Google Creates 'Dedicated Placement' in Search Results for AMP Stories(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
Google Creates 'Dedicated Placement' in Search Results for AMP Stories
https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/09/google-creates-dedicated-placement-in-search-results-for-amp-stories-starting-with-travel-category/
203 comments
Basically, because it isn't actually possible to make a website that loads in under 100ms on poor connections any other way. For reference, on the fast university wifi I am currently connected to, news.ycombinator.com loads in 499ms. When I switch to my phone's hotspot, that rises to 2.38 seconds, and on a simulated slow 3G network, that rises to 6.51 seconds. I haven't tested a 2G connection in India, but wouldn't be surprised if it exceeds 10 seconds. Hacker News is not a heavy webpage, in fact, it is probably about as lightweight a webpage as is reasonably possible to create.
The key technique that AMP promises will beat the limits of network latency is precaching. Unfortunately, users have a strong privacy expectation that random websites will not be notified that you are interested in them until you actually click the link in search results (or news, or whatever). For precaching to work without violating user privacy, the data needs to be loaded from some server that already knows that the link was shown to you, so there is no privacy violation from giving it that information. AMP's solution is for the host company of the results page to fill that role.
The AMP lightning bolt is intended to mean "this page is already downloaded offline on your device, and so will load instantly", not just "this page is well-designed and fast". The difference is minor for blazing fast connections, but that isn't true for developing world users with weak connections and devices.
Google has said that when open web standards like Web Packaging finally show up which enable the same safe preloading behavior, those sites will be included in AMP carousels. We'll see whether they follow through with that. [1] [2]
* All experiments conducted with cache disabled, times are until Load event fires.
[1] https://blog.amp.dev/2018/03/08/standardizing-lessons-learne...
[2] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/contributi...
The key technique that AMP promises will beat the limits of network latency is precaching. Unfortunately, users have a strong privacy expectation that random websites will not be notified that you are interested in them until you actually click the link in search results (or news, or whatever). For precaching to work without violating user privacy, the data needs to be loaded from some server that already knows that the link was shown to you, so there is no privacy violation from giving it that information. AMP's solution is for the host company of the results page to fill that role.
The AMP lightning bolt is intended to mean "this page is already downloaded offline on your device, and so will load instantly", not just "this page is well-designed and fast". The difference is minor for blazing fast connections, but that isn't true for developing world users with weak connections and devices.
Google has said that when open web standards like Web Packaging finally show up which enable the same safe preloading behavior, those sites will be included in AMP carousels. We'll see whether they follow through with that. [1] [2]
* All experiments conducted with cache disabled, times are until Load event fires.
[1] https://blog.amp.dev/2018/03/08/standardizing-lessons-learne...
[2] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/contributi...
Poor connections are a bit irrelevant though for the purposes of ranking URLs by page load time. Presumably whatever bot google would use would have an extremely fast connection, so if the bot loads it faster than X where X is reasonably selected, then it could be considered "fast". Percentiles might make even more sense here -- if the page is in the top 5% of all pages in terms of short loading time, then it is "fast".
This is the most well-informed comment about AMP I've ever read.
Disclosure: I work on AMP.
Disclosure: I work on AMP.
> Disclosure: I work on AMP.
Do you all just not think about the long-term implications of what you're building? It's going to destroy the open WWW.
Web publishers (and other people who are paying attention) don't want AMP or Portals, but they are being strong-armed into it under threat of losing their traffic.
Do you all just not think about the long-term implications of what you're building? It's going to destroy the open WWW.
Web publishers (and other people who are paying attention) don't want AMP or Portals, but they are being strong-armed into it under threat of losing their traffic.
They do, they're just arrogant and believe they're right. And there's no one to stop them.
The problem is, Google is using its monopoly to strong-arm publishers into using a sub-par technology that harms their brand and reduces their income.
And the worst thing is, without these publishers, Google would have no content and therefore no value.
Yes, sub-100ms is attractive. But what do you compromise to achieve that goal?
Who pays the price? Publishers who are already struggling, so that the only content on the web becomes content farm affiliate sales shit?
And the worst thing is, without these publishers, Google would have no content and therefore no value.
Yes, sub-100ms is attractive. But what do you compromise to achieve that goal?
Who pays the price? Publishers who are already struggling, so that the only content on the web becomes content farm affiliate sales shit?
Would you say that the majority of design decisions at Google in recent times have been in relation to the idea of building services towards developing countries/economies where infrastructure is not necessarily as well developed, tailoring it towards those few billion soon-to-be newly connected people who previously have never had access to the internet before?
I don’t really follow what’s going on with larger Google. AMP team specifically has a collection of older phones that we test on to remember that we’re making decisions for low end devices common in other parts of the world.
Caches disabled... The browser caches things for a reason. I understand disabling caches to measure the network performance. However, that does entirely give a clear picture. If your wanting things you have already visited to load instantly it's hard to beat the browsers own caches.
The first thing that effects page time is network latency and there is no getting around that. AMP may help because google has lots of servers that may be closer, but if the underlying network is slow. AMP will still be slow.
Also the next thing is frame size. If the network path has high latency, but the ability push large frames you can send more per request. This is where things like inlining can help. It also reduces the request number.
AMP can't get rid the properties of the network. It's also generally the last mile that is slow not back bone.
-edit- I find it interesting that the github link provided mentions portals are for "AMP Carousel like UI with navigation to publisher (alternative to iframe promotion)"
The first thing that effects page time is network latency and there is no getting around that. AMP may help because google has lots of servers that may be closer, but if the underlying network is slow. AMP will still be slow.
Also the next thing is frame size. If the network path has high latency, but the ability push large frames you can send more per request. This is where things like inlining can help. It also reduces the request number.
AMP can't get rid the properties of the network. It's also generally the last mile that is slow not back bone.
-edit- I find it interesting that the github link provided mentions portals are for "AMP Carousel like UI with navigation to publisher (alternative to iframe promotion)"
It simply isn't true that there is no getting around network latency. For example, when I tap an image in a Facebook feed in their app, the story actually does load instantly, regardless of how slow my network is, because it is already downloaded on my device. It may even work offline. AMP is an attempt to match that performance with web pages.
Sure, none of this is true if the user manually types into the address bar, but most web navigation isn't done that way.
Sure, none of this is true if the user manually types into the address bar, but most web navigation isn't done that way.
You can already tell browser to preload content without AMP.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Preloading...
You can also prefetch.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe...
Also preloading/pre-fetching does not get around latency. It just changes when it happens.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Preloading...
You can also prefetch.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe...
Also preloading/pre-fetching does not get around latency. It just changes when it happens.
HAL, earlier in the thread:
> Unfortunately, users have a strong privacy expectation that random websites will not be notified that you are interested in them until you actually click the link in search results (or news, or whatever). For precaching to work without violating user privacy, the data needs to be loaded from some server that already knows that the link was shown to you, so there is no privacy violation from giving it that information. AMP's solution is for the host company of the results page to fill that role.
> Unfortunately, users have a strong privacy expectation that random websites will not be notified that you are interested in them until you actually click the link in search results (or news, or whatever). For precaching to work without violating user privacy, the data needs to be loaded from some server that already knows that the link was shown to you, so there is no privacy violation from giving it that information. AMP's solution is for the host company of the results page to fill that role.
>Unfortunately, users have a strong privacy expectation that random websites will not be notified that you are interested in them until you actually click the link in search results
I'm not sure that this is actually true, at least for the vast majority of users.
I'm not sure that this is actually true, at least for the vast majority of users.
You can disable or enable in firefox. However if users do have strong privacy preferences what makes it okay for AMP to do that. At least a browser setting the user can configure.
And in firefox I can enable or disable pre-fetching/preloading not sure about chrome.
However, if the user has disabled pre-fetching what makes it okay for AMP to do it?
