I do not believe page speed should play a role in search rankings at all. It has nothing to do with the content and the person with the correct and most relevant content doesn't always have the relevant skills or a DevOps specialist handy to meet the requirements.
This only helps the heavy handed SEO optimized sites with deep pockets and time to kill get yet another edge.
The article with the best insight isn't likely to be the one with the perfecly optimized website.
I understand that pagespeed effects end user experience when they hit a website, however that's not what I searched for. I did not search "fastest website with okay knowledge about dogs" I asked for "website with the best knowledge about dogs".
I want Google to be able to show me the most awesome page about dogs. The most in depth and relevant information. That niche dog blogger who is so passionate that they spend all their time researching dogs. I don't want "10 cool facts about dogs by Buzzfeed".
> Instead of granting premium placement in search results only to AMP, provide the same perks to all pages that meet an objective, neutral performance criterion such as Speed Index.
But who will measure it "objectively" (leaving aside no one agrees on how to universally measure load speed).
Googlebot? From what location and what machine types and how often? Should I get search results based on an average of all possible variables or the closest matching my locale and device? What happens when page content changes? What happens when the page sometimes loads slow content (e.g. ads) and sometimes doesn't? What happens when SEOers start cloaking their ad loads or taking advantage of flaws in the benchmark?
It's good to have a speed signal in search rankings, but this petition shouldn't pretend that's an objective replacement for something that always displays content first and loads media and third party content async
It's funny how no one was up in arms when facebook (the leading source of publisher traffic) did their version of accelerated pages.
AMP serves a purpose for the end user and it does so well, it loads instantly and doesn't consume much data in the process.
As for their "demands":
1. Google already states that AMP pages are ranked higher because they're faster to load.
2. I'm not sure if it's related but they they addressed that only yesterday: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-...
I would normally never do this, but over the past couple weeks I've been drafting a blog post proposing an open AMP alternative called Particle.
You can read it here: https://andrewrabon.com/particle-a-proposal-for-tinier-html-... [Draft]
Would anyone here be interested in seeing the blog post completed and/or helping me build it out? If so drop me a line at andrewrabon at gmail. :)
I also want feedback on if my ideas are actually solving a problem, and are doing so in the correct way. I only recently joined a news publisher so I'm not 100% cognizant of the issues at play.
> Instead of granting premium placement in search results only to AMP, provide the same perks to all pages that meet an objective, neutral performance criterion such as Speed Index. Publishers can then use any technical solution of their choice.
Hasn't Google gone on record saying that AMP doesn't affect search results given the same page load speed for non-AMP sites?
Personally, speaking as a search user, all I want from Google regards AMP is a setting that disables it in search results.
Google's results ordering is already sufficiently "optimized" away from my needs that as often as not I end up in 'verbatim' mode or on page 3 of the results before I get near what I'm looking for, so an extra layer of SEO-gameable "user convenience" isn't likely to make my google experience that much worse.
Since the presence of AMP results is based on device detection, it seems a search setting removing them would be a simple matter. Google's unwillingness to provide it speaks volumes about their actual intent, IMO.
Doesn't https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-... address one of their two demands?
Google amp is a blessing on mobile, I don't give a damn't about site owners.
I don't see the point of AMP. Why not just give certain sites a little icon/preference if they're faster than XXXms? Glad to see this letter says as much.
I support this completely and I would go one step further. We need a search engine that is free of CPM-monetization practices. It has become clear that Google is driving the web intentionally in a profit-maximizing direction at the expense of users and ordinary developers.
Move ad blocking to the indexing layer. Create a corner of the web that is naturally fast and user-friendly again without resorting to corporate-defined subsets of well-documented open web technologies.
I'll be giving a talk about what you can do to get your site to load faster without using AMP in Portland, Oregon on February 4th. https://pnwdrupalsummit.org/2018/sessions/how-get-perfect-10...
Long story short 100/100 with page speed is possible with most sites; further optimize for Speed Index by using rel="preload" for assets above the fold. What else am I missing?
People are trusting us to help them with technical decisions and we have a responsibility to make sure the web is accessible to as many people as possible. Our opinions have tremendous sway, even though it might not feel like it.
The web really started to go sideways when we followed the trend away from Progressive Enhancement. Let's get back to basics, pure and simple.
I have constantly heard that they can't reliably measure the performance of a website unless it is AMP. I don't buy this argument at all. Google already has mentioned to using site speed for as a minor ranking factor, why can't they use the same methodology for putting websites in the carousell too?
Also, they have Real user data for over a million websites - https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/crux
This is a way better indicator of site speed as opposed to if the site is AMP or not. Would be so cool if Google used this data as a pre condition to put sites into the carousell!
