9 ms·

As a user I like AMP because it's guaranteed to be very fast. There, I said it.

by asdfologist 8y ago

fatjokes 8y ago
Completely agree as a user.
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  Its fast when it works. On my tablet is a crap shoot if you see any content at all.
tyingq 8y ago
Well sure, Google isn't dumb. Adding in enough benefits (speed, carousel placement) to your Trojan horse ensures there are plausible reasons to bring it into the fort. Publishers certainly wouldn't give up the most important bits of their page (the top), and cede left/right swipe hijacking (on carousel loaded pages) if there weren't some perceived benefit.
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  "Perceived" benefit is the key. It used to be the "World Wide Web" but now it is the "Google Platform" and we just live in it. After Google established that useful web search was possible the realized that the #1 competitor for their ads was organic rankings, and if you could really get a #1 ranking by investing in the best content then why would you spend money on ads? So since then it is has been about deliberately degrading the search results so you learn to look at the ads instead, giving people bad S.E.O. advice, etc.
  - izacus 8y ago
    Your conspirancy theory completely ignores the whole shitshow of 15MB+ textual websites we've had to endure in those last years.
    - tyingq 8y ago
      "Conspiracy theory" is an interesting take. Are you suggesting Google's motives here are purely altruistic...solely to improve the web?
      - izacus 8y ago
        No, I'm not implying they're purely anything. As most of these things go, they're a mix of both business convenience and someone pushing to fix a problem they perceive on the web. Your post took into account only one dimension of an issue.
        tyingq 8y ago
        "Your post took into account only one dimension of an issue" No, pretty sure I covered both. Maybe you're thinking of one of the replies to my post?
      - shaki-dora 8y ago
        The conspiracy here seems to refer to the accusation that Google is trying to actively make their search results worse, in order to force people to buy ads. That post does seem to be paying lip service to actual benefits for users (such as speed), but then ... suddenly ignore them in favour of a Trojan horse metaphor that doesn't make much sense to me.
        tyingq 8y ago
        It would be hard to prove Google is purposefully making the organics lower quality. On the other hand, it's obvious they are shifting them down the page over time, which has a similar effect. As for the Trojan horse metaphor, it is my opinion that's what AMP is. It's tricking publishers into ceding control of their websites. I suspect Google will, over time, leverage AMP to further march towards a walled garden. It is, though, an opinion. Hard for me to "prove" something I'm not privy to.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      80% of the ads you see on the web come from Doubleclick adserver - owned by Google. Perhaps you should ask why they do not optimize that system and use site speed in search rankings instead?
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    Last time I checked the url bar still works
anothergoogler 8y ago
As user I dislike AMP because it adds a JavaScript requirement to read articles that don't have any JavaScript. There, I said it.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
no, you can't assert how fast the cache gets updated it becomes indeterminate to the user, and when the harvester decides it
shaki-dora 8y ago
HN starts caring a lot about the integrity of the sacred HTML when it's their own content being mangled. User experience is only valid as an argument in the context of that darn, biased "mainstream media" being dismembered by ad blockers, or held for ransom by "Brave".

As a user I like AMP because it's guaranteed to be very fast. There, I said it.

fatjokes 8y ago

Completely agree as a user.

PaulHoule 8y ago
Its fast when it works. On my tablet is a crap shoot if you see any content at all.

tyingq 8y ago

Well sure, Google isn't dumb. Adding in enough benefits (speed, carousel placement) to your Trojan horse ensures there are plausible reasons to bring it into the fort. Publishers certainly wouldn't give up the most important bits of their page (the top), and cede left/right swipe hijacking (on carousel loaded pages) if there weren't some perceived benefit.

PaulHoule 8y ago
"Perceived" benefit is the key. It used to be the "World Wide Web" but now it is the "Google Platform" and we just live in it. After Google established that useful web search was possible the realized that the #1 competitor for their ads was organic rankings, and if you could really get a #1 ranking by investing in the best content then why would you spend money on ads? So since then it is has been about deliberately degrading the search results so you learn to look at the ads instead, giving people bad S.E.O. advice, etc.
- izacus 8y ago
  Your conspirancy theory completely ignores the whole shitshow of 15MB+ textual websites we've had to endure in those last years.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    "Conspiracy theory" is an interesting take. Are you suggesting Google's motives here are purely altruistic...solely to improve the web?
    - izacus 8y ago
      No, I'm not implying they're purely anything. As most of these things go, they're a mix of both business convenience and someone pushing to fix a problem they perceive on the web. Your post took into account only one dimension of an issue.
      - tyingq 8y ago
        "Your post took into account only one dimension of an issue" No, pretty sure I covered both. Maybe you're thinking of one of the replies to my post?
    - shaki-dora 8y ago
      The conspiracy here seems to refer to the accusation that Google is trying to actively make their search results worse, in order to force people to buy ads. That post does seem to be paying lip service to actual benefits for users (such as speed), but then ... suddenly ignore them in favour of a Trojan horse metaphor that doesn't make much sense to me.
      - tyingq 8y ago
        It would be hard to prove Google is purposefully making the organics lower quality. On the other hand, it's obvious they are shifting them down the page over time, which has a similar effect. As for the Trojan horse metaphor, it is my opinion that's what AMP is. It's tricking publishers into ceding control of their websites. I suspect Google will, over time, leverage AMP to further march towards a walled garden. It is, though, an opinion. Hard for me to "prove" something I'm not privy to.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    80% of the ads you see on the web come from Doubleclick adserver - owned by Google. Perhaps you should ask why they do not optimize that system and use site speed in search rankings instead?
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  Last time I checked the url bar still works

anothergoogler 8y ago

As user I dislike AMP because it adds a JavaScript requirement to read articles that don't have any JavaScript. There, I said it.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

no, you can't assert how fast the cache gets updated it becomes indeterminate to the user, and when the harvester decides it

shaki-dora 8y ago

HN starts caring a lot about the integrity of the sacred HTML when it's their own content being mangled. User experience is only valid as an argument in the context of that darn, biased "mainstream media" being dismembered by ad blockers, or held for ransom by "Brave".