AMP Turns 5, no longer required for Google Search Carousel

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

AMP Turns 5, no longer required for Google Search Carousel

justa

7:43 pm on Jun 28, 2020 (gmt 0)

The AMP Framework has come a long way in the past 5 years and has to stand up to a lot of criticism

[blog.amp.dev...]

The most interesting thing for me was this...

This work culminated in Google’s recent announcement around page experience signals that provides a path to make all web content eligible for inclusion in the Top Stories Carousel.

This links to a webmaster [webmasters.googleblog.com ] back in May where they announced that when the three new Web Vitals come in to play that AMP is no longer a requirement to make the top sections

When we roll out the page experience ranking update, we will also update the eligibility criteria for the Top Stories experience. AMP will no longer be necessary for stories to be featured in Top Stories on mobile; it will be open to any page.

This is great for AMP because it can get away from the stigma that people only use them to get rankings, and now they can focus on working with people who use the Framework for the performance benefits.

tangor

2:24 am on Jun 29, 2020 (gmt 0)

AMP will no longer be necessary for stories to be featured in Top Stories on mobile;

Could it be that AMP was NOT as successful as envisioned, or a realization of requirement was a bridge too far?

Never jumped on the AMP train. Just wondering.

justa

11:18 am on Jun 30, 2020 (gmt 0)

I think the adoption numbers were incredible, but the reason behind the adoption was it being the only way into the search top carousel rather than making a faster website to improve user experience.

Now that exclusivity has been removed anyone that chooses to go with AMP instead of building their site fast to start with are doing so for the right reasons than being made to do so.

It takes the sting out of the argument that Google is trying to control the open web when it comes to the AMP debate.

engine

11:39 am on Jun 30, 2020 (gmt 0)

Google's original aim for AMP was to provide a super-light version of a page for mobile.

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, and as usual, there was criticism (yawn) and eventually it was shifted to an open model [webmasterworld.com]

Where does it go from here?
I don't know, exactly, as, for example, with 5G there's no need for super-lightweight pages. In some developing regions there is a need.

Personally, I prefer the full-fat web page, assuming it's not bloated.

iamlost

6:09 pm on Jun 30, 2020 (gmt 0)

Mobile speed was the excuse behind which the attempt at a FB Instant Articles, Apple News competing platform. However, two facts and a behaviour changed the direction:
* while initial take up was widespread among the enterprise site target audience
——a significant percentage trialled and dropped.
——a significant percentage never bothered at all.

* the obfuscation that speed was gained through
——Google delivery of content (if not self hosted) that withheld a significant percentage of traffic on the Google copy rather than forwarded to the origin site as expected ( by far too many).
——(initially) a severe constraint on site differentiation.

* FB’s decision in May to allow Instant Articles to be published to both Apple News and Google AMP formats (because of fast dropping usage) was the excuse that shall not be mentioned allowing Google to give up on yet another ‘sort of competitor’ offering without appearing yet another SM failure.

Yawn - not at all a surprise in either case.