However, if the user has disabled pre-fetching what makes it okay for AMP to do it?
So they used clever tricks to get around network latency, but there was still latency in the transaction at some point.
Saying there they removed latency is like saying they’ve removed the speed of light. Didn’t happen, they just preload content for you, because in you’re case, it’s possible to do so.
Saying there they removed latency is like saying they’ve removed the speed of light. Didn’t happen, they just preload content for you, because in you’re case, it’s possible to do so.
That latency and network slowness still exists. It’s just being hidden from you.
It’s disingenuous to compare AMP style loading with a normal page visit and say “AMP is faster”; if I could preload my webpage before you click on it, it would be faster to load as well! That doesn’t actually mean the website is any faster.
It’s disingenuous to compare AMP style loading with a normal page visit and say “AMP is faster”; if I could preload my webpage before you click on it, it would be faster to load as well! That doesn’t actually mean the website is any faster.
> That doesn’t actually mean the website is any faster.
It is perceived as faster by the users, and that's the only standard of speed that users really care about.
It is perceived as faster by the users, and that's the only standard of speed that users really care about.
There also a disadvantage to pre-fetching/preloading data. For users with data caps it wastes data on something they may never view.
The dumb thing is that for me AMP doesn't even work. It doesn't seem to reliably preload.
It's possible that it's an artifact of some browser extensions or something, or it could be they just messed up the implementation (or that some heuristic is trading off bandwidth and latency). Implementing things is hard, and Google certainly didn't get AMP perfectly right. Hopefully the standardization efforts will be able to learn from the experience they have deploying at scale.
Preloading is downloading data that you didn't actively request. It's a tradeoff between data usage vs latency so those users on limited connections might end up paying more in data vs saving a few seconds in load time.
> Why doesn't Google treat all websites that load under 100ms at par with an AMP site?
Because then it wouldn't be a wedge anymore.
Because then it wouldn't be a wedge anymore.
Google Search loads AMP pages from Google AMP Cache. It doesn’t matter how fast a website is. Google needs the assurance that it gets by loading content from their own servers.
(I don’t work at Google. I’m just guessing.)
(I don’t work at Google. I’m just guessing.)
I hold the people developing this personally accountable for its negative impact on the web.
Each developer’s role is just small enough so they feel powerless or don’t recognize the larger impact of their work.
If you were paid to work on this, you are either wilfully ignorant or morally corrupt. Sure, this is only a small loss for the open web. But Google is a factory for small losses for the open web. I hope the pay is worth it!
Each developer’s role is just small enough so they feel powerless or don’t recognize the larger impact of their work.
If you were paid to work on this, you are either wilfully ignorant or morally corrupt. Sure, this is only a small loss for the open web. But Google is a factory for small losses for the open web. I hope the pay is worth it!
> If you were paid to work on this, you are either wilfully ignorant or morally corrupt.
I'm not a fan of AMP, but this is way over the top.
I'm not a fan of AMP, but this is way over the top.
No, why would it be? All those people working for Facebook, Google all the other companies abusing our privacy are making a ton of money and we're all paying the costs.
Why should we tolerate that? They are worthy of contempt.
Why should we tolerate that? They are worthy of contempt.
There are people on this very website who have vehemently defended software that decides whether some person needs to be killed with a missile from a drone. That have defended and encouraged companies like Google to help military kill foreigners, countrymen and countrywomen of many people visiting this site.
And AMP, a restricted web standard, is that's "worth of contempt"? Please, please, take a step back and think of it for a moment.
And AMP, a restricted web standard, is that's "worth of contempt"? Please, please, take a step back and think of it for a moment.
It's totally unreasonable to expect people to uproot their lives to protest web services that don't even honestly do anything that bad. Are you certain your company never does anything questionable? You better quit and go live on a commune just to be safe.
If a company's expecting to be fined 5 billion dollars, it's pretty certain that it did something bad.
And I don't think that one would have to uproot their lives, just quit and find another job. I hear there's a very strong market for FAANG engineers...
And I don't think that one would have to uproot their lives, just quit and find another job. I hear there's a very strong market for FAANG engineers...
Agreed, I wouldn't single out this move or people, for harsh criticism that should be spread much more widely.
In the context of everything that's been happening with the Web, this move is relatively minor, and you can easily imagine a rationale for it (which involves an implicit "we're the good guys, so it's OK").
Our industry has been an amped-up (ha) sociopathic echo chamber for too long, and there's no longer much reference points for earlier Internet and Web visions of what's good and appropriate.
I think Google's founders had some sense of the earlier ideas, and that's where we originally got things like fair objective rankings, and Don't Be Evil.
In the context of everything that's been happening with the Web, this move is relatively minor, and you can easily imagine a rationale for it (which involves an implicit "we're the good guys, so it's OK").
Our industry has been an amped-up (ha) sociopathic echo chamber for too long, and there's no longer much reference points for earlier Internet and Web visions of what's good and appropriate.
I think Google's founders had some sense of the earlier ideas, and that's where we originally got things like fair objective rankings, and Don't Be Evil.
> If you were paid to work on this, you are either wilfully ignorant or morally corrupt.
I think the ignorance comes from living in a bubble. It's hard to notice the bubble when you're inside of it, and programmers get manipulated too.
Like someone else in the thread mentioned, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I think the ignorance comes from living in a bubble. It's hard to notice the bubble when you're inside of it, and programmers get manipulated too.
Like someone else in the thread mentioned, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
It seems like Google thinks of the web as "their thing". Just like Facebook owns Facebook and Amazon owns Amazon, it seems Google wants to own the web and turn it into Google.
Amp pages are similar to a Page on Facebook or an Article on Amazon. The author is limited to what the platform allows. And the visitors stay on the platform.
I wonder how that will turn out for Google.
I wonder how that will turn out for the web.
Amp pages are similar to a Page on Facebook or an Article on Amazon. The author is limited to what the platform allows. And the visitors stay on the platform.
I wonder how that will turn out for Google.
I wonder how that will turn out for the web.
I think that all of this: AMP, AMP Stories, mini apps[0] and recently announced Portals is a road to create behavior and ecosystem similar to WeChat where user can do as many things as possible without leaving the app. The problem is that google doesn't have popular chat app, but hey... they have incredibly popular search engine..
[0] https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/08/googles-mini-apps-are-app...
[0] https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/08/googles-mini-apps-are-app...
Partly yes. The end goal is most likely to merge everything. An assistant led ambient web. Completely device- and platform-agnostic. Domains and source of information will move to the background and fluid visual and voice information will appear where and when it‘s requested or guessed.
Further away I can see devices completely disappearing. Surfaces of all kinds, contact lenses serve as information overlays. Eventually the physical world and that information layer might become indistinguishable and just sort of combine to create the new reality.
/complete guesswork
Further away I can see devices completely disappearing. Surfaces of all kinds, contact lenses serve as information overlays. Eventually the physical world and that information layer might become indistinguishable and just sort of combine to create the new reality.
/complete guesswork
The open WWW is one of the greatest things that humans have achieved, and Google is in the process of destroying it. It looks like the goal is to replace the Web with their own product where ads and tracking can't be blocked, and fewer people leave Google's servers.
This new replacement for the Web will only fully work in Google Chrome, because Google is abandoning true web standards with things like AMP and Portals. (Being forced to include Google's JavaScript in your web pages under threat of losing your traffic is not a real web standard.)
The bulk of what is published online will have Google's visual branding (Material Design), and you might never leave Google's servers (as a user) or be able to fully control your own tech stack (as a publisher).
AMP is a vicious attack on the open Web and a completely unethical power grab. This is why one company shouldn't control the browser, the search engine, and the operating system at the same time.
