Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web(socpub.com)
socpub.com
Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web
https://www.socpub.com/articles/chris-graham-why-google-amp-threat-open-web-15847
75 comments
The tragedy of it is that web browsers have never been faster - it's just that websites insist on bloating, and bloating, and bloating. It's not unusual for modern websites to have literally megabytes of pointless JavaScript. (Reminder: Super Mario 64 weighs in at 8MB. The whole game.)
AMP strikes me as a clever technical solution to a problem that doesn't need a technical solution. It just needs restraint and better web development with existing standard technologies, and ideally a strong taboo on bloated web-sites.
See also two other technologies, the existences of which damn the web: Opera Mini (cloud rendering! and it's useful!), which can only exist for as long as the web is laughably inefficient, and Reader Mode, which improves modern web-design by removing it entirely.
AMP strikes me as a clever technical solution to a problem that doesn't need a technical solution. It just needs restraint and better web development with existing standard technologies, and ideally a strong taboo on bloated web-sites.
See also two other technologies, the existences of which damn the web: Opera Mini (cloud rendering! and it's useful!), which can only exist for as long as the web is laughably inefficient, and Reader Mode, which improves modern web-design by removing it entirely.
What people do when a website that goes popular on HN or Reddit is too slow or can't respond at all? Someone on the comments links to Google Cache and more often than not this js-less basic HTML snapshot is good enough.
AMP is just a way to do this properly and automatically. The Webdev community chooses to ignore the speed of the content delivery and Google seized the opportunity.
What can a modern webpage do for the user that 2008 webpage can't? For most of the web, the answer is nothing, all the improvements are about better tooling for the management(measure and monetize) of the webpage.
AMP is just a way to do this properly and automatically. The Webdev community chooses to ignore the speed of the content delivery and Google seized the opportunity.
What can a modern webpage do for the user that 2008 webpage can't? For most of the web, the answer is nothing, all the improvements are about better tooling for the management(measure and monetize) of the webpage.
"AMP is just a way to do this properly and automatically." I don't automatically dispute the second part of that statement, but the "properly" bit requires more than a handwave to prove its point.
Properly means properly for the user, that is, without the aesthetically breaking the page or losing content(as it happens with google cache sometimes).
Nobody cares about the business that runs the website, businesses don't have god given rights to get users and make money. If some other business serves the users better(i.e. Google with AMP) they can get all the users. Who felt sorry for MySpace when getting killed by Facebook or who advocated the right of having users for Digg when everyone moved to Reddit?
Another thing is being a monopoly and exploiting that position, which is always a concern with giants like Google but at this moment with AMP doesn't seem to be the case.
Nobody cares about the business that runs the website, businesses don't have god given rights to get users and make money. If some other business serves the users better(i.e. Google with AMP) they can get all the users. Who felt sorry for MySpace when getting killed by Facebook or who advocated the right of having users for Digg when everyone moved to Reddit?
Another thing is being a monopoly and exploiting that position, which is always a concern with giants like Google but at this moment with AMP doesn't seem to be the case.
If nobody cares about the businesses at the other end then one day you'll wake up to find that the only business left on the other side is Google, and then where will you turn?
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through
the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil
turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the
laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with
laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and
if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do
it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the
winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil
benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.[0]
How this changes the fact that nobody cares?
Uber is probably also a threat to the public(apparently the people who run Uber are not very nice, remember all the scandals?) but people are so fed up with the taxi industry that they welcoming Uber to "slaughter" their local cabbies.
It's just business and that's why we don't live in a libertarian world and we have government bodies that regulate businesses.
Uber is probably also a threat to the public(apparently the people who run Uber are not very nice, remember all the scandals?) but people are so fed up with the taxi industry that they welcoming Uber to "slaughter" their local cabbies.
It's just business and that's why we don't live in a libertarian world and we have government bodies that regulate businesses.
> It just needs restraint and better web development with existing standard technologies, and ideally a strong taboo on bloated web-sites.
Restraint can't appear out of nowhere, especially when bloating the website frequently works - more ad revenue, more information about existing visitors and potential new customers.
These needs won't just disappear, so yes, the problem needs a technical solution.
Restraint can't appear out of nowhere, especially when bloating the website frequently works - more ad revenue, more information about existing visitors and potential new customers.
These needs won't just disappear, so yes, the problem needs a technical solution.
