Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by topicseed on Monday June 28, 2021 @12:04PM (#27663631)

AMP was great for those with very low speed internet. The philosophy and implementation of AMP can be questioned (URL masking, content stored away from the origin) but it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast.

Core Web Vitals, as a publisher myself, are a nightmare. But at least we know what goes wrong as it's clearly laid right in front of the developer's eyes. So we go and fix thing after thing. And some pages just won't get fixed because of some ads.

The point is CWV do make the web better. Those vital metrics are actually making sense (CLS, LCP).

I understand the reticence and reserve at who is behind both these efforts that AMP and CWV are, but they forced me to make my websites faster, cleaner.

Was it a panicky few months trying to get this sorted? Yes. Did we have to speak to ad networks so they fix up some ad delivery? Yes. Will Google really rank us better thanks to that? Maybe. Couldn't we have done it from our own accord? The incentive wasn't big enough I guess.

But today, the fact is, the experience on all of our websites is very much clearly improved.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by fddddd on Monday June 28, 2021 @12:09PM (#27663705)

adblockers like uBlocker Origin was even better for low speed internet than amp.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by topicseed on Monday June 28, 2021 @12:13PM (#27663748)

Well, I do appreciate my ad revenue to pay my team members and myself so I won't be the one recommending that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by kuschku on Monday June 28, 2021 @04:00PM (#27667093)

Of course, harming people always pays well, doesn't make it something you should be proud of.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by my_usernam3 on Monday June 28, 2021 @04:20PM (#27667457)

I read the comment in a different light. He or she is not exactly proud just admitting to the current circumstance. Specifically with this phrase

> so I won't be the one recommending that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by netr0ute on Monday June 28, 2021 @04:34PM (#27667683)

Hot Take: If your website needs ads to survive, it wasn't that good to begin with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by topicseed on Monday June 28, 2021 @05:54PM (#27668705)

Cold Take: I never mentioned survival, so take this word back to your imagination.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by Google234 on Monday June 28, 2021 @05:01PM (#27668059)

Let me guess, you also install paywall bypass extensions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by tomjen3 on Monday June 28, 2021 @04:19PM (#27667447)

Turning of javascript completely breaks so many sites, but it is much, much, much faster to browse the web that way. I run Ublock Origin and it is great, but you are often still paying the javascript price.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by godshatter on Monday June 28, 2021 @05:45PM (#27668601)

> And some pages just won't get fixed because of some ads.

This makes me wonder if the choice between leaving in ads that lower page rank due to CWV and removing some ads to get a better page rank will lead to less advertising overall. I can only hope, I guess.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by topicseed on Monday June 28, 2021 @05:53PM (#27668689)

I definitely removed ads on some pages, but because they were monetized differently. I think even small publishers are going to be more aware and granular at the page-level.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by 8note on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @12:29AM (#27671773)

Even on a slow internet, Ive always wnated a page that loads to be usable.

Waiting once is fine; waiting two times means I can't do something else while it's loading

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by topicseed on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @01:22AM (#27672114)

You're right but publishers know their bounce rates so for some, people rarely navigate after landing on their pages. For others, it's almost always the case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by rozab on Monday June 28, 2021 @12:07PM (#27663675)

>it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast.

How? No user has ever chosen to open a link as AMP.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might ... by topicseed on Monday June 28, 2021 @12:12PM (#27663727)

Well, my click-through rates on mobile for many of the same pages without AMP have dropped for the same position. Yes, after fixing CWV I removed AMP as keeping two layouts optimised was draining as a small publisher.

[ Parent | on HN ]