This new replacement for the Web will only fully work in Google Chrome, because Google is abandoning true web standards with things like AMP and Portals. (Being forced to include Google's JavaScript in your web pages under threat of losing your traffic is not a real web standard.)
The bulk of what is published online will have Google's visual branding (Material Design), and you might never leave Google's servers (as a user) or be able to fully control your own tech stack (as a publisher).
AMP is a vicious attack on the open Web and a completely unethical power grab. This is why one company shouldn't control the browser, the search engine, and the operating system at the same time.
You can't really build anything just for the good of the world and not expect that sooner or later the corporate vultures will swoop in to take over. Google is rapidly becoming a cancer on the web, and I sincerely hope that these monopolist tendencies will end up being smashed to bits by the regulatory hammer.
I’m considering adding a popup to ?amp=1 visitors that educates/warns them that google is hijacking their browsing experience.
This also makes it more obvious why google is trying to create this new portal tag. They don't won't people leaving google at all.
Link to discussion on the proposed portal tag. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19866584
Link to discussion on the proposed portal tag. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19866584
Can't edit any more, but it's not even a guess any more.
https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/contributi...
https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/contributi...
I'm happily contrarian. can anyone state a positive spin on this story?
Damn Google you are nasty and getting nastier every day. Flutter is yet another wedge you are trying to sneak into developers toolkits, although I don't think it's going to catch on. Developers are becoming wise to what's at stake.
I just want Google to acknowledge WHY they do stuff like this instead of an incompetent attempt to distract users with WHAT or HOW. AMP is clearly designed to keep internet users within Google's membrane because the default AMP cache most people are hitting is Google's. Sure, its faster then many types of websites but that is only a side affect of the system not its primary purpose or feature. Google execs are not excited or bullish about AMP because of performance gains. Talk about the real reasons if you want to have integrity.
They do it to make money, but being that honest makes them sound like an amoral entity motivated almost solely by greed (which they are).
I'm looking forward to antitrust action being taken against Google due to trying to lock publishers into AMP.
At this point, I suspect Google execs know it's inevitable, and figure the more lock-in they can build with standards now, before it happens, the harder it will be to meaningful strip Google's power.
What do you mean? The government has managed to break up any monopoly since: Think of Standard oil or Bell corp.
Computers are magic though.
The government cannot afford paying someone who actually understands computers. That someone would already be in Silicon Valley, not wanting to work for the government. Funny how things work
You've spent too long in the bubble. People outside of norcal can understand computers too. Many of them even work for the federal government outside of policy roles.
Not everyone is looking to uproot their lives, move to a crowded, overpriced city and sell their soul to adtech, all for a few more dollars, ya know?
Not everyone is looking to uproot their lives, move to a crowded, overpriced city and sell their soul to adtech, all for a few more dollars, ya know?
I worked govt 10 years ago and this was 100% true then. Recently I made a (foolish) attempt to return to govt contracting and was shocked, SHOCKED, when they discussed Docker as a requirement and Kubernetes supported deployments as a nice-to-have.
I’m worried that antitrust action legitimizes Google as synonymous with the Internet. I’d rather see Google continue their race to the bottom and join the likes of CompuServe/AOL. It’s only a matter of time before competing services make Google irrelevant. It was hard to fathom 10-15 years ago that someone could come along and challenge them. Now as they take more and more measures like AMP it feels like it is ripe for someone to come along and make Google’s results feel like the new AltaVista/Yahoo in comparison.
The Internet is vast and wide and the lens through Google/Twitter/Facebook, et al, which many see it is getting foggy. A time will come when we look back at this era and see it as the growing pains from the massive transition to a globally connected world.
The Internet is vast and wide and the lens through Google/Twitter/Facebook, et al, which many see it is getting foggy. A time will come when we look back at this era and see it as the growing pains from the massive transition to a globally connected world.
[deleted]
After switching to DDG few years ago, I used google search again for the first time in a while was surprised How bad their search has become. Not because it’s not good, it’s still better than DDG at certain things, but because the results have been crowded out by so much junk.
There were so many ads, snippets, did you also means, and AMP widgets that there was only room for about eight actual search results.
How have they let their core product get so lost?
There were so many ads, snippets, did you also means, and AMP widgets that there was only room for about eight actual search results.
How have they let their core product get so lost?
Google realizes their biggest loss leader is directing customers off of their website to other websites, so the best way to turn a profit is to either keep users on the site (snippets, calculators[0], amp) or to send them to other sites for a price via ads.
0: https://goo.gl/search/right+rectangular+pyramid+calc:+find+A
0: https://goo.gl/search/right+rectangular+pyramid+calc:+find+A
Except that people will stop using google if it can’t help them find useful information. Google’s leadership seems to not understand or not care about how the internet works
I think it's highly naive to suggest that Google's leadership is operating in complete ignorance of their own product. This is the company of analytics - whatever approach is being taken is probably backed by a gargantuan amount of data.
That doesn't mean it's good for the web, but "what (the most) users want" is Google's strong point. And this is par for the "the internet is now 4 websites" course, so I don't think it's possible to claim that this isn't "how the internet works" anymore.
That doesn't mean it's good for the web, but "what (the most) users want" is Google's strong point. And this is par for the "the internet is now 4 websites" course, so I don't think it's possible to claim that this isn't "how the internet works" anymore.
If they are operating on top of a mountain of data, then they have a problem (what honestly would be good, even too good to believe).
People are not the memoryless automata that statistics handles best. People react positively to a bad change up to a point where they don't anymore, you don't even need to keep changing to trigger this.
People are not the memoryless automata that statistics handles best. People react positively to a bad change up to a point where they don't anymore, you don't even need to keep changing to trigger this.
I really hope you're right, but who's to say Google might not be one of the few that manages to correctly figure out how far they can go based on their historically unprecedented amount of data? I wouldn't rely on it, either way.
>This is the company of analytics - whatever approach is being taken is probably backed by a gargantuan amount of data.
Take a look outside your window. Have you understood quantum physics yet? No? I guess all of the available data doesn't help you, because it still requires effort and careful observation to glean insights from it.
The same goes for Google. Data by itself does not guarantee anything. You can look at a piece of data and not reach any conclusion, or reach the wrong conclusion. More data does not mean more insight.
In my field (biology) we are suddenly drowning in data - we are producing new datasets much faster than we can analyze them. Our understanding is not increasing at a commensurate pace because we lack the ability to turn these data into useful knowledge.
Take a look outside your window. Have you understood quantum physics yet? No? I guess all of the available data doesn't help you, because it still requires effort and careful observation to glean insights from it.
The same goes for Google. Data by itself does not guarantee anything. You can look at a piece of data and not reach any conclusion, or reach the wrong conclusion. More data does not mean more insight.
In my field (biology) we are suddenly drowning in data - we are producing new datasets much faster than we can analyze them. Our understanding is not increasing at a commensurate pace because we lack the ability to turn these data into useful knowledge.
I don't think it's "what users want" as much as it's "what makes the most money out of the things that we can convince users to want". And "what can we manipulate our engineers into believing about what they are building so that they won't protest".
The thing about data is it only tells you about the past.
The unfortunate truth is that even as I do my level best to use another search engine, DuckDuckGo most recently, I still find myself disappointed and trying the Google results at least half the time.
I still think Google today isn’t as good as Google 10+ years ago, but I don’t think anything is as good as Google 10+ years ago. They don’t have to be flawless, they just have to be better than the rest, and they are. I settle for DuckDuckGo when I can, but when the results matter, I’ll still end up using Google.
I still think Google today isn’t as good as Google 10+ years ago, but I don’t think anything is as good as Google 10+ years ago. They don’t have to be flawless, they just have to be better than the rest, and they are. I settle for DuckDuckGo when I can, but when the results matter, I’ll still end up using Google.
