3 ms·

For as much as I hate Amp it's way better than what came before it. Especially for ad heavy sites that typically rank high in Google searches for random stuff.

by treis 6y ago

For as much as I hate Amp it's way better than what came before it. Especially for ad heavy sites that typically rank high in Google searches for random stuff. The only time for me it's not an improvement is for reddit where it is a huge annoyance.

Analemma_ 6y ago
And who, pray tell, serves all those annoying ads and makes those ad-heavy sites rank high in searches, thus controlling the nudges that push people onto AMP? Are you seeing the problem yet?
- treis 6y ago
  Usually Google ads aren't that bad. It's the 3rd rate ad networks and websites that have the annoying dark patterns and crappy performance.
pembrook 6y ago
Google could have simply made page weight a more important factor in the ranking algorithm if that was their goal. The minute these publishers weren't getting as much search/news traffic anymore, they would have capitulated, making their sites run faster immediately, the same way they quickly capitulated to AMP. As proven by AMP, when Google says jump, the entire interest responds by saying "How high?" Can anybody give me a single non-nefarious reason for why AMP was necessary instead of simply enforcing page weight/loading-speed factors via the algorithm?
- treis 6y ago
  Good in theory but liable to be endlessly gamed. Using something like Amp is easy to implement even if it's not ideal.
- esteth 6y ago
  AMP allows tech people at non-tech companies to push back against all the "just one tiny little thing it won't effect load speed much" requests. Your marketing department wants another tracking script? no can do. Your exec wants a javascript "click the monkey" promo? not on the AMP site. The UX folks want parallax webGL spinning logos? Sorry AMP doesn't allow it. It puts people who were previously not in a position where they could push back against decisions which effect load speed in a position where they can push back.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    Every single one of those things could be done by google providing a simple webpage analysis tool that said "These features are lowing your score in search rank!"
  - pembrook 6y ago
    Again, literally all they had to do was announce specific page speed numbers you need to hit to get featured in a special carousel (just like AMP!). The tech team could have just as easily have said, "sorry, that would put us over our X ms page speed limit." The fact Google spent 100X the resources of a simple algorithm update by creating AMP, tells us there were other motives behind this.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  > Google could have simply made page weight a more important factor in the ranking algorithm if that was their goal. They actually did this a few years ago: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2018/01/using-page-speed-in-mobile-search https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2018/01/using-page...
- fyzix 6y ago
  And I'm sure that whosever pitched this idea to management made a big deal of how benefitial it would be for the company.

by treis 6y ago

Analemma_ 6y ago

And who, pray tell, serves all those annoying ads and makes those ad-heavy sites rank high in searches, thus controlling the nudges that push people onto AMP? Are you seeing the problem yet?

treis 6y ago
Usually Google ads aren't that bad. It's the 3rd rate ad networks and websites that have the annoying dark patterns and crappy performance.

pembrook 6y ago

Google could have simply made page weight a more important factor in the ranking algorithm if that was their goal. The minute these publishers weren't getting as much search/news traffic anymore, they would have capitulated, making their sites run faster immediately, the same way they quickly capitulated to AMP. As proven by AMP, when Google says jump, the entire interest responds by saying "How high?" Can anybody give me a single non-nefarious reason for why AMP was necessary instead of simply enforcing page weight/loading-speed factors via the algorithm?

treis 6y ago
Good in theory but liable to be endlessly gamed. Using something like Amp is easy to implement even if it's not ideal.
esteth 6y ago
AMP allows tech people at non-tech companies to push back against all the "just one tiny little thing it won't effect load speed much" requests. Your marketing department wants another tracking script? no can do. Your exec wants a javascript "click the monkey" promo? not on the AMP site. The UX folks want parallax webGL spinning logos? Sorry AMP doesn't allow it. It puts people who were previously not in a position where they could push back against decisions which effect load speed in a position where they can push back.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  Every single one of those things could be done by google providing a simple webpage analysis tool that said "These features are lowing your score in search rank!"
- pembrook 6y ago
  Again, literally all they had to do was announce specific page speed numbers you need to hit to get featured in a special carousel (just like AMP!). The tech team could have just as easily have said, "sorry, that would put us over our X ms page speed limit." The fact Google spent 100X the resources of a simple algorithm update by creating AMP, tells us there were other motives behind this.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
> Google could have simply made page weight a more important factor in the ranking algorithm if that was their goal. They actually did this a few years ago: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2018/01/using-page-speed-in-mobile-search https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2018/01/using-page...
fyzix 6y ago
And I'm sure that whosever pitched this idea to management made a big deal of how benefitial it would be for the company.