Restraint can't appear out of nowhere, especially when bloating the website frequently works - more ad revenue, more information about existing visitors and potential new customers.
Rather than pushing for AMP, Google, Bing, etc. could just penalize websites (more heavily) for size in search rankings.
Rather than pushing for AMP, Google, Bing, etc. could just penalize websites (more heavily) for size in search rankings.
How this solves anything for the user? The better way is to provide the tech(AMP) so that content that is good for the user can be delivered properly instead of not delivered due to performance.
Remember, it's about providing a good experience to the users, it's not about choosing the losers and winners in the industry.
The taxi companies are making the same mistake against Uber, they assume that the users are an exploitable resource and want a solution that distributes this resource more "fairly to the businesses". From Uber's perspective, the users are the clientele and the resources are the cars and the drivers.
The web tech community is acting like the taxi drivers, angry that their user resource is being taken away.
Remember, it's about providing a good experience to the users, it's not about choosing the losers and winners in the industry.
The taxi companies are making the same mistake against Uber, they assume that the users are an exploitable resource and want a solution that distributes this resource more "fairly to the businesses". From Uber's perspective, the users are the clientele and the resources are the cars and the drivers.
The web tech community is acting like the taxi drivers, angry that their user resource is being taken away.
Measuring site speed and using that as an indicator does not preclude also providing tech (AMP) as a guidance for sites that need help with it, while rewarding those that already have fast and lean sites without it/giving them the freedom to not use AMP without negative impact.
> How this solves anything for the user?
Is it not obvious? It would motivate major websites to clean up their act and sort out the bloat problem, with no need for yet another web technology.
Is it not obvious? It would motivate major websites to clean up their act and sort out the bloat problem, with no need for yet another web technology.
That's a hypothesis that assumes that the major websites will get motivated until the users get frustrated by the low quality of search results.
With AMP it's cheap and quick to implement, how long will it take for the websites to re-implement their codebase and all the tooling to match the performance criteria?
Anyway, you're missing the point that I'm trying to make here: It's about the user's experience, it's not about the user's distribution to businesses.
It's not your god given right to have users and make money.
With AMP it's cheap and quick to implement, how long will it take for the websites to re-implement their codebase and all the tooling to match the performance criteria?
Anyway, you're missing the point that I'm trying to make here: It's about the user's experience, it's not about the user's distribution to businesses.
It's not your god given right to have users and make money.
It's more than a little cynical to assume that most of us only care because we want to make money or grow our business.
The way I see it, as people who have more knowledge about this domain than the average user, it's actively our responsibility to act in the best interest of the user (our parents, friends, etc.), even if said user might not appreciate or understand the effort.
In the same way that I appreciate, say, doctors actively working against stupid/pointless stuff (homeopathy, avoid vaccination), I appreciate IT people trying to think beyond the immediate convenience of AMP.
The way I see it, as people who have more knowledge about this domain than the average user, it's actively our responsibility to act in the best interest of the user (our parents, friends, etc.), even if said user might not appreciate or understand the effort.
In the same way that I appreciate, say, doctors actively working against stupid/pointless stuff (homeopathy, avoid vaccination), I appreciate IT people trying to think beyond the immediate convenience of AMP.
Good point, i’m also not THAT cynical but I don’t think that the web developers community as general has any integrity that resembles let’s say the medical community.
Maybe the developers themselves are more idealistic but the web based businesses themselves more often than not are quite exploitative towards the users and that’s we have this sorry state of the web in general.
Maybe the developers themselves are more idealistic but the web based businesses themselves more often than not are quite exploitative towards the users and that’s we have this sorry state of the web in general.
> assumes that the major websites will get motivated until the users get frustrated by the low quality of search results.
Fair point - changes to Google's rankings apply more pressure to small websites than to established ones.
> it's not about the user's distribution to businesses. It's not your god given right to have users and make money.
What?
Fair point - changes to Google's rankings apply more pressure to small websites than to established ones.
> it's not about the user's distribution to businesses. It's not your god given right to have users and make money.
What?
>What?
What?
What?
Well, what are you trying to say? Why are you telling me "It's not your god given right to have users and make money"?
Why do you think this has any connection to our conversation?
Why do you think this has any connection to our conversation?
Why do you think that web businesses are complaining about AMP but not the users? I'm yet to see a user that's not happy with AMP.
