4 ms·

This one makes it all the more obvious what Google is actually doing. They have a search monopoly and supposedly are heavily biased on speed as a ranking factor

This one makes it all the more obvious what Google is actually doing. They have a search monopoly and supposedly are heavily biased on speed as a ranking factor. Well golly gee, if you want the Web to be a lot faster, smash sites with brutal speed ranking penalties until they get the message. It wouldn't be difficult nor would it take much time to get the point across (in fact it would be trivially easy). There is no other logical explanation other than Google's intentions are gatekeeper (and plausibly much worse in time: hostage taker), not primarily to make the Web a better place (that's merely the lie they're pitching as a cover story).

muro 6y ago
I think the positive approach (use amp, the page will load faster, which users like) is a good alternative to the negative (downranking). It's not just "make your page faster, or else!", but provides a good solution, too. As I user, I love amp. As a developer, I understand the concerns (though I don't think they materialized in the way HN sentiment goes).
- dmitriid 6y ago
  It doesn't provide a good solution. It's Google's arbitrary proprietary subset of web technologies. It's only fast because Google preloads all of JS while you search. It aggressively hides the origin source, depriving sites of user traffic. Google prioritizes AMP content over any other content even if that other content may be better and/or load faster.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > It aggressively hides the origin source, depriving sites of user traffic. What does this mean? If I click a link on an amp page, I may end up on the full site, and if not, analytics and ads are supported. What do I lose other than the cost of rendering a page view?
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > What does this mean? You don't land on the original page. You land on a Google page. Even the URL says google.com. To get to the actual original page, you need to click on the tiny (i) in the corner. And even there the link is styled as non-clickable link. If you swipe, for example, you end up on the next Google property ^W^W that is a news item that Google displays on its own domain. And AMP may provably drive traffic away: https://kinsta.com/blog/disable-google-amp/ https://kinsta.com/blog/disable-google-amp/
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        > You don't land on the original page. You land on a Google page. Even the URL says google.com. Yes. So what? If I, from the AMP page, click on a link, I'll go to the full site (I just checked this on CNN's amp pages). Ads and analytics are still supported. > If you swipe, for example, you end up on the next Google property ^W^W that is a news item that Google displays on its own domain. This didn't happen when I just attempted it. > And AMP may provably drive traffic away: If you read the article, they say that they got more clicks and pageviews, but fewer conversions, likely because they hadn't spent time optimizing the AMP site for conversions.
- techphys_91 6y ago
  You've portrayed amp as a positive change and basing search ranking on page load times as a negative change, while clearly some websites would be "downranked" with either system. One could just as well portray "downranking slow pages" as "boosting fast pages". With the latter system developers would be encouraged to reduce filesizes and JS bloat on their existing pages. As a mobile, and desktop user, I would appreciate that.

muro 6y ago

I think the positive approach (use amp, the page will load faster, which users like) is a good alternative to the negative (downranking). It's not just "make your page faster, or else!", but provides a good solution, too. As I user, I love amp. As a developer, I understand the concerns (though I don't think they materialized in the way HN sentiment goes).

dmitriid 6y ago
It doesn't provide a good solution. It's Google's arbitrary proprietary subset of web technologies. It's only fast because Google preloads all of JS while you search. It aggressively hides the origin source, depriving sites of user traffic. Google prioritizes AMP content over any other content even if that other content may be better and/or load faster.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > It aggressively hides the origin source, depriving sites of user traffic. What does this mean? If I click a link on an amp page, I may end up on the full site, and if not, analytics and ads are supported. What do I lose other than the cost of rendering a page view?
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > What does this mean? You don't land on the original page. You land on a Google page. Even the URL says google.com. To get to the actual original page, you need to click on the tiny (i) in the corner. And even there the link is styled as non-clickable link. If you swipe, for example, you end up on the next Google property ^W^W that is a news item that Google displays on its own domain. And AMP may provably drive traffic away: https://kinsta.com/blog/disable-google-amp/ https://kinsta.com/blog/disable-google-amp/
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > You don't land on the original page. You land on a Google page. Even the URL says google.com. Yes. So what? If I, from the AMP page, click on a link, I'll go to the full site (I just checked this on CNN's amp pages). Ads and analytics are still supported. > If you swipe, for example, you end up on the next Google property ^W^W that is a news item that Google displays on its own domain. This didn't happen when I just attempted it. > And AMP may provably drive traffic away: If you read the article, they say that they got more clicks and pageviews, but fewer conversions, likely because they hadn't spent time optimizing the AMP site for conversions.
techphys_91 6y ago
You've portrayed amp as a positive change and basing search ranking on page load times as a negative change, while clearly some websites would be "downranked" with either system. One could just as well portray "downranking slow pages" as "boosting fast pages". With the latter system developers would be encouraged to reduce filesizes and JS bloat on their existing pages. As a mobile, and desktop user, I would appreciate that.