[djflutt3rshy]

Reduce the demand for it. Include easily accessible "article only" mode, make your site friendly to current Reader Modes for all major browsers. No obtrusive ads, no 500 trackers bogging down the browser. Quick loading. Just give us the info we need, nothing more. Just like ad blockers were a response to websites not respecting people's attention and safety, likewise AMP is a response to them not respecting people's time.

[untog]

All of that would be awesome, but it won't kill AMP.

AMP isn't popular because users love it. It's popular because Google shows AMP-only results for the first screen (often two or more screens) of search results on their site. You can make as beautiful an experience as you want, but users won't see it when they search, so they won't ever get to experience it.

[thephyber]

I don't think these issues are mutually exclusive.

Users search for news/article content with Google because the experience is qualitatively better than many of the alternatives. If there was a news website that showed trending and search-based results (and there are several), the presentation of the article after SERP clickthru would still need to be comparable.

Facebook did a more AMP-like thing of migrating the article content onto Facebook, providing the least offensive (if you are already using Facebook) presentation.

News websites in 2019 almost all auto-play video upon load and many times the video is unrelated to the article content. They load clickbait partner links in the footer. They still have dozens of ad networks and tracking beacons sprinkled on every page. I can't reliably trust my ad blockers and tracking beacon blockers or Reader Mode to work all of the time.

As much as I would like competition with Google+AMP and Facebook+articles, the current state of the web is gross and these two clean it up a little.

[jotm]

I haven't seen an AMP page in over 2 years, and I use Google search a lot. Anytime I saw one I clicked away in disgust, so maybe they're filtered for me.

The problem is all the people and big websites that don't seem to care at all about their own content pushing amp as some sort of great solution for website speed. Sad, but it seems to have died down.

[adventured]

AMP results are persistently - as in, without exception - at the top of all results for any search that has an active news event attached to it.

Right now nine of the first ten results for "Walmart shooting" in incognito mode stock Chrome on Android, are AMP articles.

Do that search, if you're not seeing those AMP articles then you're doing something very unusual with your setup.

[jotm]

Oh yeah, I don't read the news. If anything is important enough, I'll visit the Reddit live thread, or if it's not time sensitive, it will be in the news 2-3 weeks later, at which point it's probably worth reading.

So major news outlets are still on the AMP bandwagon? And they complain about revenue...

[geofft]

> If anything is important enough, I'll visit the Reddit live thread

Reddit uses AMP. If you search via Google for a Reddit thread, you'll get an AMP link. I sometimes see Redditors posting AMP links to other Reddit threads, presumably because Google search is more effective than Reddit's own search.

> or if it's not time sensitive, it will be in the news 2-3 weeks later, at which point it's probably worth reading

Google shows AMP for all search results, not just the current-news carousel. If I search for 'Sandy Hook shooting' on my phone, I see a Wikipedia onebox, the first search result which is Wikipedia (no AMP), a handful of news articles from the last few weeks, and then the remainder of the actual search results: a Business Insider article from December 2018 (AMP), an ABC article from 2014 (AMP), a Reuters article from a few weeks ago (AMP), an NBC article from a few weeks ago (AMP), a CBS News article from 2017 (AMP), a Britannica article (no AMP), and two YouTube videos (no AMP).

[jotm]

Go straight to Reddit, or better yet old.reddit.com :)

I tried that search, none are AMP for me. Tried "walmart shooting", none are AMP, even CNN live updates. Android/Firefox.

Tried Chrome, not signed into Google, no AdBlock, still No AMP.

Strange... May be Internet speed related?

[untog]

> So major news outlets are still on the AMP bandwagon?

They don't have a choice. If they aren't then Google won't show them, and they won't get any traffic.

[radley]

I tried your example and I'm not seeing AMP links on Firefox nor Chrome for Mac. Either I've changed a preference somewhere or UBlock Origin is bypassing them.

[ori_b]

The M in amp is for 'mobile'.

[geofft]

In particular, in Chrome for Mac, if you go to developer tools and enable mobile emulation (click the second icon at the top left of the developer tools window), then go to google.com and do a search for a current news topic, you'll see AMP results in your desktop browser.

[ben_jones]

They said Chrome for Android. That might suggest AMP is only getting shoved at mobile users.

[untog]

It is specially only for mobile users (as currently implemented, at least)

[buboard]

Are you using your phone? I see them all the time (and its pretty easy to notice with the hiding of the address bar).

[dnh44]

I use Safari pretty much exclusively on both macOS and iOS and I saw my first amp page a couple of months ago. My first thought was oh there’s something different about this page followed by the realisation that it’s my first amp page.

Since then I’ve only seen two more. All three time I’ve clicked away almost immediately.

I think the reason I don’t see them much is because I don’t use google for search often, and I never use google news.

[icebraining]

Maybe they're using Firefox for Android, Google doesn't seem to be pushing AMP links to it (yet?).

[buboard]

I dont know about that but they do push them to Safari on iphone

[jotm]

Phone and tablet, Firefox (logged into Google, with adblock), Chrome (not logged in, no AdBlock), no AMP. May be Internet speed related? No idea

[paultopia]

Does anyone around here actually know how to make sites friendly to iOS safari reader mode? Last I checked, it wasn't documented, and the best wisdom floating around was something like "use divs and maybe an article tag or two"

[pvorb]

I've no idea about Safari's reader mode, but you can have a look how the readability feature in Firefox works: https://github.com/mozilla/readability

I'd expect the Safari feature to work quite similar.

[lern_too_spel]

Why not just make your site readable in the first place?

[dorgo]

.. and then just hope that the safari reader mode can read it?

[lern_too_spel]

Then people won't have to use a reader mode.

[eitland]

> likewise AMP is a response to them not respecting people's time.

I really don't think this is the reason Google had spent millions on making this.

A more realistic explanation is tvis situation gave someone the idea and management accepted it as it would give them yet another way to corner the market.

[buboard]

I m more wary about google ranking amp pages higher. I m not sure if amp is a response

[golergka]

Oh, and for the love of g-d, unless your page really needs JS (as in, it's an interactive editor or something), please make it usable with JS switched off.

[PhantomGremlin]

How is this comment being voted down?

There's a real Stockholm syndrome prevalent here. Is the request so unreasonable?

And it's even worse. I browse with NoScript, no JS by default. Often I'm presented with a blank web page. I simply do View -> Page Style -> No Style in Firefox and usually I get a perfectly readable page.

Which means that countless sites go out of their way to be hostile to people not using JS. That's now acceptable?

[tripzilch]

Because it's hard to not something if your job depends on something or other.