Yeah, I'm on DDG but not too infrequently (particularly with news search) I find myself wondering why I can't find what I'm looking for before remembering to try !g and lo and behold Google is able to pull up what I'm looking for.
That might've been true in the past when the internet was still young and there wasn't as much data around to monopolize. Look at the history of the auto industry to see how the development of a new tech industry plays out long term. To be overly reductive, thousands of companies got distilled to GM + Ford (like Google + Facebook).
Data is the most valuable commodity today. The mountain of data and network effects Google has cultivated ensure they will remain on top for the foreseeable future. It's similar to the crazy expensive industrial supply chains that manufacturers in the past leaned on to maintain their market position. No other company (outside maybe Facebook/Amazon) has that kind of a data moat.
Data is the most valuable commodity today. The mountain of data and network effects Google has cultivated ensure they will remain on top for the foreseeable future. It's similar to the crazy expensive industrial supply chains that manufacturers in the past leaned on to maintain their market position. No other company (outside maybe Facebook/Amazon) has that kind of a data moat.
It depends. Most people, only want the answer to the “question” they typed. And if that is answered in a widget, cloaking the original content, they don’t care. That’s what google realized.
Earlier today I wanted to search for info concerning whether a person had to turn in everything they found in the street. Which one returned any relevant results?
Bing: https://www.bing.com/search?q=do+i+have+to+turn+in+everythin...
Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=do+i+have+to+turn+in+everyth...
Bing: https://www.bing.com/search?q=do+i+have+to+turn+in+everythin...
Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=do+i+have+to+turn+in+everyth...
Wow... that's the single, most impressive thing I've seen supporting the use of Bing over Google...
So, Google better get the right answer every time. Because when they were only pointing to a larger knowledge base, people understood that they should search a bit for their answer, but if they show it on a Google frame, it better be correct.
Funny thing is that I moved to DDG because Google couldn't reliably guess my answers, and I am satisfied with an engine that tries to guess to a much larger extent. This is because DDG guesses are better, and they don't hide the web results so I can fall back to them.
Funny thing is that I moved to DDG because Google couldn't reliably guess my answers, and I am satisfied with an engine that tries to guess to a much larger extent. This is because DDG guesses are better, and they don't hide the web results so I can fall back to them.
Indeed! I too was slapped with this when I did a recent Google search. I had to wade through a ton of what I’d call “story cards” - I.e. a square around some story Google wanted to highlight. I couldn’t get to the actual results until half way down the page.
Luckily, DuckDuckGo has been improving and now it’s even what I recommend to non-technical people; as I never use “!g” any more.
Luckily, DuckDuckGo has been improving and now it’s even what I recommend to non-technical people; as I never use “!g” any more.
Really dislike those story cards.
They get in the way of actual results, steal traffic from the sites the content is from and don’t deliver enough information to be useful. Not once has a story card provided what I needed.
They get in the way of actual results, steal traffic from the sites the content is from and don’t deliver enough information to be useful. Not once has a story card provided what I needed.
Same here but I wanted to add that search is at par 100% on the main search tab. Almost identical but less ads on DDG. Not sure about the images, they seem to just be different images. Google is better at news search. That's the only place I've noticed DDG not being as good at. But DDG is FAR superior as a user experience IMO because of the bangs https://duckduckgo.com/bang
My only issue with DDG (which doesn’t stop me using it) is if you turn off safe search (eg to prevent false positive blocks for something you want to find) holy shit does a lot of porn show up - for completely non-sexual terms.
I’m a big boy, I’m not offended by most of it (the frequency of bizarre Simpson’s porn is a little weird) but it’s somewhat weird the way it appears.
I searched for “power Mac case door”, all fine (with safe search off), as you’d expect. Change “type” to gif, expecting to see images of the hinged door on the g3/g4 series... oh wow that’s a lot of porn. And lots of other weird unrelated stuff.
I’m a big boy, I’m not offended by most of it (the frequency of bizarre Simpson’s porn is a little weird) but it’s somewhat weird the way it appears.
I searched for “power Mac case door”, all fine (with safe search off), as you’d expect. Change “type” to gif, expecting to see images of the hinged door on the g3/g4 series... oh wow that’s a lot of porn. And lots of other weird unrelated stuff.
It seems that "gif" is bound strongly to "animated gif" which is bound more strongly to porn than other image types, possibly due to Tubmlr.
If you just click the image tab, things look fine.
FWIW, when I search for "power Mac case door" on Google, I only get crap above the fold. I have to scroll before I get to the results, scrolling one page only gets me to the first two results.
If you just click the image tab, things look fine.
FWIW, when I search for "power Mac case door" on Google, I only get crap above the fold. I have to scroll before I get to the results, scrolling one page only gets me to the first two results.
> “power Mac case door”
I have the same results for animated gifs with safe search off, but I think it’s more because of the presence of “power” or “mac” in so many of these gifs or related pages, compared to the number of gifs of computer related stuff.
Put it another way, I think these are legit results, and not false positives or usurping the search terms.
I have the same results for animated gifs with safe search off, but I think it’s more because of the presence of “power” or “mac” in so many of these gifs or related pages, compared to the number of gifs of computer related stuff.
Put it another way, I think these are legit results, and not false positives or usurping the search terms.
This is probably why people tend to think google search sucks. It's probably true that most search terms are not going to give you want you want to see. Google disregards the precise terms because they aren't useful to search for, and instead tries to understand the intent of your search.
For nerds, this makes google search suck, because they still construct search queries they way they did in 2000 (that's me too). For most people, it makes google search magically good compared to what they would get from a more "precise" search engine.
For nerds, this makes google search suck, because they still construct search queries they way they did in 2000 (that's me too). For most people, it makes google search magically good compared to what they would get from a more "precise" search engine.
Do you find false positives after turning the filter off?
In the example search the first two “pages” of image results (with the adult filter off) have no actual matches for what I wanted - two contain laptops I think.
I have been using startpage.com. I find it even better than ddg. It feels as google used to a few years ago.
Startpage is just anonymized Google search right? Or did I miss a change to their service?
Correct
>You can’t beat Google when it comes to online search. So we’re paying them to use their brilliant search results in order to remove all trackers and logs.
https://www.startpage.com/
Still has ads -- but a sweet UI. Great find!
>You can’t beat Google when it comes to online search. So we’re paying them to use their brilliant search results in order to remove all trackers and logs.
https://www.startpage.com/
Still has ads -- but a sweet UI. Great find!
I tried DDG in the past for privacy reasons but struggled due to poor results. Recently I switched to DDG because of poor results on Google. On certain controversial subjects, Google seems to how filtered out many results for political or advertiser pressure reasons. Even on non political results, the wrong sorts of sites seems to be pushed to the top.
That is because DDG is not a real search engine, since they do not index the web (at least by the 2019 meaning of the word). Unless you are search in Russian, DDG is basically Bing search results.
Unfortunately if you're a long way from ddg servers it's many seconds longer than Google to load, making it a poor proposition in many parts of the world (southern Africa for example)
I switched to Firefox and use the dedicated search widget with bing as the default. It’s only a couple clicks to repeat a search on google. I’m fairly happy.
Google search has definitely gone down hill IMO because I find bing to be close enough in quality now that I don’t find myself searching on google a lot.
Google search has definitely gone down hill IMO because I find bing to be close enough in quality now that I don’t find myself searching on google a lot.
>for about eight actual search results.
judging from what I understand of how people use Google, it looks more than enough.
judging from what I understand of how people use Google, it looks more than enough.
This is a good reminder for me to switch my default search engine to DDG again.
I try it every few months for a week or so and then switch back to Big G when I find DDG isn't right for the types of searches I need.
I look forward to the day when I forget to switch back to Google.
I try it every few months for a week or so and then switch back to Big G when I find DDG isn't right for the types of searches I need.
I look forward to the day when I forget to switch back to Google.