The web community acts as if the users are a commodity like oil and Google just made a change in its flow and now begging Google to make it flow like before to accommodate their business setup and promising that from now on they will be nicer to the commodity and store it in golden barrels.
I just don't buy it.
The web community acts as if the users are a commodity like oil and Google just made a change in its flow and now begging Google to make it flow like before to accommodate their business setup and promising that from now on they will be nicer to the commodity and store it in golden barrels.
I just don't buy it.
AMP sucks. I actively avoid it due to the inferior usability. Now never use that excuse ever again. Its not even a little honest.
> I'm yet to see a user that's not happy with AMP.
But you're talking to one.
> begging Google to make it flow like before
My understanding is that AMP doesn't necessarily impact ad revenues ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerated_Mobil... ). If it did, it wouldn't see adoption, no?
But you're talking to one.
> begging Google to make it flow like before
My understanding is that AMP doesn't necessarily impact ad revenues ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerated_Mobil... ). If it did, it wouldn't see adoption, no?
> I'm yet to see a user that's not happy with AMP.
I am a user; I do not develop for the the web or operate a business that has a web presence. I hate AMP. It gets in the way of my search workflow on mobile; it fucks up links that I want to save or share; I suspect that Google intends to further reduce my ability to avoid it over time.
I am a user; I do not develop for the the web or operate a business that has a web presence. I hate AMP. It gets in the way of my search workflow on mobile; it fucks up links that I want to save or share; I suspect that Google intends to further reduce my ability to avoid it over time.
I work for a publisher that zero ads. We have fast pages with minimal JS. We rolled out AMP purely for the SEO win and saw a huge uptick in traffic.
If Google really cared about performance they’d reward publishers doing the right thing on their regular pages (which would benefit the web as a whole), not just those using AMP.
If Google really cared about performance they’d reward publishers doing the right thing on their regular pages (which would benefit the web as a whole), not just those using AMP.
Yes, this is my exact same take on AMP.
I understand their problem, I understand their solution. I have nothing against their solution.
But I'm freaking out that there's absolutely no way for me to compete with websites that are trafficking everything through Google, even if I create a product that's speed-wise compatible with AMP pages.
I understand their problem, I understand their solution. I have nothing against their solution.
But I'm freaking out that there's absolutely no way for me to compete with websites that are trafficking everything through Google, even if I create a product that's speed-wise compatible with AMP pages.
Google should be penalising the actual problem - page weight, not building their walled garden.
So encouraging speed is ok to a point. Do they stop there and create AMP because Google is so invested in their ad ecosystem? Serious question, as it's hard not to feel cynical when the solution appears to avoid the actual problem. AMP seems a way of actively avoiding the issue.
It's so far beyond ridiculous that a website downloads from 30 domains, and pulls down so much JS that you have more code than an entire 16 bit OS, GUI and game, just to see one text only page.
So encouraging speed is ok to a point. Do they stop there and create AMP because Google is so invested in their ad ecosystem? Serious question, as it's hard not to feel cynical when the solution appears to avoid the actual problem. AMP seems a way of actively avoiding the issue.
It's so far beyond ridiculous that a website downloads from 30 domains, and pulls down so much JS that you have more code than an entire 16 bit OS, GUI and game, just to see one text only page.
If they did that, then all websites with ads will be deprioritized, and it would be obvious (if it weren't already) that ads create a shitty experience. Google probably doesn't want to highlight that.
Slow web sites shoot themselves in the foot. They need not be slow. My company develops high performance web sites. We can beat any AMP site you can find and we do it without CDNs or Google-like networks.
Like-minded thoughts: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2018/02/linkbait_37...
Like-minded thoughts: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2018/02/linkbait_37...
It's not a technical problem at all, and it's not the developers being bad.
If the top 1000ish sites can make millions a year from tacking on Outbrain, Taboola, etc. and the analytics to support those revenue streams, why do they care if the page speed is 3 seconds vs 500ms?
If the top 1000ish sites can make millions a year from tacking on Outbrain, Taboola, etc. and the analytics to support those revenue streams, why do they care if the page speed is 3 seconds vs 500ms?
The faster the site, the longer a visitor stays and the more likely they are to purchase. Even Google acknowledges that as well as many other sites that study such things. Sites don't gain income by just displaying an ad in many cases. You have to have visitors click on them and, often, make an actual purchase.
I don't blame Google for AMP. The industry could have come together to offer a better experience and speedier page load, but of course they didn't and preferred having countless scripts and poorly optimized ads and that translated into a poor experience for users.
