Hacker News Reader

Comment by hannob | Hacker News Reader

AMP is essentially Google's answer to people creating terrible web experiences. It's been discussed and documented a lot. Common webpages today load content from dozens of different ad, tracking and whatever hosts, take several megabytes to load. All well known, but people don't stop doing it.

Now Google comes along and says: You can't do it, let us do it. Which is perfectly reasonable from their point of view. And when I surf google news on my slow mobile connection I'm always happy when I see that a link is going to an amp target - because then I know it'll be loaded fast.

But you don't need Google to do that. If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing. Limit the amount of stuff you load into your page, reduce the third party content that you include to a sane number of hosts (something like 3 instead of 50), optimize your javascript, deploy HTTP/2. None of that is magic and you can have your fast webpage without any AMP.

View on HN

> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing.

The AMP symbol tells users that the site loads quickly. Google doesn't indicate the same thing about non-AMP sites that still load quickly. Guess which site the user will tend to choose. I am not sure AMP will be optional for sites that want to get chosen.

I'm pretty sure non tech users don't even know what AMP is for.

They don't have to though. If there's a symbol and sites with that symbol are faster, they'll learn to look for the symbol, perhaps not even consciously.

>They don't have to though. If there's a symbol and sites with that symbol are faster, they'll learn to look for the symbol, perhaps not even consciously.

Totally disagree. I didn't know what AMP is and I keep seeing it. I avoided it thinking it was yet-another Google adware property like DoubleClick, another cleverly named way to trick users.

For the vast majority of users on 4G connections, AMP loads aren't that much faster (When you download 8MB/sec on 4G, a 2MB page is just not a deal breaker) and I doubt that very many users at all in America are noticing that dramatic of difference on their devices, enough to subconsciously learn to like it.

I'm pretty sure Google has extensively tested the CTR's of SERP pages with and without the AMP logo. There's absolutely no way they would have implemented it if it resulted in a lower click-through rate. That would run counter to their own stated goals with AMP.

Google tests and re-tests the crap out of things like this.

> Totally disagree. I didn't know what AMP is and I keep seeing it. I avoided it thinking it was yet-another Google adware property like DoubleClick, another cleverly named way to trick users.

But when you're rewarded by a quick page load for the first time, and the second time, you'll start clicking it more because you know what reward to expect.

Bandwidth is often not the limiting factor on mobile networks. AMP reduces the number of TCP connections your browser has to open (each of which requires 2 RTTs, and many of which will have HTTPS running over them which requires another one or two RTTs).

Take all those connections and introduce a 1-5% packet loss rate, and suddenly there's a very good chance that any given "page load" (really dozens of requests) takes perceptually "forever". That is what AMP helps with.

But obviously this is only the case if they are faster. If people start saying "we don't like this AMP thing, we'll make our pages fast on our own" then it won't be a symbol associated with things being faster, it will just be "some irrelevant google thing". But if people notice that everytime they click on one of those amp things it loads fast and all other stuff loads slow they'll of course remember that.

This is fallacious as you're not differentiating between "my site" and "all sites".

What you're suggesting is not a matter of me making my website faster than AMP in isolation. You're talking about every non-AMP site in the world banding together and collectively bringing up the average speed of an internet webpage to be faster than an AMP page.

Without that, there's nothing to make my one faster-than-AMP site stand out from the rest of the slow non-AMP web in Google search results.

They'll know soon enough that the AMP sites load faster. Even if they don't know what the AMP actually means. Likely they'll think AMP is this big, huge site that just has faster content.

It would be great if Google could set some minimum standards regarding average page load times (which they track, check Webmaster Tools) that you could meet and get the same quick loading icon in SERPs. My site loads very quickly, but I feel pressure to go AMP because of the icon and ranking increase.

Google also prioritizes AMP content over regular content in their news ticker/strip.

This makes a significant difference in traffic.

What's stopping Google from promoting fast webpages without AMP? I have spent weeks improving load times for my websites, with A A A A A ratings op webpagetest.org as a result. AMP is just a fraction faster, why should I have to create a seperate AMP version?

Also, my websites are essentially all dynamic content. People come for the comments, like on HN. I gues I'll have to use some cache-busting javascript if Google caches my content?

They do promote fast pages: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-i...

"we've decided to take site speed into account in our search rankings"

Sure, but then they put a lightning bolt next to any AMP page, even if your non-AMP page is faster.

I really doubt that that factor has any real influence on ranking. In my niche there are notoriously slow websites at the top that aren't even responsive in some cases.

Just like the promised benefits of HTTPS. I have yet to hear about a case where search traffic increased after switching to HTTPS.

The AMP Cache is an option that you can opt in to. The wordpress plugin by default opts in. The author said as much.

The problem isn't that Google "steals" traffic in the sense it's going against the wishes of the site publisher, but that the author didn't know what he was buying in to and thus was surprised.

There is the other thing which is the AMP Cache is probably more local and faster than your site. Small sites usually dont use CDNs so there it is.

No, it is not optional. If you publish a valid AMP page and Google finds out about it, it will be cached.

https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq

> Can I stop content from being cached?

> No. By using the AMP format, content producers are making the content in AMP files available to be cached by third parties. For example, Google products use the Google AMP Cache to serve AMP content as fast as possible.

So cache-busting Javascript will be needed, which will kind of defeat the purpose.

> Small sites usually dont use CDNs so there it is.

I think it's easier to use a CDN like CDN77 than to convert the average site to AMP.

