5 ms·

I invite you to go to your local Fox/ABC/CBS channel's website and TRY to read an article vs AMP. AMP is about stopping....that. It's indescribable how horribl

I invite you to go to your local Fox/ABC/CBS channel's website and TRY to read an article vs AMP. AMP is about stopping....that. It's indescribable how horrible these companies have become. 1. Auto-playing ads 2. Scroll-jacking 3. Overlay...after overlay... after overlay. 4. Popover 5. Paywall 6. Popover again for good taste. 7. Oops you scrolled too far better redirect you to another page entirely. 8. You wanted the video version of this article right? Better force you to read the article in 20% of the screen so all of our ads, bars, and video can fit on the page.

tyingq 7y ago
Google is capable of driving SERP and carousel position based on the performance of the site. They don't need AMP for that. AMP is very much about creating an semi-walled garden. Any performance benefit is the lovely exterior of the Trojan horse.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 7y ago
  And has been. Look at how well that worked for mobile web.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    Sorry, "has been" what? You mean Google is using performance, in a meaningful way, to drive SERP and Carousel placement? If so, I disagree. They talk about it. They don't do it in a way that drives behaviour. They could. A significant drop plus a webmaster tools message that says why, would work.
privateSFacct 7y ago
No kidding Despite all the claims that AMP is only faster because of preload, if you actually look at these HTML sites on big news orgs they are MONSTROSITIES. Check out dev tools, the number of network requests is wild. The page is so insanely dynamic do old / slow computers even run it well? From script size to dome/paint reflows etc etc to third party javascript having total access to your page - much of that is limited with AMP. I think third party javascript is forced into an iframe sandbox, can only be async with a web worker, limited in size acrosss ALL scripts etc.
ogre_codes 7y ago
This doesn't address those problems, it has effectively created a second, proprietary web which is only accessible from the Google home page. If Google actually wanted to improve the web, they wouldn't be splintering it, they would reward publishers with better search placement for building user-friendly sites. As it is, AMP is little more than a way to ensure the "Google" web is better than the non-Google web. Which of course funnels money into Google's pockets.
- gregable 7y ago
  AMP pages are just HTML. Publishers can and do use AMP pages as their "regular" pages that every user sees, not just those coming from Google. Other aggregators (Bing, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc) link to AMP versions. These pages are far from only accessible from Google queries.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    Hello, gregablr who works on AMP and forgets to disclose it: No, AMP is not "just HTML". It's not HTML5-compliant. It requires js to run and display properly (because Web Components), it gets preferential treatment in Google Search. It's not plain HTML.
    - ogre_codes 7y ago
      Astroturfing FTW!
    - gregable 7y ago
      Any AMP page can be HTML5 compliant. AMP doesn't require that the page pass an HTML5 validator, but is entirely compatible with HTML5. JavaScript and Web Components are part of the HTML5 standard. This is simply the Extensible Web (https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensible-web-manifesto/ https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensib...) My profile discloses that I work on AMP.
      - joegahona 7y ago
hayyyyydos 7y ago
> 3. Overlay...after overlay... after overlay. amp-sticky-ad, amp-video-docking, amp-app-banner > 4. Popover amp-fx-flying-carpet > 5. Paywall amp-access, amp-access-poool > 7. Oops you scrolled too far better redirect you to another page entirely. amp-next-page > 8. You wanted the video version of this article right? Better force you to read the article in 20% of the screen so all of our ads, bars, and video can fit on the page. amp-sticky-ad, amp-video-docking
zelly 7y ago
uBlock Origin and uMatrix can give you the AMP experience without AMP, but the vast majority of users won't use them. I see the need for AMP but it just enables these bad corporate websites, as if CNN/FOX/Quora etc. can't afford to clean up their pages. It would be better to just completely penalize blogs that paywall or otherwise make content unreadable. It's not like news articles are ever scarce. I don't know what they're doing as a search engine if I get any results that are this opaque.
aembleton 7y ago
Can probably solve all of that by switching off Javascript.

tyingq 7y ago

Google is capable of driving SERP and carousel position based on the performance of the site. They don't need AMP for that. AMP is very much about creating an semi-walled garden. Any performance benefit is the lovely exterior of the Trojan horse.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 7y ago
And has been. Look at how well that worked for mobile web.
- tyingq 7y ago
  Sorry, "has been" what? You mean Google is using performance, in a meaningful way, to drive SERP and Carousel placement? If so, I disagree. They talk about it. They don't do it in a way that drives behaviour. They could. A significant drop plus a webmaster tools message that says why, would work.

privateSFacct 7y ago

No kidding Despite all the claims that AMP is only faster because of preload, if you actually look at these HTML sites on big news orgs they are MONSTROSITIES. Check out dev tools, the number of network requests is wild. The page is so insanely dynamic do old / slow computers even run it well? From script size to dome/paint reflows etc etc to third party javascript having total access to your page - much of that is limited with AMP. I think third party javascript is forced into an iframe sandbox, can only be async with a web worker, limited in size acrosss ALL scripts etc.

ogre_codes 7y ago

This doesn't address those problems, it has effectively created a second, proprietary web which is only accessible from the Google home page. If Google actually wanted to improve the web, they wouldn't be splintering it, they would reward publishers with better search placement for building user-friendly sites. As it is, AMP is little more than a way to ensure the "Google" web is better than the non-Google web. Which of course funnels money into Google's pockets.

gregable 7y ago
AMP pages are just HTML. Publishers can and do use AMP pages as their "regular" pages that every user sees, not just those coming from Google. Other aggregators (Bing, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc) link to AMP versions. These pages are far from only accessible from Google queries.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  Hello, gregablr who works on AMP and forgets to disclose it: No, AMP is not "just HTML". It's not HTML5-compliant. It requires js to run and display properly (because Web Components), it gets preferential treatment in Google Search. It's not plain HTML.
  - ogre_codes 7y ago
    Astroturfing FTW!
  - gregable 7y ago
    Any AMP page can be HTML5 compliant. AMP doesn't require that the page pass an HTML5 validator, but is entirely compatible with HTML5. JavaScript and Web Components are part of the HTML5 standard. This is simply the Extensible Web (https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensible-web-manifesto/ https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensib...) My profile discloses that I work on AMP.
    - joegahona 7y ago

hayyyyydos 7y ago

> 3. Overlay...after overlay... after overlay. amp-sticky-ad, amp-video-docking, amp-app-banner > 4. Popover amp-fx-flying-carpet > 5. Paywall amp-access, amp-access-poool > 7. Oops you scrolled too far better redirect you to another page entirely. amp-next-page > 8. You wanted the video version of this article right? Better force you to read the article in 20% of the screen so all of our ads, bars, and video can fit on the page. amp-sticky-ad, amp-video-docking

zelly 7y ago

uBlock Origin and uMatrix can give you the AMP experience without AMP, but the vast majority of users won't use them. I see the need for AMP but it just enables these bad corporate websites, as if CNN/FOX/Quora etc. can't afford to clean up their pages. It would be better to just completely penalize blogs that paywall or otherwise make content unreadable. It's not like news articles are ever scarce. I don't know what they're doing as a search engine if I get any results that are this opaque.

aembleton 7y ago

Can probably solve all of that by switching off Javascript.