This created an opportunity for Google to come in and offer this solution and now we're stuck.
This created an opportunity for Google to come in and offer this solution and now we're stuck.
To the contrary, one of the most frustrating things for me about AMP is Google's contributions to "the slow web".
They're not in any way the cause, not even a majority contributor, but look at Google's influence on frontend web development, from providing drop-in-with-zero-thought script CDN links, popularising the @font-face standard through their Web Fonts service to the point of its use being expected and non-optional in many web design teams, Google's terrible Page Speed tool favouring large complex pages over small simple ones, and the general cavalier "hey just paste this snippet of JS into your HTML, don't worry about what it does" attitude that things like GA have helped to make the norm.
They're not in any way the cause, not even a majority contributor, but look at Google's influence on frontend web development, from providing drop-in-with-zero-thought script CDN links, popularising the @font-face standard through their Web Fonts service to the point of its use being expected and non-optional in many web design teams, Google's terrible Page Speed tool favouring large complex pages over small simple ones, and the general cavalier "hey just paste this snippet of JS into your HTML, don't worry about what it does" attitude that things like GA have helped to make the norm.
> Websites are so extremely slow these days.
I must have extremely low standards, but I simply don't find this to be the case. A few, yes. The vast majority work fine.
I must have extremely low standards, but I simply don't find this to be the case. A few, yes. The vast majority work fine.
I have JS disabled and websites are not that slow for me.
I attempted to discuss related issues regarding AMP Email with @cramforce, the AMP tech lead, here: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/13457#issuecomm...
The discussion, if nothing else, sheds some degree of light on how the AMP tech lead sees the situation.
The discussion, if nothing else, sheds some degree of light on how the AMP tech lead sees the situation.
Genuine question: Why do people view AMP as a threat, whereas many Apple's formats/compatibility are non-standard? Is it because many accept privacy over openness?
Example: Apple news or iTunes or Messages
I think there's an element of them forcing an entirely new Google standard (then favouring it in their results) on to something they could just as easily punish (slow sites) directly.
Slow sites can be sped up quite often with small optimisations and improvements and those improvements can be guided by Google tools but instead they're forcing their own new format in the name of speed.
Slow sites can be sped up quite often with small optimisations and improvements and those improvements can be guided by Google tools but instead they're forcing their own new format in the name of speed.
My guess is that they are separate services which have always been that way and people can choose not to use them from the beginning.
Amp is different in that it sits in front of a lot of websites which used to work directly, it’s apples and oranges.
iTunes didn’t take over any existing service or stop you from doing something you could before on the web
iTunes didn’t take over any existing service or stop you from doing something you could before on the web
So then it's akamai or limelight, then. Still not a threat.
Open standard, opt-in free cdn, independent compatible alternatives; this does not sound like a hostile takeover of your freedom.
Open standard, opt-in free cdn, independent compatible alternatives; this does not sound like a hostile takeover of your freedom.
The thing is... if you don’t use Google’s libraries and opt in to Google’s broken UI on mobile (you no longer actually go to the website, you’re kept on a weird container that contains the website), you get a drop in Google’s search results. There are no independent compatible alternatives which do not get that drop.
Google controls ~80% of online search and ads. Apple controls ~30% of the smartphone market and 10% of the laptop/PC market.
Its the same reason why Apple never gets slapped with monopoly charges. You have the option of using Android for your phone (ignoring the fact that if you value your privacy you don’t) and Windows/Linux.
Its the same reason why Apple never gets slapped with monopoly charges. You have the option of using Android for your phone (ignoring the fact that if you value your privacy you don’t) and Windows/Linux.
You have the option of using Android for your phone
You can use the Apple News Format, but you can also use it to subscribe to standard RSS feeds.
iTunes has been selling non DRM music for a decade and you can transfer most purchased movies to other services using Movies Anywhere. The podcast directory is just that - a directory to podcast feeds. They don't host any of the podcast and provide an API.
Messages interoperare with standard SMS, MMS. You don't get all of the non standard features.
iTunes has been selling non DRM music for a decade and you can transfer most purchased movies to other services using Movies Anywhere. The podcast directory is just that - a directory to podcast feeds. They don't host any of the podcast and provide an API.
Messages interoperare with standard SMS, MMS. You don't get all of the non standard features.