Same! I just did a test search, and the results seem much more relevant than ~1 year ago (last time I tried)
Just switched thanks to this recommendation. DDG looks very clean and functional. Thank you
Also "people also searched for" (which can be tricky to uBlock), which is about 80% of the reason I prefer DDG these days.
>How have they let their core product get so lost?
Search is not their core product. Google is an advertising company, and everything they do is centered around that.
Search is not their core product. Google is an advertising company, and everything they do is centered around that.
Shame on Venturebeat for reporting Googles’s messaging on this without as much as mentioning the criticism AMP has been met with, or how this makes it even more problematic.
I for the life of me don't understand how any Google AMP engineers can bother defending this anymore. A couple weeks ago there was an AMP article related to using real, source URLs, and a bunch of engineers from Google posted in defense.
This is absolutely Google trying to dictate what the web should be. If the US had functional antitrust authorities they would kill this.
This is absolutely Google trying to dictate what the web should be. If the US had functional antitrust authorities they would kill this.
“I for the life of me don't understand how any Google AMP engineers can bother defending this anymore”
Got to justify that google pay check. Mostly to themselves, helps to do it out loud.
Got to justify that google pay check. Mostly to themselves, helps to do it out loud.
Upton Sinclair, circa 1900:
>It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
True 100 years ago, true today.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
>It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
True 100 years ago, true today.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
If anything got me to stop using google it would be amp, it’s such a trash experience. It makes me click multiple times and load the content multiple times before I can get to what I want.
When you're working day to day you tend to lose sight of the bigger picture and only focus on the problem you're trying to solve and either let your managers mostly decide what problems you will solve, or just work to get "features" implemented for promotional reasons.
I don't accept this excuse. Google engineers are smart people. It's not like they are not aware of what they are building.
with the exception of the very few people who know how to manage upwards, when you are the bottom rung of the totem pole org chart (and i'm not talking about developer or engineer levels), you have zero say over what comes down from 2 or 3 levels above you.
I'm not suggesting they have 'say' over it. I'm saying they are aware of what they're building, and they're choosing to be complicit in it. I don't know if you can easily move to a different project within Google, but they certainly don't have to work at Google if they disagreed with it.
> I for the life of me don't understand how any Google AMP engineers can bother defending this anymore.
The narrative is “we develop an open standard that is widely adopted, and we’re not responsible for what people do with it”.
The team lead, @cramforce will also tell you tgat AMP is good for tge web.
The narrative is “we develop an open standard that is widely adopted, and we’re not responsible for what people do with it”.
The team lead, @cramforce will also tell you tgat AMP is good for tge web.
stephenr(2)
I understand Google engineers saying the thing which gives them a healthy paycheck is good. What surprises me are the number of non-Google people who repeat the marketing spin — this is all about advertising, don’t give up your credibility uncompensated!
As much as I'm often dismayed by the negativity on HN (or, let's say, brutal honesty: "this product is shit!") - harsh reactions are definitely warranted for cases like this anti-competitive behavior. Let's keep raising the stink, I hope the powers that be are paying attention.
(Long-time DDG and Firefox user, doing my best to de-Google myself and my loved ones)
(Long-time DDG and Firefox user, doing my best to de-Google myself and my loved ones)
Does Google make its own content which gets preferentially treated based on AMP, or why is this anticompetitive?
It's not anticompetitive. It's a web standard that anyone can roll on their own domain (like amp.reddit.com), or host on a certified CDN (like Cloudflare) to get the icon in search results. Bing, Yandex, etc. can add icons or carousels in their results too if they wanted to.
In fact, Bing does have a news carousel with AMP icons and their own AMP cache. Microsoft has long used AMP and their support is increasing:
- https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...
- https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu...
- https://www.bing.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/2019/05/09/google...
Microsoft is part of the AMP Project's governance as well, along with Cloudflare, Twitter, and other members: https://blog.amp.dev/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-governance-...
I wouldn't be surprised if AMP starts appearing in other Bing search results, or if they start supporting links to AMP pages other than news articles in their carousels (which when you get down to it is basically all this announcement is about).
- https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...
- https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu...
- https://www.bing.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/2019/05/09/google...
Microsoft is part of the AMP Project's governance as well, along with Cloudflare, Twitter, and other members: https://blog.amp.dev/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-governance-...
I wouldn't be surprised if AMP starts appearing in other Bing search results, or if they start supporting links to AMP pages other than news articles in their carousels (which when you get down to it is basically all this announcement is about).
It's actually not so common that comments are as throughly negative as that. Rather, there are lot of partially negative comments, the kind where the author often doesn't even realize they're coming across that way. When you get enough of those, fumes accumulate into an atmosphere of negativity that is hard to breathe in. I think this is what leads to an overall impression that sticks.
Unfortunately, this kind of negativity routinely attracts upvotes, and its effect is amplified when it festers near the top of a thread. One thing we've begun doing more of as moderators is routinely downweighting indignant top subthreads to counteract this routine upvote-attraction effect. HN can't live by upvotes alone. There need to be countervailing mechanisms, or else indignation will dominate everywhere, making all threads the same.
Unfortunately, this kind of negativity routinely attracts upvotes, and its effect is amplified when it festers near the top of a thread. One thing we've begun doing more of as moderators is routinely downweighting indignant top subthreads to counteract this routine upvote-attraction effect. HN can't live by upvotes alone. There need to be countervailing mechanisms, or else indignation will dominate everywhere, making all threads the same.
> And yes, this topic is something of an exception.
Is it, though? The top comments include ad hominem attacks on Google engineers, such as the replies to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886610
I appreciate how you responded to the worst attack, at least, but the general viciousness is still disappointing. I don't work for Google, but I'm sure not eager to present a contrary view if I'm just going to be mislabeled a shill. Doubly so for anyone who does work at Google, I imagine. Possibly developers from other members of the AMP Project's governing committees as well, including Cloudflare, Twitter, and Microsoft: https://blog.amp.dev/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-governance-...
I don't want criticism of AMP censored, but I don't think AMP should be an exception to the rule against negativity either.
Is it, though? The top comments include ad hominem attacks on Google engineers, such as the replies to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886610
I appreciate how you responded to the worst attack, at least, but the general viciousness is still disappointing. I don't work for Google, but I'm sure not eager to present a contrary view if I'm just going to be mislabeled a shill. Doubly so for anyone who does work at Google, I imagine. Possibly developers from other members of the AMP Project's governing committees as well, including Cloudflare, Twitter, and Microsoft: https://blog.amp.dev/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-governance-...
I don't want criticism of AMP censored, but I don't think AMP should be an exception to the rule against negativity either.
[deleted]
You know what I hate about google search possibly most of all? It doesn't list the actual URLs as hyperlinks. It lists part of them, and then has a google tracking URL as an actual link. Some times, I want to copy a URL without visiting it to use elsewhere. Sometimes, clicking it will cause the page to redirect, meaning I have to copy really quickly. I wish they would stop doing this.
For reference, you have to right-click and go to "copy link location"; then paste, and you will see.
For reference, you have to right-click and go to "copy link location"; then paste, and you will see.
That is how they know which results are good and which send people straight back to the results page. And, it's going away thanks to the new "ping" HTML attribute.
"ping" died years ago, what are you talking about?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/22434264/1075909
It's very much still alive, it recently got added to Edge for example: https://caniuse.com/#feat=ping
It got removed from the W3C spec, but it's still in WHATWG which is generally considered the canonical spec anyway.
It got removed from the W3C spec, but it's still in WHATWG which is generally considered the canonical spec anyway.
Chrome, Safari and Edge still support it - 87% according to caniuse.com
Yikes; I hadn't heard about this. Does uBlock origin stop this? I certainly don't want my browser doing it.
