4 ms·

Sure they did. They created page and site metrics that then tied to search engine placement. All the "garbage" is an effort to improve their "performance" wit

Sure they did. They created page and site metrics that then tied to search engine placement. All the "garbage" is an effort to improve their "performance" within these specific metric categories. It's the same story with "AMP." Publishers had zero incentive to create AMP versions of their site, but they did anyways, because they saw that they lost placement if they didn't comply. I'm not "blaming" Google, nor should you be "defending" them. What I'm attempting to do here is show that they definitely, perhaps indirectly, played a significant part in the shape of the modern web. While simultaneously decrying the laziness of publishers that led them to this late stage outcome. I mean.. did you want to discuss how things might improve, or did you just want to score points?

izacus 3y ago
AMP was deliberately created to mitigate the horrible website experience of news publishers. You're crafting a false narrative of poor news media being forced to dig their own grave by someone else, when that is not even remotely true. They've been cost cutting and compromising themselves way before some evil tech corporation came to them. There's really no industry that deserves this kind of history repainting less than the media moguls.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > AMP was deliberately created to mitigate the horrible website experience of news publishers. That was very generous of the billion dollar corporation to do. I'm sure there was no self serving motivation behind it. > of poor news media being forced to dig their own grave You seem to be struggling to see this outside of a black and white narrative and are mistaking your own polemic as being diametrically opposed to my point of view. > There's really no industry that deserves this kind of history repainting less than the media moguls. You also seem to be unaware of just how many small and medium sized broadcasters and publishers there are or how large this industry actually is. You are interested in narratives, I'm interested in facts. I don't think there's much more to discuss between us.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    AMP was great. All the anti-AMP (and signed web bundles) advocacy was profoundly user-hostile
sanjiwatsuki 3y ago
If AMP had stuck around, we wouldn't have the quagmire of terrible UX on news sites today. The hostility towards AMP was wholly undeserved.
- slater 3y ago
  It was absolutely, 100% deserved.
  - fastball 3y ago
    It was definitely not. AMP was mostly a standard for how you should build performant websites. Then you could opt into what was effectively google caching and serving your AMP-enabled webpages for you. This is good actually.
    - jeltz 3y ago
      No, AMP was a way for Google to increase their ad revenue and try to prevent people from leaving Google.

izacus 3y ago

AMP was deliberately created to mitigate the horrible website experience of news publishers. You're crafting a false narrative of poor news media being forced to dig their own grave by someone else, when that is not even remotely true. They've been cost cutting and compromising themselves way before some evil tech corporation came to them. There's really no industry that deserves this kind of history repainting less than the media moguls.

akira2501 3y ago
> AMP was deliberately created to mitigate the horrible website experience of news publishers. That was very generous of the billion dollar corporation to do. I'm sure there was no self serving motivation behind it. > of poor news media being forced to dig their own grave You seem to be struggling to see this outside of a black and white narrative and are mistaking your own polemic as being diametrically opposed to my point of view. > There's really no industry that deserves this kind of history repainting less than the media moguls. You also seem to be unaware of just how many small and medium sized broadcasters and publishers there are or how large this industry actually is. You are interested in narratives, I'm interested in facts. I don't think there's much more to discuss between us.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  AMP was great. All the anti-AMP (and signed web bundles) advocacy was profoundly user-hostile

sanjiwatsuki 3y ago

If AMP had stuck around, we wouldn't have the quagmire of terrible UX on news sites today. The hostility towards AMP was wholly undeserved.

slater 3y ago
It was absolutely, 100% deserved.
- fastball 3y ago
  It was definitely not. AMP was mostly a standard for how you should build performant websites. Then you could opt into what was effectively google caching and serving your AMP-enabled webpages for you. This is good actually.
  - jeltz 3y ago
    No, AMP was a way for Google to increase their ad revenue and try to prevent people from leaving Google.