I imagine if they stripped off all the stuff from their own sites that doesn't show up on AMP the speed would basically be the same, and they wouldn't be under Google's thumb.
No massive header with lots of images of other stories, no master folder with lots of images of other stories, no giant sidebar with lots of images of other stories… get rid of all of them. All of a sudden your page is really fast and doesn't take 45s to load.
Remember what the web was like on dial-up? Design pages for that but with large images. Text goes a LONG way for navigation and discovery of other stories. You don't need ridiculous big images.
Do something really simple. Make a page with content that looks exactly like the AMP page. AB test that against the AMP page. I'd be willing to bet they basically perform the same, modulo any benefit Google gives you for being part of their lock-in.
Text articles with pictures do not require the complexity of googles infrastructure and systems to be fast and lite.
I mean it's basically the same work you were doing before but now your articles can be featured in Google's carousel and you get absolutely no 'wink wink' ranking boosts.
Websites have gotten into a graphical arms race. More sites should experiment with Drudge Report's / Craiglist's styles. Simple, clean, and they load super fast. No AMP required.
Gone to reddit on mobile lately? Because its terrible. Full screen popovers. At a minimum you have to request a desktop page for anything usable. Its barely better than a paywall.
I don't use any apps, I only use the website. And I almost always use it on my phone.
And I ALWAYS use the desktop version because the mobile version is a disaster. I've never tried to use it so I wasn't aware of the fullscreen popovers. I just hate the incredibly low information density.
Why should I only see two or three things on the screen at once when I can see 20? And the 20 still looks better.
I really don't understand the point of Reddit's mobile site.
I like the old iphone feel, seems clean, fast, and easy to use. The only thing I can complain about it that the gear option opens the menu at the bottom of a comment.
To add to that, the desktop site works* with javascript disabled, is faster that way, and has much fewer ads, but the mobile site doesn't even load under that condition.
Edit: * - works in a read-only sense, you have to turn JS on to comment or expand comments.
Reddit's in the process of rewriting their desktop site to use the same stack as their mobile version. So you probably won't be able to avoid it for much longer.
I agree. Also the mobile web version is lacking a lot of things with regards to making use of the Reddit API.
For example if on mobile you go to a subreddit to make a post it will present you with the self post and the link post option regardless of the settings of the subreddit. So you write a long post and post it, only to get told sorry this subreddit doesn't allow self posts, or you post a link and you spend a lot of time typing in the title only to get told sorry no links allowed. WTF?? It's beyond ridiculous that they show the option of making a post in a subreddit where it does not apply.
It doesn't stop there. The whole thing is very disappointing :(
- On desktop you get useful error messages like for example "you're doing that too much, try again in x minutes". On the mobile web version it's just a generic message that is of absolutely zero help.
- You get to see the score of your posts (good) on your profile but to see the score of your comments you have to click on an individual comment. Bad!
You seem to be the missing the whole point of AMP's popularity. The glorious sliding carousel on Google.com that gives any news website a massive SEO boost. AMP is the biggest thing to hit the SEO industry in a while. I imagine most of these media companies could not give a shit about website optimization, its all about website monetization.
Which is short sighted on their part. As an AMP early adopter they get a boost. But, as the industry moves to AMP their SEO boost is lost. So, their boost is short lived, but Google's edge influence expands and persists over the long term.
What's worse is once you've lost those short term gains, you can't actually back out since it'll actually cost you search result placements. AMP's a really shady move by Google.
No, I get that. But every time one of those publications discusses that they talk about how much faster it is.
I don't like being lied to.
They're not doing it because it's faster, they're doing it because they want the rank boost.
So I think I should just say that. "We did it to get higher rankings because Google prioritizes it." Don't lie and say it was to get things to be faster, you could've done that on your own.
Not willing to say that? Then don't talk about speed. Because you had control over that.
Right, and this form of forced "SEO" compliance by Google's hand is utterly fucked up.
There is little to no financial incentive for companies to swim against the current, and large financial incentive to come aboard and join the ranks of other AMP-supported sites.
"I imagine if they stripped off all the stuff from their own sites"
Well...of course. Limitations are empowering in their own way. HTML grew, and grew, and grew to the point that soon middle managers are demanding the most abusive tactics in a desperate tragedy of the commons. Users -- tired of pop-overs and subscription boxes and notification demands and location monitoring and janky scrolling and slow loading -- start to prefer silos like Facebook instant articles or Apple news. AMP comes along and says "we'll limit these to the minimum to elegantly provide text content and put an icon to let you know" and users love it.
