3 ms·
AMP was great for those with very low speed internet. The philosophy and implementation of AMP can be questioned (URL masking, content stored away from the orig
by topicseed 5y ago
AMP was great for those with very low speed internet. The philosophy and implementation of AMP can be questioned (URL masking, content stored away from the origin) but it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast.
Core Web Vitals, as a publisher myself, are a nightmare. But at least we know what goes wrong as it's clearly laid right in front of the developer's eyes. So we go and fix thing after thing. And some pages just won't get fixed because of some ads.
The point is CWV do make the web better. Those vital metrics are actually making sense (CLS, LCP).
I understand the reticence and reserve at who is behind both these efforts that AMP and CWV are, but they forced me to make my websites faster, cleaner.
Was it a panicky few months trying to get this sorted? Yes. Did we have to speak to ad networks so they fix up some ad delivery? Yes. Will Google really rank us better thanks to that? Maybe. Couldn't we have done it from our own accord? The incentive wasn't big enough I guess.
But today, the fact is, the experience on all of our websites is very much clearly improved.
- rozab 5y ago>it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast. How? No user has ever chosen to open a link as AMP.
- topicseed 5y agoWell, my click-through rates on mobile for many of the same pages without AMP have dropped for the same position. Yes, after fixing CWV I removed AMP as keeping two layouts optimised was draining as a small publisher.
- fddddd 5y agoadblockers like uBlocker Origin was even better for low speed internet than amp.
- topicseed 5y agoWell, I do appreciate my ad revenue to pay my team members and myself so I won't be the one recommending that.
- kuschku 5y agoOf course, harming people always pays well, doesn't make it something you should be proud of.
- my_usernam3 5y agoI read the comment in a different light. He or she is not exactly proud just admitting to the current circumstance. Specifically with this phrase > so I won't be the one recommending that.
- netr0ute 5y agoHot Take: If your website needs ads to survive, it wasn't that good to begin with.
- tomjen3 5y agoTurning of javascript completely breaks so many sites, but it is much, much, much faster to browse the web that way. I run Ublock Origin and it is great, but you are often still paying the javascript price.
- godshatter 5y ago> And some pages just won't get fixed because of some ads. This makes me wonder if the choice between leaving in ads that lower page rank due to CWV and removing some ads to get a better page rank will lead to less advertising overall. I can only hope, I guess.
- topicseed 5y agoI definitely removed ads on some pages, but because they were monetized differently. I think even small publishers are going to be more aware and granular at the page-level.
- 8note 5y agoEven on a slow internet, Ive always wnated a page that loads to be usable. Waiting once is fine; waiting two times means I can't do something else while it's loading
- topicseed 5y agoYou're right but publishers know their bounce rates so for some, people rarely navigate after landing on their pages. For others, it's almost always the case.