. You can't turn back time of course but that ranking boost needs to disappear entirely. Immediately.
- madoublet 6y agoGoogle search is broken and it has fundamentally broken the web. Every search now is just pages and pages of content farms. If I can tell a content farm within a few seconds of loading a page, surely Google can as well. So, unless this new "page experience ranking" blocks content farms, then I am not sure how it will be better for end users.
- Method-X 6y agoCan you give me an example of a search that produces content farm results? I mainly search for technical docs and such so perhaps I’m not seeing it as much because of that.
- madoublet 6y agoTechnical docs seem to be pretty safe for now. But, any popular search produces a lot of web farms: recipes, how-to articles, best of, etc.
- bagacrap 6y agoWhy does google have to explicitly block these sites? No doubt all those garbage, ad-strewn recipe sites rank low on user experience metrics. So if there were a better recipe site out there, Google would show it to you. It seems they (recipe sites) are simply having a hard time monetizing without being uber annoying.
- madoublet 6y agoThey certainly don't. They are a private company and can do whatever they want. But, Google was much better before content farms. You could find unique, original content by actual people. Google could easily fix this by devaluing sites that mass produce content. But they don't and we are left with the mess we have today.
- dazc 6y agoThe problem being there is no incentive to be not a content farm. Few people are going to spend their time giving away knowledge for free. I am not defending Google, just being pragmatic.
- codazoda 6y agoAn aside... Google is terrible at documentation. After reading the first few paragraphs, I have no idea what they're talking about. It's full of unexplained buzz words I've never heard before. The first thing that comes to mind for me is a phrase my old boss used to say, "there's money in confusion".
- meibo 6y agoNot sure what your background is, but if you work in SEO or do web optimization in general, this article really isn't that bad to get the gist of. Maybe it's more of a target group thing? This isn't really a "everyone needs to know" situation, it addresses the people that need to know and expects a certain pre-existing knowledge of the topic.
- dang 6y agoI imagine this comment was about https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for-page-experience https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for..., which the URL above was changed to for a while. Explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25151764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25151764
- tannhaeuser 6y agoWhen I upvoted this, the story was titled "Publishers may finally be able to ditch AMP as Google faces antitrust scrutiny" and linked to [1]. Several changes in the title, and now also in the posted link is a little bit too much editorializing for my taste. [1]: https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/11/19/as-antitrust-pressure-mounts-google-to-pull-back-benefit-to-news-sites-that-adopted-its-preferred-mobile-technology https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/11/19/as-antitru... Edit: changed again; for posteriority, the title was "Timing for bringing page experience to Google Search" and linked to [2] at the time I wrote the above comment. [2]: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for-page-experience https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for...
- 3np 6y agoWhen I read this, I feel more than anything here, Google is dictating how any web page should look, behave and be structured in order to be considered for display to users. Disregard their content/structure/style guidelines and you will be at the bottom of the rank. This is not a new thing (AMP) but it's the first time I realize that's exactly what they're doing. I hate it. Even if I fully agree with their judgments on the specifics, this is not healthy for the web.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThis is a shame for instances of Discourse that have valuable content. Discourse page loading time (at least for first load) are absolutely horrible, and I doubt that it's easy to fix them. This move, IIUC, will downgrade the page rank of forums that might be packed with useful, high quality information. Or maybe it will add sufficient encouragement that Discourse gets faster :)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- CivBase 6y agoThank you. I'm fine with AMP being offered as an optional framework on developers can build fast web pages. I'm not okay with Google giving preferential search treatment to pages built using their own technology. If Google wants to prioritize fast pages, that's cool. AMP can be useful tool for making fast pages. But AMP is not necessary to make a fast page.
- xwdv 6y agoDon't thank them just yet, there will be a catch.
- s17n 6y ago> But AMP is not necessary to make a fast page. That's true, but almost no non-AMP news sites aren't total garbage (and some of them have even manage to make their AMP sites terrible). Without Google taking an aggressive approach, things will get worse, not better.
- ballenf 6y agoI don't think anyone (here) would complain if Google explicitly used Lighthouse scores in ranking algorithms. Or any similar agnostic user experience ranking.
- s17n 6y ago"We need to make an AMP site to get into this carousel" is a much easier sell (to executives) than "we need to rebuild our site according to some not completely specified principles to hopefully get a higher search rank".
- stephenr 6y agoIt really can’t be hard to set a metric. Time limit (load time and render time), and to a lesser degree, weight limit (ie total resources size). This is hardly a new concept.