It would be great to see a concise, relatively non-technical introduction to what is AMP and why is it bad for the open web that I could send to friends and family.
If a bunch of developers got together to create a site and surrounding campaign it sure would be great.
I'd be happy to help support it (through Patreon or something?). I'd even donate some labour if it were needed.
I'd be happy to help support it (through Patreon or something?). I'd even donate some labour if it were needed.
Well, here it is. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for me: I've finally been motivated to switch my browser default to Duck Duck Go.
I made the same choice.
This is exactly the type of behavior antitrust is supposed to prevent, and it's the same reasoning behind the Microsoft antitrust action in the late 90s: it's OK if you built up a monopoly because you had a superior product, but it is NOT OK to leverage that monopoly to dictate other areas of the marketplace.
It would be OK if Google released AMP and everyone jumped on it because it was a great product. The only reason anyone uses it is because Google gives it prominent position in search results, and search position on Google is make or break for anyone publishing content on the web.
This is exactly the type of behavior antitrust is supposed to prevent, and it's the same reasoning behind the Microsoft antitrust action in the late 90s: it's OK if you built up a monopoly because you had a superior product, but it is NOT OK to leverage that monopoly to dictate other areas of the marketplace.
It would be OK if Google released AMP and everyone jumped on it because it was a great product. The only reason anyone uses it is because Google gives it prominent position in search results, and search position on Google is make or break for anyone publishing content on the web.
Glad to see that HN'ers are seeing this for what it is: another Google idea that's sold as "benefitting users" when the only real beneficiary is Google's ad revenue and control over eyeballs.
I'll echo the many here who report that, for everyday use, DDG is far preferable. I've only needed Google for arcane programming links or occasional news stories.
I'll echo the many here who report that, for everyday use, DDG is far preferable. I've only needed Google for arcane programming links or occasional news stories.
Slightly off-topic, but without "reading mode" that site is unreadable.
Seriously, I just don't get these hateful comments on Hacker News regarding AMP. It helps websites load fast on mobile, and users really appreciate when websites load fast.
What about the fact that it was originally called Page Speed Project and was a genuinely open standard; that that was subsequently shut down in favor of AMP? That the difference between the two is that Page Speed did not have attractive collusive lock-in effects while AMP does have collusive lock-in effects?
Sure, you're not wrong.
"This webpage works best in Our Browser™️" was just a pointer to the user for a faster experience. It came at the small cost of crippling the web for a mere 15 years, probably costing a few billion hours user time wasted at horrible UX bred in a hostile corporate controlled environment.
AMP is just the same all over again, just with a singular player which might just be too big to fail. Oh, and also this time things like the information source of the western world is at stake, not only fan sites of specific locomotive models by some geeks.
But at least my websites load....slower actually if the page was properly built[1]!
[1]https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-a...
"This webpage works best in Our Browser™️" was just a pointer to the user for a faster experience. It came at the small cost of crippling the web for a mere 15 years, probably costing a few billion hours user time wasted at horrible UX bred in a hostile corporate controlled environment.
AMP is just the same all over again, just with a singular player which might just be too big to fail. Oh, and also this time things like the information source of the western world is at stake, not only fan sites of specific locomotive models by some geeks.
But at least my websites load....slower actually if the page was properly built[1]!
[1]https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-a...
> "...just with a singular player which might just be too big to fail"
while i agree with the overall sentiment that google is pulling a microsoft, i don't see how this line is true. if google went away tomorrow, how would it lead to an economic downturn?
it would suck if you're all in on google in some way, but most of their products have competitors and substitutes, so you could switch. maybe android losing some core services that aren't immediately replaceable might cripple phones for some folks. the engineers could certainly find new jobs, and a bunch would go on to create new companies from the things they're working on now while soaking up all the idle wealth around the world looking for any return at all.
i rarely use google for anything, so maybe i'm missing the obvious.
while i agree with the overall sentiment that google is pulling a microsoft, i don't see how this line is true. if google went away tomorrow, how would it lead to an economic downturn?
it would suck if you're all in on google in some way, but most of their products have competitors and substitutes, so you could switch. maybe android losing some core services that aren't immediately replaceable might cripple phones for some folks. the engineers could certainly find new jobs, and a bunch would go on to create new companies from the things they're working on now while soaking up all the idle wealth around the world looking for any return at all.
i rarely use google for anything, so maybe i'm missing the obvious.
Gmail and Drive going away tomorrow would cause a lot of trouble
As a mobile user, I fucking hate it.
I hate that every fucking google search result on mobile web has its stupid little icon
I hate that there is no way for me to disable it as a user
I hate that it has muddied the waters in what the url bar means
I hate that it has trained users to not question fake url bars.
I hate that cloudflare so thoroughly jumped on its dick
I hate that we invented a way to fake the address in the url bar just for this stupid fucking feature.
I hate that we now have a system where somebody can share a page url with a friend, and that friend can view it on t he same device model using the same browser with the same settings, and will get a different page because one was viewing an amp page but shared it's real url.
I hate that every fucking amp page is lower featured in some way, and almost never works in desktop mode.
And most of all, I hate that it leads to everybody offloading shit onto google's servers.
AMP is not fast because it's served from google's CDN. That's a lie, It has always been a lie, and it will always be a lie. AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages.
We could have just had that, without all this stupid bullshit CDN redirection/misdirection bullshit.
And you know what, You want me to get off my hate train? Get google and all of the other search providers using it to solve complaint #2. That's really all it would take to get most of the hate to go away.
I hate that every fucking google search result on mobile web has its stupid little icon
I hate that there is no way for me to disable it as a user
I hate that it has muddied the waters in what the url bar means
I hate that it has trained users to not question fake url bars.
I hate that cloudflare so thoroughly jumped on its dick
I hate that we invented a way to fake the address in the url bar just for this stupid fucking feature.
I hate that we now have a system where somebody can share a page url with a friend, and that friend can view it on t he same device model using the same browser with the same settings, and will get a different page because one was viewing an amp page but shared it's real url.
I hate that every fucking amp page is lower featured in some way, and almost never works in desktop mode.
And most of all, I hate that it leads to everybody offloading shit onto google's servers.
AMP is not fast because it's served from google's CDN. That's a lie, It has always been a lie, and it will always be a lie. AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages.
We could have just had that, without all this stupid bullshit CDN redirection/misdirection bullshit.
And you know what, You want me to get off my hate train? Get google and all of the other search providers using it to solve complaint #2. That's really all it would take to get most of the hate to go away.
> AMP is not fast because it's served from google's CDN. That's a lie, It has always been a lie, and it will always be a lie. AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages.
AMP is fast because of prefetching. That's not a "lie." You can measure this. When you click an AMP link, the page is already downloaded. Prefetched pages load faster than https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
But prefetching has a problem: when you visit a website, they can fingerprint you and track you. Prefetching from random websites in search results violates your privacy.
The only way to fix the privacy issues with prefetching is for the search engine (not just Google--Bing, too) to serve the prefetched page from their own CDN.
AMP is fast because of prefetching. That's not a "lie." You can measure this. When you click an AMP link, the page is already downloaded. Prefetched pages load faster than https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
But prefetching has a problem: when you visit a website, they can fingerprint you and track you. Prefetching from random websites in search results violates your privacy.
The only way to fix the privacy issues with prefetching is for the search engine (not just Google--Bing, too) to serve the prefetched page from their own CDN.
Link prefetching and rendering isn't unique to AMP - it was even added by W3C to be part of the HTML5 standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_prefetching#Prefetching_i...
Even Internet Explorer will prefetch and render pages.
Even Internet Explorer will prefetch and render pages.
now that is pretty dangerous if i may say so... what happens when a search result for something totally innocuous turns up shady webpages that you never click on but get pre-loaded and cached by your browser?