Could the site optimize themselves? Of course but they won't.
Every time AMP comes up I remark that we really need a new HTMLite specification, and must demand the same promotion/iconography, or optionally allowing users to turn their browser to HTMLite mode where it will only accept validated HTMLite content. All to achieve the same user-benefits without the central control. Instead everyone just pretends that we all just need to behave as developers and it isn't needed.
AMP gives you preloading (that's the whole point of the google.com url) but yeah just making sites that didn't suck would give you 95% of the benefit of AMP. Unfortunately it's never gonna happen.
We'd beeen using AMP at the publication I work for since late Oct 2016. I finally got around to comparing AMP vs non-AMP performance in Jun 2017 and in _every_ case I could find in Search Console, our site version was outperforming the AMP counterpart on mobile, most notably in search position and conversions. AMP was causing problems in other ways (tons of external calls, which were stressing our servers), so it was a good excuse to ditch it. Eager to see what the results are after 90 days of AMP-less traffic, but so far it's a relief not having to worry about it. It's important too recognize how much extra work things like AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, Apple News, whatever Amazon dreams up next, etc. etc., dump on your development team -- the maintenance alone can swallow up countless hours.
> AMP’s new speed gains in Google Search are due to several key optimizations that we made to the Google AMP Cache, such as server-side rendering of AMP components, and reducing bandwidth usage from images by 50% without affecting the perceived quality. We also used a compression algorithm called Brotli that Google launched a couple years ago, resulting in a reduced document size by an additional 10% in supported browsers.
So, no. Just stripping down the page would not make pages load as quickly as AMP. Then, there's also the fact that you get Google's CDN for free.
As an end-user, AMP breaks 'back' on my iPhone when I navigate to articles (including those from Condé Nast) linked to from Google News. I have to scroll up and use Google's custom back button; using left/right swipe gestures or the browser's back causes problems. Sometimes it's so bad that when I reload the page, I get some weird error from Google about how I got there, which is doubly weird because it's their fault I'm there because they're intentionally wrapping/breaking standard functionality.
Browser back button works fine in chrome on a Android with amp pages fwiw. Does safari mobile not support the session history management APIs? caniuse says it does, but it sounds like it doesn't work from what you're saying.
edit: I can see it. Next iteration you will need a AMP key to publish your content and clients will need AMP key to consume content! Browsers that don't include the key will be excluded from the ampweb.
Ironic, as toyotas have more made in USA and assembled in USA cars and car parts than ford does, and has for over a decade. Only Honda or Chevy can claim more american than Toyota iirc.
You're specifically talking about Google's AMP viewer, and your concerns are UX opinion about their UI which hopefully the AMP team will improve.
The reasoning behind consistency and experience which we talk about in the post are mainly with regards the AMP content itself. Valid AMP content (passing the AMP validator) from different publishers behaves very similar to each other. Meaning you won't have any surprises as the content loads, and it will load very quickly. The experience benefits revolve around the AMP Runtime loading advertisement and embeds on-demand without blocking the main content itself from displaying properly or causing it to re-layout as the user starts reading.
Ok, sure, my problem is with Google's AMP view. But, as a user, my experience on your AMP pages is inconsistent with my experience on the rest of the web. As a user, I don't like it. As a user, consistency between different publishers is not important to me: I don't read very many anyway, and I am totally okay if they look different. I expect them to look different, in fact.
But the other points, correct me if I'm wrong, but it basically sounds like you are saying "AMP forces our content across publishers to be consistent, and it has a structure that makes sure advertisements don't block page loading." As a web publisher, though, surely Conde Nast has control over the layout of its content. And as a web publisher, it is part of Conde Nast's job to make sure the content loads quickly and that the ads do not block page loading. At the risk of sounding aggressive, your reasons sound like "AMP enables us to outsource all the hard parts of our job."
As to the experience benefits are ads loading more smoothly, as a user, is an experience benefit. Technically. Except that, as a user, ads substantially decrease my experience. I get that Conde Nast exists to make money, that I don't want to pay money for the privilege, and that we are fundamentally at odds here. But attempting to sell faster loading of ads to me in the guise of improving my user experience feels somewhat disingenuous.
