Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

I don't (and never will) use AMP and I feel that it is patently unfair to penalize pages for not using some non-standard tech. Google should index the web fairly, not make use of their tech a factor. Webpage speed is a fair measure (and I really wouldn't know what I could do to make my pages any faster, AMP will not make a measurable difference).

I would expect an un-biased search engine to rate pages with and without AMP equal and to not show 'badges' based on whether or not a page uses tech by the same vendor of the search engine.

View on HN

In my opinion, the problem is that your version of unbiased doesn't add much value to a user (and is actually biased for the website-owners). For example, SourceForge started adding a lot of misleading 'Download' buttons all over their page, and they might ask the same thing about 'an unbiased ranking' (Google's always been criticized for being the 'Web Police'). As a user however, I'd want Sourceforge's rankings go down the drain because it uses (directly or through its advertisers, doesn't matter) such a bad practice of getting users to click on the ads. AMP is similar. They're giving better ranking to pages which add value to the user, and are probably less concerned about the webmaster. In countries with slow internet, AMP adds a lot of value. You click, and the page is there (no waiting icons and 'downloading' for a few seconds)

(Edit: Sure, Sourceforge was improved a lot after the new owners, it was just used as an example)

The best solution to combat bloat is less bloat, not faster ways to deliver bloat (all that will do is increase the budget for bloat).

Why not both?

I work with people who have limited Internet literacy, or limited literacy, period. I have seen a marked improvement in their experience when Google started to police the web more. Simply ensuring people can surf safely is a service to lots of people who do not frequent Hacker News.

very interesting, so now it actually boils down to

- whitelisting (AMP bolt); OR

- blacklisting (down-rankings)

So now it depends on our perspective, is the web default good or bad? default good means blacklisting & vice-versa

Alternatively, maybe DDG can do a blacklisting of sites based on some criteria (bad-practice / malicious / content-farm / etc... )

> I would expect an un-biased search engine to rate pages with and without AMP equal

Well there's your problem :-). Google isn't an unbiased search engine, they're a commercial entity with a financial interest in feeding you particular search results. They're absolutely going to be biased in the results they provide you.

They also have near-monopoly status on search, so they must not be anticompetitive.

But it will take years for the government to do anything about it.

Longer, perhaps, if Hillary is elected with Eric Schmidt's help.[1]

1: http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working...

Why do you think that "person X supports candidate Y" implies "candidate Y will help person X commit more crimes without penalty"? Is that true of all people and all candidates, or only some?

I don't like the word "supports" for providing services at a high level in the campaign, but yes, I do think that in general, politicians attack their enemies and protect their friends.

An admittedly cynical view I've developed after years of watching partisan prosecutions, impeachment votes, and pardons.

> I don't (and never will) use AMP

You may intend this to mean that you will never consciously publish your content in AMP, but there is a good chance that you will consume content that is published in AMP.

It is already something I find myself noticing, especially on mobile. If you see an article work on mobile from a news site and it was fast, it was probably AMP.

Yeah, you can't really argue that AMP isn't a good product, from a technical perspective. AMP sites load instantly for me.

Does anyone know how to disable AMP?

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/8o...

You can't. That's probably not an oversight.

As mentioned–you can't, but I noticed that if you have an iPhone with 3D touch (6S or 7) you can skip the AMP page and go directly to the real website by hard-pressing the link. That brings up the preview modal thing, which you can hard press again to make full screen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com