I keep telling myself that when someone finally takes Google down, AMP would standout as example of where Google went wrong. Basically, almost every search result I click on now requires THREE clicks:
1. click from the search page to the search result AMP page
2. click on a link on the AMP page to see the original link
3. click on the original link to bring the original search result
Not sure how or why AMP is better at delivering a better web experience to anyone than a properly and efficiently designed website.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I would suggest removing, or at least adding 'nofollow', to all the personal hyperlinks at the bottom of the letter to make it look less like SEO spam.
It devalues the letter, in my opinion, because I see them as people signing the letter for the sole purpose of promoting themselves.
But like I said...maybe I'm being too cynical.
It's sad that only Google is getting punished when Amazon owns a major portion of sales. Facebook is increasingly becoming the "home page" of small businesses all over the world. Etsy is now the ONLY place people can sell small hand-made art pieces. Ebay is the only marketplace to sell wholesale items on.
None of these platforms value add much that can't be built into whatever the next web becomes... But no organization is as powerful as a single one of them.
So Google is allowed to do this as long as all these other companies do what they are doing. I think what happened is that all the other disruptions were done to companies that don't know something could be better - they were not technologists, programmers, etc..
This letter is written by technologists, developers, so they know what google has done to steal the market. But no one here wants to apply the same logic to the other ones.
I agree with all the points, but I would add one:
Show AMP results for all browsers. AFAIK, only Chrome (and maybe Safari, can't confirm) are shown AMP links in the search results.
There is people (like me) who like to support other browsers , or like some addons. I get it, Google: you want your browser to be the most popular. You've done it. Now treat the rest of them like capable pieces of software.
This letter just seems to affirm that Google made a good business decision with AMP.
I switched to duckduckgo a few months ago and it has been the first time that I felt that I was not missing something... I tried to switch a few other times before that and the results were of much lower quality...
I like the idea of an independent system that doesn't require publishers to opt-in to AMP. But in addition to Speed Index, I'd apply a perceptual diff to an ideal content rendering based on AMP-like heuristics.
AMP, that thing you have never seen in the wild if you run firefox on your phone.
Google is a for-profit corp. How are these proposed changes in Google's self-interest?
Has no one yet tried forking AMP and simply removing all the Google? Call it OpAMP. You might not get into the carousel right off the bat, but if you get the ball rolling you'd have actual leverage instead of writing open letters on the internet.
If google makes a copy of original content and it doesn't hold copyright, why nobody sued them for breach of copyright?
Resistance is futile. Google is the web now. There are people who don't realize that gmail connects to a bigger world of email.
I was wondering when Google serves content via AMP because it never happened to me. I mostly use DuckDuckGo but occasionally use Google when I'm not satisfied with the results. Turns out when you use Firefox on Android, Google serves a different (older?) version of the Google search that doesn't link to AMP.
Is AMP opt-in for site owners? Or is it determined by page load speed? It didn't use AMP for my website, but it also loads faster than google.com ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Does AMP open google up to new anti-competitive claims?
I like what Twitter does with AMP.
If a page has AMP version, it redirects mobile users to AMP version, but on that page, not on its own cached version.
My work firewall blocks this site; can someone paste the letter's contents?
AMP is borderline MITM.
AMP is the solution the internet deserves for not coming up with the solution the internet needed.
It is odd all that everyone talks about the blockchain and the one problem no one talks about that it could solve is journalism.
News committed to an anonymous blockchain, immutable and potentially monitizable seems pretty interesting but maybe not as lucrative as other ideas.
Because AMP isn’t about ads or speed, it’s about editorial control. The same goes for Facebook and Apple.
I don’t care how many press releases they put out denying it.
I've been around long enough to believe that it's not just paranoia to think that some of the responses on this thread sound like people with Google-specific self-interests ($), if not being paid outright by Google for it, are on here shilling for Google via words and/or votes. I don't see how anyone who wants a free internet defends amp in its current form.
It's a controlled and censored internet ghetto by google.
Google keep black list on every conservative worker?? How sick is that!
They should add additional weight to their ranking algorithm for fast sites; anyone who's worked with a sales and marketing team knows how much they'll freak out if pagerank drops. They'll basically throw their firstborn into a well for higher pagerank.
Complaining about google for using their bat and ball in their backyard?
Google registered a domain just to host a letter?
Then make another search engine, don't complain about using Google technology in Google's search engine, on Google's browser.
When you navigate to an AMP site there is a very clear icon at the top to click and go to the site's actual domain. I don't understand what this letter is so upset about - if they have such a problem, they should build their own search engine.