AMP content does look different, even across our own brands. I'm talking about the experience of tapping on a link from Google's search results. For non-AMP content some publishers might show you an interstitial ad, or a banner ad that pushes down the content as you start reading it, some publishers don't/can't do caching correctly, can't optimize images cross resolutions, etc. It's a frustrating experience for the web, specially when you compare it to the Apple's News app for example. Let alone if you're trying to search for web content on a 2G connection...
AMP incentivizes publishers to implement behavior and functionality that results in a better and consistent experience for the Google end user, this is a fact. Sure, the incentives for the publisher often boil down to SEO and ensuring their content is discoverable on the Google platform (as mentioned in the post when we talk about visibility and discoverability).
We can discuss how ethical or unethical it is for Google to use SEO incentives in order to push publishers to deliver AMP content, but that's a different conversation. I fully believe in the open web, when compared to Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles, AMP is clearly the more open solution. Even thought AMP is not perfect, I truly believe the benefits for the end users on the Google platform are there.
Condé Nast does have full control over our content and sites. Don't forget, the majority of the traffic to our business is non-amp. Our regular sites perform really well (specially when compared with other players in our space) and we're constantly improving them. We're absolutely doing the hard work there and will continue to do so. We will also continue to distribute content to other platforms besides Google AMP whenever it makes sense.
What are you referring to? Safari adds a feature requested by Google that if you share an AMP page it shares the canonical URL and not the AMP url. Is that the "anti-AMP"?
The screeds and anger about AMP on here absolute baffle me.
Because AMP is Google's attempt to insert themselves in content distribution and capture an even bigger slice of the pie but with a thin vaneer of 'making the web faster'.
People are angry because Google exists on the open web, unlike Facebook which is pretty much self-contained, and they're big enough that they'll probably succeed.
My issue with it is more practical. When my connection is anything less than perfect, instead of taking a few extra seconds to load, AMP pages just don't load for me.
AMP should have been a separate link like cached (maybe have the icon link to it?)
Sure, they want their content to be read, to be "discoverable by the largest possible audience".
Meanwhile, "monetization benefits are less decisive and pending further analysis of our current implementation."
Publishers find a number of benefits to AMP -- revealed frankly in the article -- but the only reason they use it in the first place is because Google is where a lot of those eyeballs originate anyway. If Some Obscure Search Engine with ~1% marketshare reworked their mobile page to prioritize pages that adhere to some criteria of limitations, used an iframe to frame the content so that it loads inside their page, and threw in a free CDN to sweeten the deal, who'd retool their publishing infrastructure -- as excellently detailed in this post -- to publish in this format?
AMP enables an alliance of convenience between one of the top sources of traffic (Google), and the authors of long-form textual content reliant on advertising revenue. To the AMP team's credit, it does so by aligning closer than its competitors to how the web actually works, despite the Google-Search-on-Mobile page then acting as a captive newsreader.
Most user criticism of AMP is focused on Google-Search-on-Mobile stealth-morphing into a captive newsreader, while most publisher criticism of AMP is from sites outside of its target market trying out the tech and alarmed at the lack of traffic reaching their server, forgetting that offloading traffic at high volumes is a good thing. AMP isn't for people who are upset that Google is stealing your content; it's for publishers who want Google to expose their content to wide audience and hope to generate revenue through means that correlate to that reach.
> AMP enables an alliance of convenience between ... Google ... and the authors ...
The third party in that alliance is the end user who was a decent mobile browsing experience. As one, I absolutely love AMP. It guarantees that the page I am about to click on is not going to be horrible. So much so that these days, I actively seek out pages with AMP icon in my search results.
I don't imagine most publishers would normally place a banner at the top of the page that someone else controls. With an [x] button that closes your page and goes back to that "someone else".
Of course it is net positive for the early adopters. Google gives preference to its AMP publishers and its search engine. Once we all switch over in pursuance of the huge gains, the benefits will disappear because the AMP will just be the new cost of entry.
And what freedoms will be lost when we are all required to run AMP website?
Yes and no. You can imagine that some of this is new traffic they otherwise would not have gotten and another % is cannibalizing existing traffic they usually get via Google.
