Having a faster site than a competitor should be a boost, but if their content is better, they should win the better ranking.
Google requiring Google's own technology is pretty blatant abuse everyone can understand.
Should a page with a fraction of a fraction of a percent better content that takes 20s to load and is barely functional on a mobile browser take precedence over something that actually works better for me as an end user?
Yeah, but that is asking a serious question looking for a serious answer. Ranking things is a challenge.
If Google's answer is "got to have AMP" then we might suspect the question was the rather less profound "how do we make the internet good for Google?".
In this context, I don't believe it was antithetical an an input for the best search results for searchers, the majority whom benefited from fast pages.
I can't find an updated stat for 2020 but I assume it's low enough that it is no longer makes sense as an input.
[1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/07/search-ads...
[2] https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/app-and...
A slower more useful experience for me please.
If it has to be this way, give us an option to prioritise page load times or relevance.
1) Which metrics get used in the algorithm? My list was tightly scoped to a process/ecosystem about tracking the metric of page speed.
2) How is that metric used in the algorithm? Boosting in the score in general? Is the top carousel treated differently?
3) It's also possible the application of the metric can change what is required from that metric. For example: Google regular results require one page speed option, but Google mobile carousel requires a more stringent page speed option.
Personally, I am fine with page speed being used as a metric in search results. Context: The main usecase for AMP, and the publishers who support it, are related to news (versus stack overflow, etc). So there is a lot of room for "kim kardashian birthday party" to have very similar content where page speed is a great metric to optimize between them.
I am less fine with Google requiring their hosted version of it - especially in the medium/long term once the project has gotten over its experimental phase and proven market adoption.
Google don't run Google Search as a public service. They'll rank pages to generate as much money for Google as possible - that's a balance between quality of results to keep users coming back, making sure the ranking order is bad enough that users have to click adverts instead of only using the search results, and making sure the ranking order is opaque enough to encourage companies to buy adverts rather than simply invest more in SEO.
The final point is the relevant one here - Google need to change the rules regularly in order to hamper company's SEO efforts, which makes them buy more adverts until they can make it back to the top of the SERPs again.