Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.26.1

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Featured Home Page Discussion

Google Moving AMP Project to Open Governance Model

     
10:01 am on Sep 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:25618
votes: 776


Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages Project (AMP) is moving to a consensus-seeking open governance model.

Joining the Advisory Committee at the outset include representatives from publishers (El País, Washington Post and Terra), e-commerce sites (AliExpress and eBay) and platforms (Cloudflare and Automattic) as well as advocates for an open web (Léonie Watson of The Paciello Group, Nicole Sullivan of Google/Chrome, and Terence Eden).

No doubt this is a decision taken, in part, because of the criticism it received over what appeared to be google's way of controlling the format.

[amphtml.wordpress.com...]
12:42 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 29, 2007
posts:1816
votes: 105


Google may simply be shedding another project they don't want to be responsible for long term but it makes sense to hand it off instead of shut it down. Amp implementation crested a while back didn't it?
7:28 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 28, 2014
posts:137
votes: 22


Great. Now kill it. Stifles what websites can achieve by offering a lesser experience and cuts CPM's down to barebones while it's at it.
7:59 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:7139
votes: 410


Couple of relevant links with insights concerning amp ..
[polemicdigital.com...]
[ferdychristant.com...]
9:22 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 1, 2016
posts:2196
votes: 581


@Leosghost there is no insight in those articles, simply misinformed rants by people that do not have any understanding of the intricacies of AMP.

If there is one criticism to make is that Google makes AMP out to be a simple solution that is easy to implement. But the reality is that an AMP implementation is a complex endeavor with many moving parts that requires deep understanding of AMP and all the parts that come into contact with it. It is impossible to imagine that Joe Average webmaster that publish a site through Word Press or some other black box solution would be able understand and implement AMP in any useful manner. Surprise!, install plugin, run does not produce the desired effect.

Complexity scares people, so yes maybe the days of AMP are numbered.

@KaseyM
and cuts CPM's down to barebones while it's at it.

I am not sure that this is really accurate. I do see lower RPM for ads appearing on AMP pages. I suspect that one is seeing a biased metric. In my case the AMP pages are nearly always the landing pages (this should be the case in most situations unless one has an AMP only website), from those pages the users go on to non-amp versions of the pages. I suspect, but have no way of verifying, that landing pages have a lower CTR. Thus if you collect data from only landing pages the RPM will likely be lower. So to make a fair comparison one would need to compare AMP landing page RPM to non-AMP landing page RPM in which case I would guess that AMP RPM would be equal or similar to non-AMP RPM.
9:33 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:7139
votes: 410


Plenty of insight and facts there, not rants, but then they are not beholden to Google for their incomes via adsense, so they can be impartial..
9:51 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 1, 2016
posts:2196
votes: 581


Sorry you right those are very well written articles with no bias.

Here are some gems of insight from the first article:
Google can go to hell.

F#&! you Google, and f#&! the AMP horse you rode in on.


No that's not a rant.

@Leosghost I expected more from you. You often bring well thought out arguments and ideas to the discussion but not with those two articles.
10:02 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:7139
votes: 410


You dispute the facts of what they say about amp, or how they say it..?
10:20 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 1, 2016
posts:2196
votes: 581


Both.

The speed test in the second example is flawed. The speed benefit of amp comes from testing the cached instance of the page. The test is conducted by requesting the actually instance of the AMP page. It is nearly impossible for someone other than Google to test the speed of the amp page because to do so requires that the page be displayed from Google search and none of the testing tools allow you to do this. This is one the most flagrant mis-steps in these articles but there are plenty of others. The bottom line is that the authors spend to much time bashing Google and not enough time understanding how AMP really works.

And as I stated above the issue with AMP is exactly that, it is complex and to really derive benefit from it one needs to have an understanding of these complexities. Most people don't. Furthermore an argument can be made that given these complexities, other and possibly just as complex solutions can provide pretty much the same results or better.
11:17 pm on Sept 19, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:7139
votes: 410


I was particularly interested about what was said about Google SERPs "pre-loading" amp pages, that implies that the more pages that use amp that are served in any particular SERP page, the more the "visitors" bandwidth is being used for downloading / preloading in the background things ( pages, texts and images ) which they have not actually requested.

Given how many people are on limited bandwidth and limited data plans, especially in the USA, it would seem that anyone using amp, is collaborating with Google to use the searcher's data allowance, even if there is no actual click on their site in SERP..This "pre loading" would appear to be the exact opposite of what we know as "lazy loading"..basically ( if what the article says is accurate ), then Google is giving the illusion of speed by using the bandwidth and data allowance of searchers without their knowledge, thus , those with a low data cap should avoid Google search..