- moron4hire 6y ago> page experience... [a measure of] how users perceive the experience of interacting with a web page You sure it's not how Larry Page perceives the experience?
- admax88q 6y agoDid the URL get changed? Why is everyone talking about AMP? EDIT: Now the link has been changed back so this comment makes me look stupid. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25151764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25151764
- greenshackle2 6y agoBecause the article is (partly) about AMP.
- 5h 6y ago'No Intrusive interstitials' - I hope this factor carries increasing weight, many websites are pretty horrible experiences on first visit nowdays.
- mcrider 6y agoYes this is more interesting to me than AMP being demoted (I usually automatically ignore AMP anyway as they have that 'seems like an ad' feel that my subconscious automatically bypasses). The interstitials/popups to e.g. sign up for a mailing list that appear on so many sites these days are so much more annoying as I have to hunt for the close button every time.
- dang 6y agoThis article is mostly based on a quote from https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for-page-experience https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/11/timing-for.... We changed the URL to that for a while, in keeping with the guidelines' call for original sources (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), but I think that's probably too confusing here. Also, the article does include some additional reporting, such as reactions from news orgs like NYT.
- varispeed 6y agoBasically it's a way for Google to remove Ad revenue from the outlets that don't use AdSense. Pretty clever strategy, but extremely abusive. I hope Google gets a proper fine (in order of billions), it will be ordered to split into separate independent companies and will have to delete all personal data they don't have legitimate reason to have.
- bevdecloud 6y agoWhat does page experience mean?
- usr1106 6y agoI don't see any mentioning that AMP is nowadays under the umbrella of the Linux foundation. If it were just a vendor neutral technology that would probably OK. But with Google's dominance on the hosting side, that's not very good. Well, probably Google is one of the bigger funders of the Linux Foundation, so money goes over worries about anti-competitive behaviour.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kmtrowbr 6y agoI use Apple's parental features to block news websites, because I constantly find myself spending too much time reading junk news on my phone. The AMP feature allowed me to get around this, so instead of going to politico.com (which I blocked), I would instead, go to Google, type Politico, then read the stories via AMP. So what I ended up doing, was to switch to DuckDuckGo as my phone's primary search engine, and then I blocked google.com from my phone. It seems drastic, but I am a big advocate of taking control of how you use your phone with the parental features, pointed at yourself. I constantly notice that reading news on my phone makes me feel bad, but I have a hard time stopping. This addiction to the news, is very correlated with times where I am tired or depressed. It reminds me of drinking or smoking cigarettes in that respect. I keep the PIN in 1Password, but I try to use it rarely and try to "forget" it. So there's an extra step to seeing the sites, looking up the PIN. It's helpful for me, perhaps it seems elaborate. Because of all this, however, I am glad to see the AMP pages will be going away from Google's search results, although I have found in the interim, that DuckDuckGo actually works pretty well for me.
- antpls 6y agoIn my opinion, you should try to understand why the news make you sad rather than blocking them. By the way, if you miss Google results quality, Startpage is like DDG, but backed by Google results.
- hrktb 6y agoHasn't news consumption been identified as an almost guaranteed source of sadness and anger for a while now ? An example of article going more into the details: https://time.com/5125894/is-reading-news-bad-for-you/ https://time.com/5125894/is-reading-news-bad-for-you/
- antpls 6y agoThe same article also says it is natural to read news to stay informed and gives the exact same advice as I do : "“Try to be aware of how [the news] changes your mood or makes your thoughts more negative,” Davey advises. Breuning agrees, and recommends limiting your news consumption to one block of time each day—say, at lunch or before dinner—if not less. At the very least, don’t watch or read the news before bed, she says."
- yxhuvud 6y agoI hope that will mean our customers will stop asking for it.
- cyberpsybin 6y agoI hope Apple rolls out a search engine. It's time to kill Google search.
- borja_froged 6y agoFinally they did it. I won't say AMP is a failed project because it can be useful especially for media outlets. But from my experience, I removed AMP from two of my projects and the traffic and (most importantly), the leads we're generating have skyrocketed.
- BigBalli 6y agoAbout time! AMP is terrible.
- wilt 6y agoI am happy to hopefully see the decline of amp. Remeber this is not all happening in a vacuum. Remeber google has been pushing to do things like remove the url bar from browsers too. It is pretty obvious what the end game is.
- HeavyStorm 6y agoI kept trying to remember the carousel. Then I remembered that by using ddg I'm free of it.