>> in this case it was clearly a net positive
Not so fast. When I was there, the earlier experiment was that its was a "mixed" success. This post also suggests strongly to me that that hasn't changed too much ("Monetization benefits are less decisive and pending further analysis").
For many publishers it comes down to they cant get slightly more traffic with AMP (because of the AMP carousel in Search results) at a lower CPM which is a positive. However, as more publishers come on board that gets tricky all over again and risk of it becoming another race to the bottom of lower CPMs.
“click through rate from Google search went from 5.9% (Regular) to 10.3% (AMP), and average search position went from 5.9 (Regular) to 1.7 (AMP).”
So ranking #2 in search results on average correlated with an increase in click through rate. Oh, btw, just happens that you gotta use AMP to get the SERP gain.
This article doesn't address any of the reasons people have issues with AMP. All it confirms is what we already know: That Google gives preferential treatment to sites which use their products and services.
And, like many engineering blogs about employing Google products, seems like it might've been suggested by a Google marketing team.
No, in most companies the engineers do not write posts because someone from another company reaches out to the marketing team at that company.... developers don't like that and besides, Oscar is a good guy.
This post is not meant to be a critical piece addressing the issues people have with AMP. That's not the goal here. The goal is to show the reason why we serve AMP content and the tech behind it.
There's a lot of conspiracy theories and misunderstanding about how AMP works in the community. AMP is by no means perfect, but its dangers are greatly exaggerated. If you don't trust Google's CDN, no one is forcing you to use Google. The benefits for non-tech users (e.g. my cousin in a 3rd world country with a 2G connection) are there and are clear.
Actually, Google is forcing you to use Google. Because your search rankings are dependent on Google getting to cache your content on Google's CDN. There is no situation where you can have your content only cached on someone else's CDN, and get all of the borderline illegal perks of Google favoring content stored on their servers.
Moving to AMP puts them in the carousel, so yes, they got more traffic (at lower revenues per visit). Others will move to AMP, then the traffic will wane.
Then Google will make their next move.
This is exactly how Froogle/Google product search went.
The real problem is the "why" which, whether people admit it or not, is because Google is blackmailing publishers to follow their rules else be punished in search results. The whole modern web is basically defined by trying to conform to what Google wants.
Google worked with some of the major publishers to create AMP just like facebook did with their instant article. So I wouldn't call it blackmail, more like a collaboration.
It's a way for major publishers to get a dominant/favored position and crowd out "fake news" and it's a way for google to get a monopolistic publishing platform.
So it is a "win-win" for google and some of the major publishing industry. It is a lose-lose for everyone else.
Publishing/media has been waging a war against social media and decentralized internet. They have to losing audience due to the fractured nature of the internet. And they are trying to get back their "captive audience".
If Google ranks AMP pages higher than regular pages just because they're AMP pages and hosted on Google property, this simply spells the begin of the end for Google search as we know it. Who needs that kind of manipulated crap search? Given the race to the bottom on the web, soon Wikipedia, StackExchange, Reddit and HN search already covers everything that Google search does anyway. Oh, and Google, don't let the EU know about this new anti-competitive behavior of yours.
Interesting time for small-scale and custom search sites ahead.
Completely 100% nit-pick here, but just wanted to say that The New Yorker was the first Conde property up on AMP (June 14th 2016), and we used WordPress. Wired and Pitchfork followed after that.
Vanity Fair launched 6/23/2016, the first brand on the Autopilot stack. Sorry if I didn't mention brands that launched AMP on Wordpress. That would have probably added confusion to readers outside the company that do not know about our Wordpress -> Autopilot migrations.
I imagine if they stripped off all the stuff from their own sites that doesn't show up on AMP the speed would basically be the same, and they wouldn't be under Google's thumb.
No massive header with lots of images of other stories, no master folder with lots of images of other stories, no giant sidebar with lots of images of other stories… get rid of all of them. All of a sudden your page is really fast and doesn't take 45s to load.
Remember what the web was like on dial-up? Design pages for that but with large images. Text goes a LONG way for navigation and discovery of other stories. You don't need ridiculous big images.
Do something really simple. Make a page with content that looks exactly like the AMP page. AB test that against the AMP page. I'd be willing to bet they basically perform the same, modulo any benefit Google gives you for being part of their lock-in.
Text articles with pictures do not require the complexity of googles infrastructure and systems to be fast and lite.