I am considering dropping out of the AMP pages

[guarriman3]

Hi,

I've got a website with 500,000+ URLs, and all of them have their corresponding AMP version. I'm a Google fan, and I started generating the AMP versions of the pages a few months after this technology was launched.

However, generating the AMP code of the pages takes me a lot of time, I usually find errors (validation, security issues), and I just want to spend the time to generate good content for users. My web pages are completely responsive, I load all the JS codes and images asynchronously, and I have a 99-100% score on Google PageSpeed.

I've made a list of cons and prons about using AMP

CONS
- I have to generate/check twice the HTML code. I don't use a CMS such as WordPress, and I have to code by myself.
- I'm suffering from crawl budget issues, and I'm afraid that AMP pages will mean twice as much effort for Googlebot, which is causing many URLs to be unindexed.
- There are always problems with the validation, and I must sometimes to remove some pieces of JavaScript code that the regular HTML pages do include.
- I have to use iframes to include some elements (e.g. maps), and there are always problems with Content Security Policy.
- Google insists on serving 'www.google.com/amp/s/amp.mydomain.com' instead of 'amp.mydomain.com', and it makes me very angry.

PROS
- None. Even it's not a ranking factor according to Google (https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/824185977098960897).

I would like to ask someone in this group to give me reasons to continue with the AMP pages, or to share similar experiences. I see how some of my competitors have better ranking for non-AMP webpages.

If I make the decision to remove the pages from 'amp.mydomain.com', I will simply take two steps:
- Remove the <link rel="amphtml" href="https://amp.mydomain.com/whatever"> from every page
- 301-redirect from 'https://amp.mydomain.com/whatever' to 'https://www.mydomain.com/whatever

Thank you :-)

[not2easy]

That sounds like a good idea as AMP is sort of circling down the drain: [webmasterworld.com...]

[robzilla]

Google insists on serving 'www.google.com/amp/s/amp.mydomain.com' instead of 'amp.mydomain.com', and it makes me very angry.

The fact that pages are served from an AMP cache like Google's instead of your own domain and server is actually one of the main benefits of AMP. It improves performance and ensures AMP pages are all validated.

I don't particularly like AMP results as a user, because they interfere with normal browser behavior. They do tend to be faster, though, so that should be a pro. However, you've listed many more cons, and ultimately it looks like it's not actually a good fit for you.

[guarriman3]

Thank you both for the answers.

@not2easy

That sounds like a good idea as AMP is sort of circling down the drain:

I don't want my decision to be related to the future of AMP technology, but to the needs of my website.

I'm not a WWW guru, but I have the impression that AMP is recommended for news websites or sites that want to appear on the carousel at the top of the results.

My website is just a directory of thousands of industrial products. It is updated with constant data, but they are not up-to-date news items. And I have the impression that AMP is not for me.

@robzilla

They do tend to be faster, though, so that should be a pro.

Yes, Google launched a 'smart' technology to store all the JS+CSS framework on their servers in order to "help" you to serve just the contents. It's very smart and I started to use it because I'm a Google fan. But now, with 99-100% of score in PageSpeed for my non-AMP regular pages, I'm not sure that they are less faster than the AMP pages, nor that the effort is worthwhile.

[tangor]

The web was "the web" before amp was pushed. The web still exists, amp has seen it's "use by date" come and go.

HOWEVER, other than your noted oddities, most of this is dynamic page sends and might be worth keeping, if the load on YOUR resources is not impaired.

Personally never saw a need for AMP or a reason for speed as my existing pages are already faster...

YMMV

[robzilla]

But now, with 99-100% of score in PageSpeed for my non-AMP regular pages, I'm not sure that they are less faster than the AMP pages, nor that the effort is worthwhile.

The AMP cache that Google employs (Bing has one too) places your content on edge servers near your end-users, like a CDN. It's difficult to compete with that in terms of speed. But even though AMP is likely a bit faster, it is, of course, very possible for your regular website to offer a good enough experience. If the speed difference is small, and the effort to maintain AMP pages that large, I wouldn't think twice about this :-)

[guarriman3]

Thank you both for the answers.

@tangor

Personally never saw a need for AMP or a reason for speed as my existing pages are already faster.

