3 ms·
The most simple and least expensive solution for Google, if they actually cared about making the web faster, would have been to simply enforce more strict page-
by pembrook 6y ago
The most simple and least expensive solution for Google, if they actually cared about making the web faster, would have been to simply enforce more strict page-weight rules via the search algorithm.
The fact that they didn't do that, tells us that Google is either:
A) Stupid and inefficient, because creating AMP cost 100X more than a simple search algorithm change
Or
B) Trying to achieve something more nefarious with AMP, something that is worth the extra cost, and that they weren't telling us about.
After seeing the Texas lawsuit against them, it's pretty clear to my eyes that the answer is B.
- SquareWheel 6y agoSearch speed was already a ranking factor. It didn't have much effect on publishers, who continued to bloat their pages. As for why they didn't just "dial it up to 11", I'm guessing that would cause the quality of their search results to go down.
- pembrook 6y ago> As for why they didn't just "dial it up to 11", I'm guessing that would cause the quality of their search results to go down. How would announcing preferential treatment for sites under X kb in weight have been any different than preferential treatment for sites using AMP? Both would have required similar action from the dev teams at these publishers.
- SquareWheel 6y agoAMP's SEO advantage wasn't in organic results, but a separate search vertical ("the carousel") placed above-the-fold. So as mentioned, introducing a new vertical also allowed Google to sidestep any issues of hurting organic results. In addition, the carousel was a much more desirable placement for publishers to chase. It made them pay attention more than a small ranking factor bump would have. I do however disagree with Google's decision to implement this. I feel it's one of the legitimate criticisms of AMP, and it took them far too long to fix it.