I have truly unlimited data available on my mobiles ( cell phones ) , but I know many who are capped at 500 MB or 1 or 2 GB per month..overage charges would hurt..How are Google maps handled if they can be included on an amp page? Does the site get charged even if the site is not clicked and they are not thus displayed ( bu they are preloaded ) looking at a SERP which includes a lot of amp sites each with embedded Google maps could be lucrative for Google ( now that it charges sites for maps ), and be expensive for the searcher with a small data plan..
10:08 pm on Sept 20, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 16, 2005
posts:2811
votes: 130


It is nearly impossible for someone other than Google to test the speed of the amp page because to do so requires that the page be displayed from Google search and none of the testing tools allow you to do this


That rather proves the point the articles were making: AMP puts Google in control.

AMP is presented as faster because its more efficient. If its actually faster because its served from a CDN and preloaded, the only thing special about AMP is that Google favours it, whereas it is presented as being faster because it is more efficient.

he reality is that an AMP implementation is a complex endeavor with many moving parts that requires deep understanding of AMP and all the parts that come into contact with it.


Which means its hard to implement and expensive. Not exactly plus points.
12:15 am on Sept 21, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 1, 2016
posts:2196
votes: 581


Which means its hard to implement and expensive. Not exactly plus points.

I never claimed that it was a plus point.

That rather proves the point the articles were making: AMP puts Google in control.

No not really, practically this is the case but it is possible to configure your own CDN to serve AMP pages. Cloudflare offers a service.
[cloudflare.com...]
6:32 am on Sept 21, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 29, 2007
posts:1816
votes: 105


Well, you two proved my point from the second post flawlessly. The AMP honeymoon is over and they don't want to babysit it anymore, lol.
10:53 am on Sept 21, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 16, 2005
posts:2811
votes: 130


I know you can use Cloudflare and another CDN, and one of the advantages of the open governance model is that they get a say too.

However, if an AMP page only works properly from Google search, as you say, then Google is in a position of power.

@JS_Harris have you any numbers that show implementation cresting.

My take on Google's motives is that they realised that a lot of large media sites were never going to provide a good mobile experience on their own, so they saw an opportunity to fix the problem and profit from doing so.
7:50 pm on Sept 23, 2018 (gmt 0)

Full Member from GB 

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 16, 2001
posts: 205
votes: 0


Sad to report that Bing is also now supporting AMP pages and stories within the carousel atop their mobile web results.

A great point made earlier that AMP is difficult to properly roles out and that a plug-in won’t just cut it. In that case, for the love of the web, please just build your sites fast and remove the point of AMP altogether.
8:33 pm on Sept 23, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:7139
votes: 410


A great point made earlier that AMP is difficult to properly roles out and that a plug-in won’t just cut it. In that case, for the love of the web, please just build your sites fast and remove the point of AMP altogether*.

^^^ This , 1000 times over..

*My bold..
7:33 pm on Sept 24, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from CA 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 25, 2003
posts:1178
votes: 307


Polemic Digital, the first of Leosghost's links out above, is Barry Adams, a name familiar to many here, an SEO with two decades of experience. I don't always agree with him (or anyone) but I take what he says as worth consideration.

Ferdy Christant, I had never heard of prior to following Leosghost's link above.

What they both are saying is NOT new. I and others have made similar comments on AMP since it's proposal. Obviously, therefore, I agree with the points made in both.

Also, the 'open' governance model is, to date, a sham. With the exception of Léonie Watson (a woman I greatly respect) the board is mostly stacked with Googlers, advertisers, and CDNs: all fellow travellers in the walling of the web.

While there are several/many reasons to dislike AMP the following, in order, are mine:
1. preloading links is an abominable practice especially with mobile users.
2. preferential treatment to a quasi-proprietary format is an abominable practice. The latest marketing facelift changes little/nothing.
3. given that render speed (both to initial viewport and to full page) is knowable a 'real' interest in site speed would simply make it a 'real' substantial results weighting. That AMP is preferred tells us that site speed is an excuse.
4. AMP is Google's keeping up with the Joneses (Apple News, FB Instant Articles) walled gardens. Multiple private preserves is not synonymous with an open web.
5. that Google increasingly is using AMP as a club tells a tale of desperation. To which I say die, Die, DIE! Go the way of 99% of Google efforts to build rather than buy... ASAP.
8:26 pm on Sept 24, 2018 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:7139
votes: 410


^^^raises glass..of "leapfrog".. :)
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members