Tag Archive for ‘AMP’

How to Fight Back Against AMP ➝

Marko Saric:

Publishers and other site owners feel forced to use AMP as they fear that they’ll lose Google visibility and traffic without it. These are the forces some publishers cannot resist until more people stop using Google Chrome and search.

You as a site owner or developer are a different case. I like the idea of a faster and distraction-free web but I don’t like the idea of web being controlled and molded by one company. Especially not one that is the largest advertising company in the world.

If you use AMP on your site, I would encourage you to get rid of it. AMP is bad for the web and bad for website owners in the long-term. You might get some additional traffic now, but at what cost? Is it really worth becoming just another generic publisher on the web with a site that’s nearly indistinguishable from all of the other AMP sites?

➝ Source: markosaric.com

Google Introduces AMP in Email Preview ➝

K.Q. Dreger, on Google’s AMP for email announcement:

Can you imagine interactive spam? Maybe Google’s spam filtering is robust enough to save Gmail users, but if AMP in email becomes as widely used as they intend, they’ll have handed spammers and malicious actors a whole host of new tools to phish and deceive users.

The email experience can certainly be improved, but it needs to be approached as supportive tools around the email message, not replacing the message entirely.

There’s a lot of problems with email, but AMP doesn’t solve enough of those to justify the massive downsides it brings with it.

Google Makes It Slightly Easier to See Real URLs From AMP Pages ➝

John Gruber:

This is what you call a begrudging UI. Google wants you to pass around the google.com-hosted AMP URL, not the publisher’s original URL. If they wanted to make it easier to share the original URL, the anchor button would be a direct link to the original URL. No need for a JavaScript popover. You could then just press the anchor button to go to the original, and press and hold for Safari’s contextual menu. And they could just use the word “Link” or “URL” instead of a cryptic icon.

A quick thought: wasn’t the whole point of AMP to shrink page sizes and increase the speed of browsing? If that’s the case, why does Google have to pre-cache these pages at all? Shouldn’t they be fast enough on their own without the help of Google’s servers? Maybe they’re more interested in wrapping webpages in an iframe, inserting a Dickbar, and keeping users in an ecosystem that they have complete control over.

Google AMP Gets Mixed Reviews From Publishers ➝

Jack Marshall, writing for the Wall Street Journal:

In recent months Google has begun including many more links to stripped-down AMP pages in its mobile search results. This has directed more traffic to those AMP pages and less to publishers’ full mobile websites. Google said in a Sept. 21 blog post that AMP search results would be introduced across search engine results pages worldwide “in the coming weeks.”

For some publishers that is a problem, since their AMP pages do not currently generate advertising revenue at the same rate as their full mobile sites. Multiple publishers said an AMP pageview currently generates around half as much revenue as a pageview on their full mobile websites.

Here’s a novel idea, stop using AMP entirely and build leaner web pages.

WordPress Sites Now Support Google’s AMP ➝

Romain Dillet, writing for TechCrunch:

The WordPress team has followed the project and worked on its own implementation of AMP. Starting today, any website on WordPress.com now automatically supports AMP. There’s nothing to do. Self-hosted WordPress websites can also enable AMP by installing a plugin.

I’m still skeptical about this whole AMP thing. But if I can add support to my site, with little effort, and improve the experience for my readers, I don’t see why I wouldn’t.