Fight back against Google AMP (2018)

Re:Fight back against Google AMP (2018) by mrb on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @04:21PM (#21707161)

But anybody (Bing, Yahoo, etc) can "insert themselves in the URL" if they decide to cache the AMP content. In fact they could also cache non-AMP pages if they wanted. This isn't a problem created by AMP in and of itself.

You can't even make the argument that AMP degrades privacy, because regardless of whether you click an AMP link or a non-AMP link in the search results, in both cases many search engines will ping back or use a redirect through a search engine-controlled domain, so they will be aware of the URL you click anyway, AMP or non-AMP.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fight back against Google AMP (2018) by leereeves on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @04:39PM (#21707398)

Anyone else who inserts themselves in the URL should be fought as well.

I guess you're making a minor technical point, and it's technically correct. Someone else could do AMP better. But until someone does, why not shorten "Google's implementation of AMP" to simply "AMP"? Is there any other?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fight back against Google AMP (2018) by mrb on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @05:19PM (#21707828)

Bing also caches AMP content: https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu...

I agree that there is a UX problem to solve (the address bar should show the original URL, copying it should preserve the original URL, etc) but whether the webpage got loaded from the original site or from some AMP cache is irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fight back against Google AMP (2018) by leereeves on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @05:27PM (#21707906)

Interesting, thanks for that. I don't really follow what Bing does.

It looks like Bing has the same problem, and serves AMP from bing-amp.com.

[ Parent | on HN ]