search

mmistakes / made-mistakes-jekyll

Deprecated source for mademistakes.com. Previously built with Jekyll, Gulp, and Netlify.
https://mademistakes.com
MIT License
443 stars 189 forks source link

AMP pages #21

Closed mmistakes closed 7 years ago

mmistakes commented 8 years ago

Investigate amp-jekyll plugin and possible use.

daviddarnes commented 8 years ago

Looked at https://mercury.postlight.com/? Might save you some work

mmistakes commented 8 years ago

Thanks @daviddarnes. I did try that out but it's parser didn't like something with my pages. I'm guessing it has something to do with Cloudflare and my https setup. It tends to block a bunch of services like this.

screen shot 2016-08-17 at 10 29 35 am

mmistakes commented 8 years ago

Was able to get it working on pages where I don't have a lot of images. Pretty sure their parser chokes on my large photos in the <picture> elements.

daviddarnes commented 8 years ago

Ah ok I see, I was beginning to wonder as I'm on https with CloudFlare and it works fine. I've yet to implement <picture> for my images

daviddarnes commented 8 years ago

FYI I've had some poor results from adding AMP to my articles, they come up in google results but only for a few days. I've yet to see a serious benefit, other than a slight speed boost

mmistakes commented 8 years ago

Same here @daviddarnes. I've enabled it with Wordpress blogs for testing since it's fairly trivial to turn on. Really depends on the page content I've found. Unless you can do some sort of bespoke solution to make sure it's all marked up right you can lose a bunch in the conversion.

It especially starts to break down when someone hits an AMP page and then abandons because there is no navigation to browse around. Or if they follow an internal link on that page they end up on a non-AMP version. Pretty poor experience if you ask me.

daviddarnes commented 8 years ago

Hmm, makes me wonder if I should remove it if it's causing bad conversions 😲

mmistakes commented 8 years ago

It's worth testing that's for sure. It depends on your content and audience. Since it only really applies to mobile there's probably a big dropoff there anyways.

What kind of stinks about it is Google dangles this carrot that makes it seem like you'll get some SEO juice from it. Less so now, but more when they'd promote AMP "news" articles at the top with a stronger visual cue than the little lightning bolt they have now. But still...

Even if you do happen to get more traffic because of an AMPlified page I'd imagine the chance of visitors sticking around go away. With a bland design/style, absence of navigation and other content it makes it hard to entice them otherwise.

Looks like a lot of this stuff will be addressed in the future... https://www.ampproject.org/roadmap/ Seems like a lot of wasted effort to maintain a separate version of your content though. Smells like m.domain.com crap all over again.

Too many competing formats to deal with too. AMP, Facebook Instant Articles, and whatever Apple is doing with News.

daviddarnes commented 8 years ago

I feel the same way. I really thought it was some sort of short term fix for heavy loading sites. All those news sites that struggle to load could supply a faster, more lean, page for mobile users to load.

Oh well, at least it's sparked a healthy discussion! I feel like all the above is article worthy! 😄

mmistakes commented 8 years ago

Agreed! Still trying to find the time to write up converting Disqus comments into static-based ones... Hahah