AMP & the botnet

>>61092683
Who the fuck cares? So what if shitty sites are penalized for having 9000 fucking scripts running in the background?

>Shortly before AMP became a thing, Google announced that they will begin penalizing websites that did not render fast on mobile devices.

There is nothing wrong with this. The free market is at play improving the internet.

>>61092716
>>61092717
This means that amp sites are ranked before them because google caches and serves them.

File: ron-paul-krugman.jpg (160KB, 960x647px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 960x647px

>>61092821
They can compete with such sites by enabling AMP on their own websites.

I bet you threw a fit when https happened too huh

File: Bing-2.png (18KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x300px

Bing doesn't have this problem. :^)

>>61092837
This way the internet can finally become google, yay.

File: shooter_photo_via_shutterstock.jpg (14KB, 648x348px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 648x348px

>>61092852
Kill Google AMP before it KILLS the web
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/

>>61092683
so what
google is not a search engine, google is an advertisement engine.
I don't sell anything on my website, so I don't care if it pops up high on a list of advertisements

>>61092998
>I don't sell anything on my website, so I don't care if it pops up high on a list of advertisements
Not on advertisements, it ranks non google/amp *search* results lower.

Here's a quote from the webmaster of bbc.co.uk:
>"I initially enabled AMP on my site for one reason only – ranking well in Google search results."

It's stupid easy to make site fast by Google metrics. Ironically, the only thing Google shits on foot my project is Google Maps because of caching and I can't control that.

You don't have to use AMP to get a good search ranking. Google has tools and APIs to test your page. Good viewport, mobile optimized images, etc. and you can get a good ranking