> a degraded experience
I like AMP over publishers' own formats, which I have to put into Reader mode to make, well, pleasantly readable. I don't like AMP's implications. But I don't think your rendering is fair.
I like AMP over publishers' own formats, which I have to put into Reader mode to make, well, pleasantly readable. I don't like AMP's implications. But I don't think your rendering is fair.
Back in the day, we called them websites.
Note that my main search engine is Duck Duck Go. For me, Google's doing something meaningfully helpful with AMP.
https://duckduckgo.com/?kp=-1&q=%s
does what you wish.
Going to check out some other "bangs" now im aware.
I spent this weekend writing a google proxy to inject the actual urls into the results. Ultimately I would have switched to bing, or maybe yandex.
I end up just using DDG's results most of the time though since they're pretty good.
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amp-validator/nmof...
I want to visit publishers own sites and not weird walled Google land.
Are your concerns addressed sufficiently?
AMP is opt-in on the publisher's end. Publishers choose if you get their site or AMP.
I wonder what the EU will thought of that.
However it also made Google useless. I may see an interesting page, but then notice that it had the AMP stamp, and no (visible) way to get the non-AMP page.
AMP made Google useless for me. Then I discovered DDG. And now I use DDG as the default search everywhere, because I get more relevant results than with Google! So I guess I should thank Google for ruining their search with AMP and opening my eyes to alternatives.
For users, it's basically seamless benefit with no draw backs.
For developers, yes it takes effort but a lot of it is done for you, and you also inherit this huge cache, which you call evil but in reality, costs quite a lot of money and you're getting for free.
It's easy to call something "evil" and completely dismiss all the huge benefits of a technology, but I'd like to hear what exactly are the remaining issue.
The AMP team has done their best to one by one address anything that has come up.
Ooops, that's why AMP was made in the first place.
Similarly, here's a list of supported ad-networks with almost a 100: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#...
Far from being Google only.
I think we need to pick our poison: an open web with a potentially degraded experience. Or speed-optimized but closed.
I for one choose the former because it's precisely the openness that made/makes the web great, and to me that trumps speed and convenience.
I invite you to hangout on the open source project for a while and make your own impression.
Regardless, the questions were hardly rhetorical--I'd really like to know, and the other responder answered some of the questions with answers that confirmed some of my concerns.
Don't get me wrong...I think parts of what Google is doing here are solid and admirable. Publishers screwed the pooch and something had to give. But that doesn't mean Google gets a free pass on the strategic pieces of this they are clearly trying to set up and what they've done to date. The questions are valid and if you feel they are unwarranted concerns, I'd love to learn why you think the concerns are overrated.
> What is the process to be added?
1. Sign a Contributor License Agreement granting relevant copyright and patent licenses to Google so they can redistribute your contributions to AMP. You also give Google an unrestricted right to use those patents and copyrights in any of its projects, not just AMP.
2. For ad networks, submit a pull request according to /ads/README.md
3. For analytics providers, submit a pull request according to /extensions/amp-analytics/integrating-analytics.md
> Does Google have sole control to approve and revoke access to that list?
Yes, though this is not disclosed on the roster, every member of AMP's governance board is a Google employee: https://www.ampproject.org/contribute/governance/
Issue 5846 requests disclosing employer affiliations: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/5846
> Does it place an unreasonable burden on ad tech startups that might one day be viable competitors to Google's own offering?
The work of the pull request does not seem particularly burdensome, however, if AMP successfully replaces the Web, then it may be prohibitively difficult for new startups to gain enough traction to merit inclusion in AMP's whitelist.
> How much will it hinder FB and their attempts at rolling out a GDN competitor?
AMP's legal and design constraints may limit Facebook's ability to innovate in that space, however, I'd be shocked if Google excluded Facebook from the amp-ad whitelist. The AMP project has been very willing to accept pull requests from established ad networks. They also provide a bespoke amp-facebook tag for embedding Facebook content within AMP documents, so there's some indication of cooperation.
It's not a whitelist, those are just the pre-written supported analytics packages. Scroll up on that page. It sends configurable requests to an HTTPS endpoint based on the configuration you provide.
Meanwhile you can write a PR to get your pre-configured service added to the list: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions...
I don't touch AMP and this was seriously like 10 seconds of searching.
End users are accustomed to a banner at the top of sites, with an 'X' on them. Things like, for example, the "EU Cookie Notice".
However, they are used to using the 'X' to get the irritating banner out of the way.
In AMP land, clicking the X sends you back to Google. What are the chances this is what the user is expecting? Who benefits from this setup?
Edit: Remember the DiggBar? https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/06/diggs-kevin-rose-diggbar-i...
More cynical me might say that rolling out the 'X' with that behavior, though, gets the conversation to be about fixing the banner...versus removing it altogether.
I assume it ends with everything in the serps being preloaded. And the only things in the serps being compliant content.
AMP is not a ranking factor and so the percentage of results it makes up is largely a factor of the percentage of publishers publishing AMP.
However, I believe the Google devs behind Froogle also had good intentions. They provided a framework to make product pages easier to consume for Google. They provided a real incentive for publishers to conform to that standard. They got nice placement in a carousel, cached display of product images, and so forth. Then, later, well...
Edit: And whatever the technical reason for the google urls, it does open up possibilities for the future that aren't desirable. It's a dangerous precedent.
That language is misleading: only AMP articles are eligible for "Top Stories" placement, which means non-AMP results are completely excluded from the most prominent ranking on SERPs.
AMP may not be used as a ranking factor within each class of results, but it absolutely creates two distinct classes of results, where AMP is given priority over the open Web.
Umm, AMP itself is phishing paradise. https://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentim...
This is a solved problem. We already have a button for going back and it works swimmingly.
Even my grandmother knows that the "X" gets rid of annoying overlays (usually ads) so she can properly view the content she was trying to get to in the first place.
Did the team think eliminating a banner or frame that wraps enclosing content was not MVP material? I'm glad Google has now made this available, but I was shocked - and unhappy - when I first realized AMP did not originally have it.
Any ideas how this process could be improved?
This is a mutually beneficial setup. Google provides fast servers all across the globe for free and includes it in the AMP carousel. There's value both ways, and user gets a much faster experience.
Yes, there are a couple UX that are a bit rough, but looking at this change, it seems like they are actively working to improve it.
There are already too many issues with people going to sites that are not what they claim, so further pushing cloaked URLs does not help.
HTML is already fast. Google could've used search rankings to factor in site speed and forced many sites to become much faster in a few months, instead of now requiring more resources to maintain an alternative version just for them. Also 90% of the ads on the web are served by Google's own Doubleclick for Publishers, one of the slowest ad servers available.
Regardless, resources are always constrained and working on AMP means not working on the standard (mobile) HTML version.
It's not the first time you could see that googlers live in a bubble and need a strong criticism from external world to see some problems. Google != Internet (though it's a big subset)
Currently, because the New York Times' website is overloaded with ads and bullshit, Google takes it upon themselves to identify "accelerated" sites and penalising everyone who doesn't implement AMP regardless of the speed of their site.