Re:One Month Without AMP
by omnifischer on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:58AM
(#14856699)
I for one still like AMP pages, especially for sites like BBC/verge/arstechnica when browsing from mobile. Sorry I do not want to use all my precious data for your tracking+analytics. A typical cdn.ampproject(google hosted) page for bbc transfers about 500kB whereas the same bbc mobile page 900kB. I made an android app that requests and loads the CDN version of the current page if possible, based on https://gist.githubusercontent.com/adewale/125f0cb2cb46b6af9...
Re:One Month Without AMP
by BoorishBears on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @01:25PM
(#14858201)
AMP would have been fine and so much less controversial with a simple change.
Make the AMP icon (or some other element) lead to the AMP page and leave the normal link as the main search result.
I hate AMP for completely practical reasons and have no issue with the ideology. It messes up my back button, the top bar is annoying, and most importantly I frequently have AMP pages fail to load with a white screen but had the normal page load. It's bad enough they're tricking me into visiting an AMP page (I've never intended to visit one), but then it's broken when the source page isn't.
Re:One Month Without AMP
by akras14 on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:59AM
(#14856712)
To each his own
Edit: I guess a larger point, if Google would penalize for size of download instead of promoting AMP, I am sure sites like BBC would work hard to shrink their mobile download size.
Re:One Month Without AMP
by ksk on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:22AM
(#14856946)
Google probably forward-thought the answer to the inevitable question "OK so you're telling me to reduce data transfer, how exactly do you want me to go about it?" by giving them a practical solution envisioning a win-win.
"July 14 - onward
An incremental improvement in Google's logging system now provides better accounting for results in lower positions. This change might cause increase in impressions, but also a decrease in average positions. This change only affects Search Console reporting, not your actual performance on Google Search. "
Re:One Month Without AMP
by akras14 on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:52AM
(#14856644)
Good question.
I drilled down into top 3 search terms from the last month an updated the article.
Results are:
- Git Tips – Average position declined from 2.4 to 2.9
- Angular Performance – Average position improved from 2.4 to 2.3
- Node JS Memory Leak – Average position improved from 3.4 to 2.9
Based on that, in comparison with other observations I am pretty sure that my site did not get penalized. Please let me know if you disagree or if you think I should pull some other stats.
Make the AMP icon (or some other element) lead to the AMP page and leave the normal link as the main search result.
I hate AMP for completely practical reasons and have no issue with the ideology. It messes up my back button, the top bar is annoying, and most importantly I frequently have AMP pages fail to load with a white screen but had the normal page load. It's bad enough they're tricking me into visiting an AMP page (I've never intended to visit one), but then it's broken when the source page isn't.
Edit: I guess a larger point, if Google would penalize for size of download instead of promoting AMP, I am sure sites like BBC would work hard to shrink their mobile download size.
I still find the concept of AMP cache very troublesome, even if it was built with good intentions.
"July 14 - onward An incremental improvement in Google's logging system now provides better accounting for results in lower positions. This change might cause increase in impressions, but also a decrease in average positions. This change only affects Search Console reporting, not your actual performance on Google Search. "
> [..]
> Since not having AMP support does not result in a Google Search penalty, why bother?
Maybe it DID get penalized?
I drilled down into top 3 search terms from the last month an updated the article.
Results are:
- Git Tips – Average position declined from 2.4 to 2.9
- Angular Performance – Average position improved from 2.4 to 2.3
- Node JS Memory Leak – Average position improved from 3.4 to 2.9
Based on that, in comparison with other observations I am pretty sure that my site did not get penalized. Please let me know if you disagree or if you think I should pull some other stats.
Edit.
Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14857006