Every time I look at a website its shocking how no one even does basic image optimisation using PS on the images.

This is such a trivial optimisation it makes you wonder about the level of competency of the average web development company.

Is there an alternative that doesn't require a monthly subscription?

http://www.imagemagick.org/script/convert.php

You can insert ImageMagick somewhere into your production pipeline. It's excellent software.

Well other than being riddled with security holes. It has its place, but never use it on user-submitted images.

While that may have been true in 2014, today it's hard to find an exploitable bug affecting a major image format parser in ImageMagick. Assuming you aren't using unsanitized user-provided parameters on the command line with it, it should be fine unless your attacker is very motivated.

There was an RCE vulnerability this year: https://imagetragick.com/

ImageTragick did not affect major image formats; it was a vulnerability in the parser for ImageMagick's scripting languages [1]. The real problem was that support for scripting was enabled by default, and there was no obvious big red button to disable it.

[1] Like MVG (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/magick-vector-graphics.php) and MSL (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/conjure.php)

Well, the person I'm responding to is using Photoshop to resize images. Presumably that isn't for user submitted content.

I'd argue that you should simply sandbox it. If performance is an issue, throw it in a VM or container with a simple socat + fork + TCP-LISTEN on a socket and pipe data in/out over TCP.

There is jpegtran and other cli based tools - but PS does tend to perform better.

ImageOptim is better than PS: https://imageoptim.com

You still need to resize your images appropriately but ImageOptim will do the rest. It passes images through a series of image optimization libs.

You can get some pretty good images out of almost any image editing software, even GIMP. First, know which format to use, and size your image appropriately.

For JPEGs: use chroma downsampling, and don't go above 80% quality unless absolutely necessary. If your software has a preview function, use it. Encode with MozJPEG if you can.

For PNGs: compress the hell out of them. There's several tools that can compress them further.

Save For Web is a useful plugin for GIMP to this end.

If you are using a Mac I recommend this little known gem: Graphic Converter. It supports hundreds of image formats. First used it on System 7, such a long time ago! It has of course been ported to MacOS X / OS X / macOS.

https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/

=> "makes you wonder about the level of competency of the average web development company"

Our competency on projects where we are being paid a full domestic consulting rate is quite high, thank you.

Now, if you're asking us to compete with cut-rate bids from some online freelancer exchange, we will reduce the level of service and QA to match our competitors in that space....

Eg. you may have Nordstrom's service for a Nordstrom's price. Wal-mart service for a Wal-mart price. But don't expect Nordstrom's service for a Wal-mart price; that usually isn't going to fly....

Would you rather have an internet where every website has a design like an article from Wikipedia? Google is probably in their right to highlight pages using AMP (it's their search engine) but probably unfair.

Oh God yes please. So many sites would actually be readable. This is how you get things like Readability getting popular

It would be amazing if every website were designed like Wikipedia. With the exception of MediaViewer, Wikipedia is one of the best-designed websites out there. It's light, content-prominent, progressively enhanced, HTTPS-only. Even their mobile site is pretty good (though basically all mobile experiences are bad nowadays). What exactly is wrong with Wikipedia's design?

Wikipedia's mobile site is fantastic, IMO. I really wish all mobile sites were like Wikipedia's. The pain of browsing the web on mobile would go away completely.

I think it's mostly OK. A lot of my problems with mobile would be alleviated if I could get a browser to reflow text on demand. It used to be you could set your zoom level, double tap and the page would reflow to the new zoom level. This doesn't seem possible now, so I'm always scrolling side to side if I want to be zoomed in a bit more.

I have a few other minor problems about how Wikipedia's mobile page handles without Javascript enabled, but one big thing is that there's a minimum zoom level set. I can zoom in, but I can't zoom out, which means if I want more text per line, there's nothing to be done. This again feeds in to the lack of reflow in mobile browsers. I have no idea why this feature went away, but it completely ruined the mobile web for me.

Mobile Firefox does this fine. JumpGo does it, too, which means that it's certainly still possible in Android System WebView.

I use mobile firefox - how do you get it to reflow? I would love that feature if I knew how to activate it.

Similarly, I use mobile FireFox and would LOVE to know how to reflow text. That was my all-time favorite feature in any phone browser I've ever used, but the last browser I had access to with auto text reflow was the Silk browser on an original Kindle Fire.

How can I make this happen on mobile FireFox?

My mistake. I thought it did support it, but apparently not anymore.

I find it laggy when browsing to section anchors or more generally to big pages. Other than that, you're right, the mobile site is nice.

Maybe I am in the minority here, but I like to enjoy design, the placement of the content, the choice of fonts and custom article designs for featured contents, etc. My point is that efforts should be focused on optimizing the speed but still maintaining the richness and individuality of the Web.

not every site has SEO as its main traffic source

> If you don't like AMP nobody stops you from doing the same thing.

Yes and no. Google ranks AMP-ed pages differently, as well as showing that lightning bolt icon. It is definitely not a level playing field.

Diet pill mentality. People don't want to put in an effort to lose 25 lbs, they'd rather take a pill. Same here. People don't want to put in the effort to make something better, they want Google to do it.

I don't agree with this analogy. It's not like google is offering to redo your site in AMP for you. You still have to do the lightweight optimization yourself. You're just using a library that will guide you in how to do it by imposing restrictions like not loading from too many sources.

It's more like people don't feel like following a weight loss program until a trusted professional outlines an easy to follow and precise method.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com