August 23rd, 2019

Replying to a tweet from @pbakaus

Agreed! Maintaining one site is nicer than two.

And yet publishers with already-fast sites (like The Guardian) are compelled to make AMP versions for the search benefits.

That’s not a side point—it is THE point!

30° N , 81° E

Also on Twitter

Reply Retweet Favourite

Responses

Paul Bakaus

and we both agree that needs to be fixed. An already fast site should ideally be able to stay with their current framework and get the same benefits. While web standard folks+Chrome/ Search devs are working on that, I’m working on the AMP-as-framework story, which is orthogonal. Jeremy Keith Jeremy Keith Tony Haile Malte Ubl

Paul Bakaus

In other words, I completely get your point, and yet I think there’s need for higher level HTML frameworks on the web that make it easy to focus on creating content, as opposed to fighting bugs and perf issues. I’d like AMP to become a natural choice for that. Jeremy Keith Jeremy Keith Tony Haile Malte Ubl

Jeremy Keith

It is not orthongonal as long as AMP is being privileged in search. This isn’t something you can just handwave away. The unfairness of it actively harms AMP-as-framework. adactio.com/notes/15687

Jeremy Keith

Me too! I would love to get behind AMP—a declarative framework where configuration happens in HTML rather than JavaScript: great! But I cannot in good conscience support it while it is being unfairly prioritised and propped up in search. adactio.com/notes/15688

Jeremy Keith

So, just to be clear, while you might be capable of the mental gymnastics required to think “Well, leaving aside the unfairness of the SEO situation with AMP…”, I cannot do that. I wish AMP would compete on its own merits. Do it. Please. adactio.com/notes/15689

Andy Davies

This is where I get confused… independent.co.uk only have an AMP site yet it’s performance is awful from a user perspective - isn’t AMP supposed to prevent this?

# Posted by Andy Davies on Saturday, August 24th, 2019 at 10:12am

Have you published a response to this? :