Personally, because I don't use a single idevice and don't plan to. Any of apple's bullshit can't touch me. But google's amp is fucking up the web everywhere. On my Ubuntu/Win10 laptop, on my android phone, every device I use to access the web.
Fun to watch whataboutism move from politics into computing.
Personally I'm about as hostile to Apple News as I am to AMP for a lot of the same reasons. And I also don't love Apple's embrace & extend approach to SMS.
I guess there was a time when I was concerned about iTunes and DRM and the network effects of an Apple music ecosystem, but I mostly stopped buying stuff through iTMS that I could get elsewhere about a decade ago and then largely ditched iTunes somewhere around 5 years ago after Apple had spent so much time "revolutionizing" the UI that it became a shambling horror of a guessing game rather than an experience, and AFAICT these days there's plenty of ways to use Apple devices for listening to music without using any of their specific apps/services.
So, yeah, I'd guess there's probably a concerned audience that isn't exactly picking on Google while giving Apple a pass.
Personally I'm about as hostile to Apple News as I am to AMP for a lot of the same reasons. And I also don't love Apple's embrace & extend approach to SMS.
I guess there was a time when I was concerned about iTunes and DRM and the network effects of an Apple music ecosystem, but I mostly stopped buying stuff through iTMS that I could get elsewhere about a decade ago and then largely ditched iTunes somewhere around 5 years ago after Apple had spent so much time "revolutionizing" the UI that it became a shambling horror of a guessing game rather than an experience, and AFAICT these days there's plenty of ways to use Apple devices for listening to music without using any of their specific apps/services.
So, yeah, I'd guess there's probably a concerned audience that isn't exactly picking on Google while giving Apple a pass.
hungerstrike(2)
>The web community has stated over and over again that we’re not comfortable with Google incentivizing the use of AMP with search engine carrots. In response, Google has provided yet another search engine carrot for AMP.
This wouldn’t bother me if AMP was open about what it is: a tool for folks to optimize their search engine placement. But of course, that’s not the claim. The claim is that AMP is “for the open web.”
https://timkadlec.com/remembers/2018-02-14-the-two-faces-of-...
More: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2018/02/linkbait_37...
https://timkadlec.com/remembers/2018-02-14-the-two-faces-of-...
More: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2018/02/linkbait_37...
I think a large portion of the tech industry understands Google AMP is an undeniable threat to the open web. The question is: Is there anything that can be done to stop it?
There are many threats to the open web. For example, governments building firewalls. Lot of content locked up in walled gardens. The death of net neutrality.
Definitely one of the threats to the open web would be the web platform falling behind "native" platforms such as mobile platforms. 10 years ago it seemed that native apps are dead, the web is going to win. And then the rise of smartphones has brought us back to a world where we are forever installing native applications. From what i can see, attempts to make the web faster (SPDY, AMP), safer (Certificate Transparency), more open (AV1) are all initiatives i can get behind. The question is : What are other companies doing to ensure the web retains its place as the premier open content / application development platform.
Definitely one of the threats to the open web would be the web platform falling behind "native" platforms such as mobile platforms. 10 years ago it seemed that native apps are dead, the web is going to win. And then the rise of smartphones has brought us back to a world where we are forever installing native applications. From what i can see, attempts to make the web faster (SPDY, AMP), safer (Certificate Transparency), more open (AV1) are all initiatives i can get behind. The question is : What are other companies doing to ensure the web retains its place as the premier open content / application development platform.
Aren't all of the companies that we are usually associating with doing bad things for the web (Microsoft, Google, Apple) now also pushing PWAs on their platforms? Google seemed far ahead of the push, Microsoft and Apple are currently on the run to bring them to Edge and Safari, and Mozilla introduced them to mobile Firefox less than a month ago.
And isn't there more of an incentive towards structuring the web coming from these big players as well? Google and Microsoft (and Yandex) created Schema.org, and are all giving them a priority in this switch from search results to instant answers.
I guess my point is to say that the companies that are locking the web are somewhat playing on both fields and giving webmasters products that are truly improving the web as well. It's far from being a one-sided battle.
And isn't there more of an incentive towards structuring the web coming from these big players as well? Google and Microsoft (and Yandex) created Schema.org, and are all giving them a priority in this switch from search results to instant answers.
I guess my point is to say that the companies that are locking the web are somewhat playing on both fields and giving webmasters products that are truly improving the web as well. It's far from being a one-sided battle.
