{"id":24972,"date":"2019-04-11T15:43:24","date_gmt":"2019-04-11T19:43:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=24972"},"modified":"2019-04-12T14:27:25","modified_gmt":"2019-04-12T18:27:25","slug":"google-amp-lowered-our-page-speed-and-theres-no-choice-but-to-use-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2019\/04\/11\/google-amp-lowered-our-page-speed-and-theres-no-choice-but-to-use-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Google AMP Lowered Our Page Speed, and There’s No Choice But to Use It"},"content":{"rendered":"

Walid Halabi<\/a> (via Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Google puts the onus on publishers to, effectively, rejig large tracts of their websites layout, content, and functionality, in return for preferential treatment. Google promotes AMP as a way to make websites faster. That’s supposed to be the primary benefit, and the reason Google is pushing AMP so forcefully.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

We here at unlike kinds decided that we had to implement Google AMP. We have to be in the Top Stories section because otherwise we’re punted down the page and away from potential readers. We didn’t really want to; our site is already fast because we made it fast, largely with a combination of clever caching and minimal code. But hey, maybe AMP would speed things up. Maybe Google’s new future is bright.<\/p>\n

It isn’t. According to Google’s own Page Speed Insights audit (which Google recommends to check your performance), the AMP version of articles got a performance score of 80. The non-AMP versions? 86. Mind you, the AMP versions are hobbled - unauthorised javascript interaction is forbidden by Google, so you can’t vote or comment in place - it’ll kick you to the full version of the page. This is the fruit of weeks of labour converting the site: a slower, less interactive, more clunky site.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n