"The only way to fix the privacy issues with prefetching is for the search engine (not just Google--Bing, too) to serve the prefetched page from their own CDN."
Except Google is probably the biggest threat to privacy on the planet. You're not "fixing" the privacy issues, you're making things worse.
Except Google is probably the biggest threat to privacy on the planet. You're not "fixing" the privacy issues, you're making things worse.
It’s not making things any worse. Google already knows what your searched for and they already know what you clicked on, even without AMP. They probably know what you did on that webpage too because they’re probably using google analytics.
I don’t like google google either, especially because of their history on privacy issues, but they’re not getting much additional info from this. Just a stronger foothold on the web
I don’t like google google either, especially because of their history on privacy issues, but they’re not getting much additional info from this. Just a stronger foothold on the web
But wouldn’t that mean that your search results are going to contain much more data than necessary? Sending you’re results and prefetched versions of all the websites linked therein?
I use duckduckgo on Firefox and I don't see any AMP pages. Give them a go.
I use Google on Firefox and I never saw an AMP page. Each time I see a topic on HN about AMP I feel like I live in a nice parallel universe.
DuckDuckGo users are going to be a minority for a long time.
Minority or not, if you use DDG, you will not see an AMP page.
What do you want, to search for stuff or to feel that you're supporting the winning team or something?
What do you want, to search for stuff or to feel that you're supporting the winning team or something?
You're putting intent in my words that isn't there.
It's a fact. There's no quick path to victory until mass tech community adoption rubs off onto regular folks; it hasn't hit that first milestone yet.
It won't win in the short term, which is where AMP adoption is
It's a fact. There's no quick path to victory until mass tech community adoption rubs off onto regular folks; it hasn't hit that first milestone yet.
It won't win in the short term, which is where AMP adoption is
> I hate that there is no way for me to disable it as a user
Yeah, seems like you should be able to. Just curious, where would you want that option to appear, and how would you want to see the search experience change as a result?
Yeah, seems like you should be able to. Just curious, where would you want that option to appear, and how would you want to see the search experience change as a result?
Even regardless of me being pro-AMP or anti-AMP, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
- Google has settings for search and a page for these settings. For example, I have sometime in the past went to that page and set my preferences there. And now they're taken into account when I use Google's search. Like settings are wont to do, y'know.
- We already know how search without AMP works.
- Google has settings for search and a page for these settings. For example, I have sometime in the past went to that page and set my preferences there. And now they're taken into account when I use Google's search. Like settings are wont to do, y'know.
- We already know how search without AMP works.
I think you're approaching it from the wrong POV. First of all, the option needs to be on the site owner/developer side on whether to adopt AMP or not - and not have the decision of not adopting AMP adversely affect search ranking.
As a user, I should just see whatever the site lets me see. If they decide AMP is best for user experience, I would no doubt get it. If they decide to show a responsive mobile friendly site because it works best, then show me that.
As a user, I should just see whatever the site lets me see. If they decide AMP is best for user experience, I would no doubt get it. If they decide to show a responsive mobile friendly site because it works best, then show me that.
My first guess is to only make it available in the first place to people using search while signed in. Could even sell it as a way to get the “faster” web by signing in. At least that way there’s a choice.
Making it default for everyone and then forcing people to sign in to opt out would be counterproductive from a privacy standpoint.
Could also just provide the original link right next to the AMP link in search results and let users decide.
Making it default for everyone and then forcing people to sign in to opt out would be counterproductive from a privacy standpoint.
Could also just provide the original link right next to the AMP link in search results and let users decide.
Cloudflare seems to have provided a service that fixes a lot of the issues you mentioned, so I'm not sure why you're mad at Cloudflare for making the best of this bad situation.
> AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages.
> We could have just had that, without all this stupid bullshit CDN redirection/misdirection bullshit.
I agree the world could have faster pages without AMP. What would that take though? Would it take web developers across the world pushing back against including megabytes of extra JavaScript for ads/tracking, at all the companies who are currently using AMP?
I agree the world could have faster pages without AMP. What would that take though? Would it take web developers across the world pushing back against including megabytes of extra JavaScript for ads/tracking, at all the companies who are currently using AMP?
Isn't that up to the developers themselves - whether they want to shoot themselves in the foot by slowing down their site by including lots of JS? Who is Google to determine how the Internet should be run? Shoving AMP down people's throat - because Google can as it owns majority browser and search market share - is akin to large governments in the world pushing their weight around and sticking their noses in other countries' issues.
I cringe everytime I visit a page that's AMP enabled, and usually bounce or just get on a desktop. Sure, promote a 'faster' web, but if it's at the expense of a horrible experience, why?
I cringe everytime I visit a page that's AMP enabled, and usually bounce or just get on a desktop. Sure, promote a 'faster' web, but if it's at the expense of a horrible experience, why?
No, it's akin to large governments swooping in and regulating industries when they start hurting people en masse. Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast. AMP isn't the right solution, but the community itself was incapable of policing itself so it was just a question of time before it happened.
Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.
Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.
Who elected Google to act on our behalf? Free market takes care of slow sites. Either they’re too slow to use or they’re not.
And they did. Google, a member of the free market, found that slow sites were negatively impacting them. So it took action.
Last time I checked, Google is part of the free market, no? This is exactly how free markets work. And if it turns out AMP is really bad for the web, then the reverse will happen too at some point.
> Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast.
Don't shit on (other?) developers to make your point. It's revisionism that only serves the purpose of taking more control from users and developers, which just conveniently gives even more power to the stakeholders who most benefit from the structurally unsound game businesses have been playing.
By the same logic, I could say the Google Chrome team (not related to AMP — just a metaphor) isn't professional enough to make a browser that uses less RAM. In reality, the team deals with a myriad of constraints and other priorities, both technical and commercial, that sometimes clash. Rendering speed and security are its major selling points; if both are met, management is satisfied and Google makes billions.
I'm loath to say this, but performance isn't where a lot of websites make money. It's the ads that people click, way too often by mistake. To feed this system, a bootload of tracking scripts, A/B testing scripts, overeager live support widgets...
Google is coyly selling preferred placement in exchange for performance, which may be the only way to get some businesses to care about performance. Developers are cranking out what the business owners are asking for.
Ask yourself why Google did not take aim at the ownership side, why it did not arrange discussions with major media companies etc. to establish performance as a company-wide goal, instead, put the responsibility on developers.
> Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.
Yeah, the thought process to go from seeing the "use our mobile app instead! It's so much better!" banner, closing it and sending my eyes onto the content that I wanted to read takes at least half a second.
Don't shit on (other?) developers to make your point. It's revisionism that only serves the purpose of taking more control from users and developers, which just conveniently gives even more power to the stakeholders who most benefit from the structurally unsound game businesses have been playing.
By the same logic, I could say the Google Chrome team (not related to AMP — just a metaphor) isn't professional enough to make a browser that uses less RAM. In reality, the team deals with a myriad of constraints and other priorities, both technical and commercial, that sometimes clash. Rendering speed and security are its major selling points; if both are met, management is satisfied and Google makes billions.
I'm loath to say this, but performance isn't where a lot of websites make money. It's the ads that people click, way too often by mistake. To feed this system, a bootload of tracking scripts, A/B testing scripts, overeager live support widgets...
Google is coyly selling preferred placement in exchange for performance, which may be the only way to get some businesses to care about performance. Developers are cranking out what the business owners are asking for.
Ask yourself why Google did not take aim at the ownership side, why it did not arrange discussions with major media companies etc. to establish performance as a company-wide goal, instead, put the responsibility on developers.
> Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.
Yeah, the thought process to go from seeing the "use our mobile app instead! It's so much better!" banner, closing it and sending my eyes onto the content that I wanted to read takes at least half a second.