Of the IT giants, Google has the most to lose from a closed web. The rise of mobile apps and walled gardens is a direct threat to their search business model. So the argument that Google would threaten the open web seems strange, on purely selfish grounds.
AMP seems to be an attempt to keep the web relevant. In countries like India (where i live), most new users access the web via the mobile, and the experience can be far worse than in the west, and absent of initiatives such as AMP you will see a fall off in web usage in general. I am not sure how that helps the open web.
AMP seems to be an attempt to keep the web relevant. In countries like India (where i live), most new users access the web via the mobile, and the experience can be far worse than in the west, and absent of initiatives such as AMP you will see a fall off in web usage in general. I am not sure how that helps the open web.
How so? Google controls over 85% of the devices those mobile apps run on, and they sell ads through those apps as well.
Just consider the commercial web as a lost cause: this is the centralized, identity enabled network companies want.
Focus on the anonymous decentralized efforts to develop tools for the open web.
If most people don't care about their data and the security of the web, you can't make them.
If most people don't care about their data and the security of the web, you can't make them.
Welcome to internet hub 85.* Lighting access to the world's information.
* additional charges occur when accessing information outside from the Internet hub.
Internet hub only allows storing of information which the government approves. Storing unauthorised information on the internet hub will result in your biometric account being banned for life. Access to the rest of the internet is not affected.
* additional charges occur when accessing information outside from the Internet hub.
Internet hub only allows storing of information which the government approves. Storing unauthorised information on the internet hub will result in your biometric account being banned for life. Access to the rest of the internet is not affected.
The title and article feels like hyperbole:
As user, I love AMP. It is much faster and lighter. God knows what javascript is running behind those websites that drives my CPU usage to 100%.
As user, I love AMP. It is much faster and lighter. God knows what javascript is running behind those websites that drives my CPU usage to 100%.
As a user, I hate AMP: it breaks links, it breaks browser behaviour on mobile
This is particularly noticable on iOS- AMP pages break iOS' standard page scrolling ballistics, for some reason. It makes them feel non-native in a particularly egregious way.
Wasn't this a safari bug?
In a sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14386292
However, it was AMP team's conscious decision to implement handling of AMP the way they did: divs with overflow, hiding links etc.
However, it was AMP team's conscious decision to implement handling of AMP the way they did: divs with overflow, hiding links etc.
It's great that you love AMP. There were probably people who were happy with Ma Bell's phone service too. Monopolies usually deliver efficient service, at least for as long as they have to.
I miss the 'ads' part of AMP in the article? One of the main goals is to serve ads better/faster.
"The AMP Project is an open-source initiative aiming to make the web better for all. The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms."
"The AMP Project is an open-source initiative aiming to make the web better for all. The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms."
I spent yesterday creating an AMP portion of a website and it was a pain, I got it to a decent state but when I ran performance tests it wasn't that much better but the usability seemed to suffer. I'm not sure if it's worth it. The website's sole business purpose is to succeed in SEO so that's why I thought it might be worth doing (if it sends a signal to google). Since non-amp and amp are already getting high marks and loads very fast I rather not include amp if doesn't actually increase SERPs. If someone knows the facts here I'd love to know because I scrapped it and would prefer not to look back.
How can I see that someone visited my site if it's served by Google's cache?
If you use AMP, you can use amp-pixel for tracking. If you have content that automatically reloads (e.g. amp-live-list), this will also show up in your server logs.
I don't find user behaviour on amp harder to track than for non-amp pages. At least if you keep tracking to a reasonable level.
I don't find user behaviour on amp harder to track than for non-amp pages. At least if you keep tracking to a reasonable level.
tyler_larson(2)
Not allowing you to directly contact people you know or work with is a feature not a bug.</s>
Welcome to the world where Google intermediates all your future communication. No doubt for your own good.
Welcome to the world where Google intermediates all your future communication. No doubt for your own good.
From users perspective, when I see the lightning icon on my search results I feel happy because it means that the page will show me it's contents as soon as I click it.
It means that the website is not going to show me white page for 15 seconds then start jumping around, changing shape and position for another 30 seconds until everything is downloaded.
I hear all the ethical/economical/strategic concerns but the tech community resembles the taxi industry a bit, that is, claiming that a tech that improves users experience significantly is bad for the user and must be stopped politically instead of addressing the UX issue that allows this tech to exist in first place.