3 ms·
> AMP also came with the unfortunate requirement that publishers let traffic sources such as Google cache their content and serve it from their domain, such as
by captainmuon 5y ago
> AMP also came with the unfortunate requirement that publishers let traffic sources such as Google cache their content and serve it from their domain, such as google.com.
I think this is backwards. Google offers to host your content on their domains, and if you want that it requires you to use certain markup, and only certain ads.
If your job is monetizing content, or if you want to raise some abstract "time spend on domain" metric, then I can understand how this can be unpopular. But if your goal is to have your content read by many people, have very fast load times, and spend a bit less on traffic, then it is beneficial.
- Mordisquitos 5y ago> But if your goal is to have your content read by many people, have very fast load times, and spend a bit less on traffic, then it is beneficial. But that was not the problem. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with Google offering AMP as a content hosting service subject to certain syntax and content limitations. The problem was that, however fast your load times were in practice, all else being equal Google's search engine would penalise your ranking compared to using Google's AMP—all under the pretence of favouring "very fast load times".