> No, it's akin to large governments swooping in and regulating industries when they start hurting people en masse
Okay, I can see that. The idea of Google being the gatekeeper and regulator of the Internet is scary though, especially given it's a for-profit corporation that has its own interests at hand. I think AMP would have been better if it started off as a proposal for it being a standard to HTML, voted on and governed by the W3C, instead of by Google.
> Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast
I would argue though, that web developers who are professional enough to adopt AMP, would be professional enough to ensure their site doesn't load bloat.
Okay, I can see that. The idea of Google being the gatekeeper and regulator of the Internet is scary though, especially given it's a for-profit corporation that has its own interests at hand. I think AMP would have been better if it started off as a proposal for it being a standard to HTML, voted on and governed by the W3C, instead of by Google.
> Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast
I would argue though, that web developers who are professional enough to adopt AMP, would be professional enough to ensure their site doesn't load bloat.
It is actually the opposite, it is a large corporation abusing its position to entrench itself even more. It has nothing to do with regulation. If google wanted to do the right thing all they had to do was penalize the bloat.
Except we've seen that it's not up to the developers, but some product manager or marketer who is willing to sacrifice the mobile experience for email popups, autoplaying ad videos with sound, loading 50MB of unoptimized content, and other value-sucking tragedy of the commons behavior.
Why is this Google’s problem to solve? And why, if it is somehow Google’s problem to solve (which would mean it’s any search provider’s problem to solve) does it require the site to adopt Google technology? Why not just penalize slow/bloated sites?
If Google want to contribute, downrank sites that bloat, or track, or are littered with all the other crap that ruins the experience.
Which would of course include a lot of what Google does. So they "solve the problem" by not solving the problem.
Which would of course include a lot of what Google does. So they "solve the problem" by not solving the problem.
Seems to be a theme with me this week but I'll suggest it anyway: sites could run their own advertising.
Considering the severe downvotes for your question: Nothing. It didn't make a difference when Google announced penalties for slow loading sites and nothing would make a difference now.
Hence why web developers of HN are so angry at AMP - it bans them from building sites filled with 20MB of JavaScript bloat. If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.
Hence why web developers of HN are so angry at AMP - it bans them from building sites filled with 20MB of JavaScript bloat. If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.
>If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.
Any examples? My limited reading experience here has been the opposite.
Any examples? My limited reading experience here has been the opposite.
Nearly all such generalizations about HN are quite wrong; this one seems particularly off.
I think it's because comments we don't like make a much stronger expression than comments we do, so they weigh more heavily in forming our impression. This also explains why people arrive at such contradictory generalizations: it's because they like different things.
I think it's because comments we don't like make a much stronger expression than comments we do, so they weigh more heavily in forming our impression. This also explains why people arrive at such contradictory generalizations: it's because they like different things.
So penalize sites for load time / bloat. Simple as.
You seem really angry about this...
They're far from alone in that.
Then you haven't read my username.
Those seem some pretty heavy criticisms, why wouldn’t that merit anger?
Technically speaking it does nothing of the sort. It helps websites be absorbed by Google so that Google can retain the user on their site. Which keeps the experience fast. But you don’t need Google to make your site fast, and in some cases using AMP can slow your site down. If it was just about making the web fast, there wouldn’t be AMP-only features. It would just be “fast only” and websites would have to meet certain criteria to pass that test. You should try using your brain a little more when you think about the motivation behind Google’s actions. Do you think the stakeholders at Google care how fast a user can exit Google?
>It helps websites be absorbed by Google so that Google can retain the user on their site
Does it also keep every cookie on a page 1st party to Google, so they don't have (m)any more GDPR-type blockers?
Does it also keep every cookie on a page 1st party to Google, so they don't have (m)any more GDPR-type blockers?
Are you trying to point this out as being a good thing? I don’t know the answer because I don’t click AMP links, but I don’t have a problem with GDPR nonsense anyway because I’m not in Europe.
>Are you trying to point this out as being a good thing?
No, I'm not. What gives you that impression?
No, I'm not. What gives you that impression?
you still have to comply with the GDPR. if not, you can be detained if (e.g.) your plane makes an unwanted stop in the EU. (this assumes, EU brought a GDPR complaint against you or your company and you bothered to not respond)
Personal subjective experience does not show that AMP pages load faster. It has been the opposite, where Google servers have failed to deliver the page.
But mostly I hate that URL crap. Give me my URL bar functionality back with original host URL. And that there is no way to disable AMP from results.
We do not recommend our clients to use AMP.
But mostly I hate that URL crap. Give me my URL bar functionality back with original host URL. And that there is no way to disable AMP from results.
We do not recommend our clients to use AMP.
Based on your comment history it sounds like you work at Google. Does that put blinders on your opinion?
I share the same distrust about Facebook and Google on HN, but only the latter seems to bring substantial downvotes.
To be fair, they have more employees, and I don't assume bad faith in the downvotes — I've been wrong more than a few times. Still, I sense that Google elicits a gratitude that is unjustified when it comes to relationships between companies, customers and employees.
To be fair, they have more employees, and I don't assume bad faith in the downvotes — I've been wrong more than a few times. Still, I sense that Google elicits a gratitude that is unjustified when it comes to relationships between companies, customers and employees.
If they cared about performance they’d simply weight it more in search rankings. I find AMP pages have worse user experience because they require 100KB of JavaScript to load and complete running before you see anything, which breaks with a couple decades of best-practice, including what other Google teams advise. I regularly see AMP load slowly or break because they didn’t follow those good practices whereas sites with good engineering practice load more reliably.
It also breaks URLs – instead of the real URL, you get a google.com link which doesn’t have a good desktop experience.
It also breaks URLs – instead of the real URL, you get a google.com link which doesn’t have a good desktop experience.
"Users appreciate" and "is it good for the world" are different metrics. I'm sure many users appreciate drive-thru daiquiri stores, and they get plenty of business, but it's perfectly understandable why people would dislike their existence.
If AMP is so appreciated by users, why not add a setting for is to disable it in search results, as people have been requesting for years?
HN's hatred towards AMP is something I've never understood. As a user, I'd much rather visit an AMP website than have to deal with the atrocities devs create when left to their own devices.
In general, HN has a pretty strong bias against Google and Facebook. I suspect it may be clouding the average user's judgement. AMP has done immense good for the majority of users of the mobile web.
In general, HN has a pretty strong bias against Google and Facebook. I suspect it may be clouding the average user's judgement. AMP has done immense good for the majority of users of the mobile web.
As a user, I hate that AMP means that Google search results give me Google URLs instead of what I’m actually looking for.
As a developer, I hate that AMP is just another one of Google’s tentacles with which I have to contend.
As a developer, I hate that AMP is just another one of Google’s tentacles with which I have to contend.
More AMP bullshit.
But, as a pretty staunch anti-Google company, why does DDG send me to AMP links? Give me the ducking (autocorrect pun!) canonical URL!
But, as a pretty staunch anti-Google company, why does DDG send me to AMP links? Give me the ducking (autocorrect pun!) canonical URL!
> why does DDG send me to AMP links?
As a DDG user, I've never noticed this. Can you link an example?
As a DDG user, I've never noticed this. Can you link an example?
I couldn't find one last night when I saw your reply (of course) but I've been sent to some sites that were AMP. It's instantly obvious because I have a content blocker rule to block the AMP JS - so I get a blank white page for 8 seconds (because the AMP mandatory boilerplate specifies this, via CSS).
I'll try to find an example and note down the site that it happens on.
I'll try to find an example and note down the site that it happens on.
They keep using the ruse that AMP is important because it is all about fast loading sites and less frustrating user experience but they have page speed insights, and already rank sites based on load speed so why force this non standard on everyone? If they just said we'll give you a bolt icon and the perks for a site that loads under X ms no matter how you do it (AMP or anything else) a lot of people will welcome it.