Appreciate you sharing that, good to hear it's under consideration.
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.
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...