Hacker News Reader

Comment by kuschku | Hacker News Reader

Not op, but: There is an official statement from Google that they are not higher ranked within of the results, but AMP links can get indirect ranking boosts, for example Google lists the top 4 or 5 relevant AMP links before the actual results in a carousel.

This is identical to the ranking boost given to Google Shopping (for which Google was just fined 3 billion EUR), so you can expect the same result.

View on HN

> This is identical to the ranking boost given to Google Shopping (for which Google was just fined 3 billion EUR), so you can expect the same result.

Isn't it different because (presumably) the AMP links aren't owned by Google?

The fine was specifically for anti-competitive behavior, i.e. consistently surfacing their own links over those of shopping competitors, which at least with AMP links isn't necessarily the behavior, though there is likely some overlap there.

It is actually.

Google only gives the carousel position benefit to sites using the AMP js from Google's CDN.

If you use any other CDN, you don't get the benefit.

Where's Google's upside in all this? This (maybe) improves their search product, but it doesn't directly make them money.

From a legal standpoint, this behavior is clearly different from their last slap on the wrist.

Amp has ads, including AdSense.

https://www.ampproject.org/docs/guides/ads/ads_getting_start...

AMP supports dozens of ad networks, including AdSense. It gives no particular benefit to Google's ads, and it doesn't require any ads.

Except for all the ad networks that don't get approved...

Given the range of ad networks they support, it still gives no particular benefit to Google.

Google's upside is that the amp website on google is fast while everwhere else it's slower.

Google doesn't want the web to be fast or lean, it incentivizes you to create a fast version to be shown from google while the slow version is shown everywhere else.

Google: fast, everyone else: slow.

And amp positioning and ui display is absolutely a ranking boost.

> everwhere else it's slower.

No, everywhere else it's the normal speed your servers can deliver it to clients. Nothing about AMP is slowing down your normal web page.

The positioning and display are a ranking boost for whoever chooses to implement AMP pages - they are not explicitly targeted at Google services, which is the behavior the EU fined them for.

Anyone who thinks the EU is going to fine Google for AMP is actively avoiding reality at this point.

> No, everywhere else it's the normal speed

Faster and slower are relative terms.

> Nothing about AMP is slowing down your normal web page

Nothing about AMP is making the web faster, which it says it's doing on the project homepage. It's making a fork of the web to be shown on Google that is 'faster'.

I realize you hate AMP and rational discourse is unlikely to change your mind, but here's what their homepage actually says:

> The AMP Project is an open-source initiative aiming to make the web better for all. The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms.

I think amp in spirit, practice and implementation is an attack on the open web.

I understand how it works and Your arguments so far aren't changing my mind.

Thanks for posting the homepage text, for posterity.

More minor, but AMP results get the little lightning bolt icon too.

I believe there is research showing that little adornments like that convey trust and increase the CTR vs other listings that don't have them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com