That's what I learned after several years using AMP. I started with this technology since I'm a real Google fan, I love the WWW since the 90s, and I like coding.

But this is just business, and I do not want to loose more time with AMP because my regular-non-AMP web pages are really fast. I spend a lot of time and money producing pretty good code and using a pretty good server.

@robzilla

But even though AMP is likely a bit faster, it is, of course, very possible for your regular website to offer a good enough experience. If the speed difference is small, and the effort to maintain AMP pages that large, I wouldn't think twice about this :-)

So ready for sentencing.

[engine]

AMP was devised in a time when everyone had poor mobile connections. Some still do. If your market is in those regions where it's a bandwidth and speed problem, stick with AMP.
The emergence of 5G in mature markets has changed the need for all that.
In addition, the need for speed on websites in general has brought improvements.

[saladtosser]

AMP benefits right now are that they will automatically pass the Web Vitals forthcoming ranking change, other than that they are a pain in the ass. My site is a full 100% AMP site so only one site to keep updated but they are very restrictive to monetize with Adsense in my experience and earn you less than a non-amp site where you have a lot more choice, I believe google is about to face ant trust issues with AMP/Adsense, at least that's what I was reading yesterday!

[Swanny007]

I looked at AMP when it first came out. I don't use Wordpress so it was too much work for what you'd gain. What a nightmare of keeping two copies of every page up to date manually!

I really felt it was Google saying "Jump" and us webmasters saying "How high sir?".

If you can use AMP with a simple plugin I'd say go for it if you want. If not, dump it.

As an aside, my site loads very fast with the exception of AdSense slowing it down. There are other threads on that topic but as long as your regular site loads fast and is mobile friendly you shouldn't be punished too much if at all, by removing the AMP pages.

[frankleeceo]

AMP doesn't necessarily pass the web vital automatically. I do see Google on the path to kill it off as time goes by. The signs are there.

I dropped off Amp personally around February 2020.

For some unknown reason I was failing FID on my amp setup. It was nearly impossible to troubleshoot it because of delay for user test and cache. I have no idea what my visitors are seeing or doing. So I preempted killed the setup and invested my time on better codes, servers / CDN setup.

[JorgeV]

Hello,

AMP doesn't necessarily mean faster pages. If you are optimizing (speed) your pages, yourself, you'll achieve better results, and keep the control.

[nomis5]

In one or two years time AMP be another of Gs failed experiments.

So many failed experiments. My advice, just ignore it.

[tangor]

With a previous history of so many "experiments" and "promises of new horizons if you just do as we say I long ago learned to wait two or three years before CONSIDERING implementing any g suggestions for web glory.

Saves the churn and burn and angst.

YMMV

[guarriman3]

Thank you very much for all your answers and experiences. Finally, I decided to remove all the AMP pages from my website:

- I removed the 'amphtml' meta tag
- I 301-redirected all the traffic 'amp.example.com/whatever' to 'www.example.com/whatever'
- I did not manage to remove the cache from Google. IMHO, the directions given by Google at [developers.google.com...] are not clear, and I find always a 403 error. Anyway, I hope that the Google cache will be automatically updated (removed) in the following weeks. This is another frustrating issue of the AMP technology.

Thank you very much again.

[Swanny007]

Good to hear! Yeah AMP will probably be dead in a few years.

[explorador]

Swanny007:
I really felt it was Google saying "Jump" and us webmasters saying "How high sir?".

Exactly (everything you said), and by jump, when it came out I was actually wondering "but... why?".

Trying to be short, AMP makes me remember G+, and it's gone. They insisted on how important it was to have a G+ regarding creating content, it was all wasted effort.

[graeme_p]

The fact that pages are served from an AMP cache like Google's instead of your own domain and server is actually one of the main benefits of AMP. It improves performance and ensures AMP pages are all validated.

As far as performance goes, there are plenty of CDNs.

AMP was devised in a time when everyone had poor mobile connections.

On top of that a lot of sites, especially the news sites that were the ones Google tried hardest to persuade to use AMP, were very heavy and even slow on a normal connection.

[tangor]

On top of that a lot of sites, especially the news sites that were the ones Google tried hardest to persuade to use AMP, were very heavy and even slow on a normal connection.

Considering content and control, is there any wonder that specific niche never went "fully amp"?