17 Comments

  1. Weston Ruter

    Boyer cited the expense of of building and testing multiple codebases as one of the primary reasons his team ditched AMP. The complication of maintaining a second user experience was “far too much to ask” for his development team, who had already produced a fast, lightweight WordPress setup with proper caching.

    Yes, this is a concern. And this is the key advantage of going the “Native AMP” route. By not using the paired mode—where there are separate AMP-specific URLs and even entirely separate templates—you only have to maintain one single codebase. You can just rely on AMP’s own web components, like amp-carousel instead of also having to find something equivalent with some jQuery carousel plugin, for example. You can also just use amp-bind for developing interactive experiences where otherwise you would have to use custom JavaScript.

    Nevertheless, the plugin’s new paired mode is able to fully re-use your active theme’s templates and styles. Since the AMP plugin does not allow any custom JavaScript, then the default behavior in this new paired mode is just as if JavaScript is disabled in the browser. So as long as you account for the “no script” users, then your site in paired mode will gracefully degrade even without porting your site’s custom JavaScript to using the equivalent AMP components.

    Report

  2. Harmeet Singh @ Viral Web Tech

    I am using this plugin for my website and its too much effective. I like this plugin, thanks for sharing this.

    Report

  3. Calum Childs

    I have never come across an AMP-powered site before – and that’s because I don’t use Google. (I use DuckDuckGo instead.) A simple way of speeding up your site would be to minimize JavaScript, CSS, even HTML, etc.

    Report

  4. Weston Ruter

    The AMP plugin v1.0-beta3 is now available: https://make.xwp.co/2018/09/06/amp-plugin-release-v1-0-beta3/?amp

    Report

  5. Rajesh Kumar

    This plugin is much effective. I saw my website ranking is improving & getting good traffic after using this plugin.

    Report

  6. Weston Ruter

    WordPress had a rocky beginning with its official AMP plugin, which was originally developed by Automattic, one of the earliest publishing partners on the project. The first versions of the plugin were not easy to use, especially for heavily customized installations. It required site owners to invest considerable effort into optimizing AMP pages and fine tuning them for their needs. AMP for WordPress went without updates for 10 months in 2017, was fraught with errors, and incompatible with many other plugins.

    To be honest, this isn’t really fair. The first versions of the plugin were targeted for developers on WordPress.com VIP, so it made sense that it required development effort to customize. Also, the initial versions of the plugin were all marked clearly as 0.2, 0.3, and so on, not claiming a 1.0 level of completeness. The AMP plugin was developed very early in the history of AMP, so it had to be limited because AMP was also limited. The fact that AMP has been available in WordPress for so long via this plugin is a testament to Automattic’s efforts. Now as the plugin approaches 1.0, it is very much building on the foundation laid by Automattic, so I want to make sure credit is given where it is due.

    Report

    • Alberto Medina

      Totally agree. Automattic’s plugin pioneered the effort of enabling AMP in WordPress, and it was, by far, very successful. Looking at the shortcomings of the plugin at the beginning of its evolution, we do so with the goal of explaining that evolution in the plugin development roadmap. With the advent of v1.0, talking about such shortcomings is not needed any more. The plugin has evolved into a different stage now.

      Report

    • Sarah Gooding

      @weston – I think it’s a fair assessment that the plugin had a rocky start. They didn’t present the original plugin as being targeted towards developers. When they announced it on WordPress.com, Automattic made it sound like it was safe for anybody to just install: “And if you have a self-hosted WordPress site, we’ve got you covered too. Here’s a free AMP plugin – click here to install it.” Then when folks had trouble using it, as you saw in the forums, nobody was available to offer support. Nowhere in the plugin’s description at that time did it say it was an early version geared towards developers. Covering the history of its development is of interest to our readers because for many of them, the early version was their first experience of the plugin. People started wondering if it had been completely abandoned because of a lack of updates and support. The coming updates in 1.0 may encourage those who previously had a bad experience with the plugin to come back and give it another shot.

      Report

  7. Otto

    I’m not one hundo on board with AMP, but that’s entirely because of the way that Google has treated it, breaking connections to sites with the caching, and removing details that don’t fit.

    The problem isn’t the AMP standards, the problem is Google and the way they have treated it. Standards should be open and geared towards the greater benefits. Google has AMPly shown that this is not the case, and has thus polluted the general opinion of the idea itself.

    I’m not sure that this is recoverable. The standard is now basically proprietary, and generally considered to be fake. It will die, eventually, and the more general HTML standards will live on. This is the way of all fake and imposed “standards”.

    Report

    • Weston Ruter

      The goal of AMP is that it should cease to be necessary. One of the key outcomes of the AMP project has been discovery of technologies developed as part of AMP can be submitted for standardization. Here’s a great post on that: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/standardizing-lessons-learned-from-amp/

      As for “removing details that don’t fit” are you referring to stripping out markup that is not valid AMP? If so, this is the AMP plugin’s doing, not the doing of the AMP project. The v1.0 of the plugin will give much greater control over whether something AMP-invalid is suitable for removal, or if the AMP version of a post should just not be made available at all.

      Report

  8. Abhishek Jain

    AMP limits Javascripts, and thus one does not have too many options to add different UX elements. This results in increase in bounce rates. On my site which gets good traffic from search, I found that the bounce rate was about 10% higher on AMP pages. Which was too high. Also the additional effort to maintain two different versions of some posts was a hassle. Which led me to drop AMP from my website.

    Report

  9. Tom Greer

    I was an early AMP adopter and had it running on three websites that averaged 1000 or more page views per day. Ultimately, I disabled and removed AMP for many reasons.

    Most of all, I didn’t like that my website visitors never actually visited the beautiful, fully-featured websites that I’d spent considerable effort designing. Instead they received a stripped down version fed from a Google server.

    Our real webpages were responsive and almost as fast (sub-second) as AMP, so I couldn’t understand why Google promised a SEO boost for AMP (which by the way, never resulted in increased traffic).

    The bounce rate for our AMP pages was significantly higher than their real website counterparts. In addition, we received complaints from clients over the lack of features on the AMP version pages, especially the lack of comments. (I realize that Google now has a solution for this issue.)

    The item that ultimately drove our decision to disable and remove AMP was the cost of maintenance. Maintaining an AMP version was like having an extra theme applied to our website. Adding anything to the header, footer, sidebar, in-line ads, etc. required modifying two sets of code.

    At this point I’m anti-AMP. The real issue should be page load times. Whether pages comply with the ever-changing AMP requirements shouldn’t be important when it comes to page rankings.

    I’m turned off by Google’s push to make AMP a web standard. I’m in this camp: https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/.

    Report

    • Weston Ruter

      @Tom: I’d encourage you to give it another try with v1.0 (now in beta). Your complaints about the plugin are quite valid, but they are for the plugin as it existed in v0.6 and before. We have been actively addressing these major pain points. The plugin now is able to take your active theme’s responsive theme templates and serve them as AMP, along with your theme’s styles. Nav menus, widgets, comments, and other standard WordPress features are all supported. This allows AMP pages to have the same design as non-AMP pages, and it greatly minimizes the amount of duplicate work to serve both AMP and non-AMP versions of your site (the paired mode). You can see this on my own site which is running the Twenty Seventeen theme:

      Non-AMP: https://weston.ruter.net/
      AMP: https://weston.ruter.net/?amp

      Report

  10. George

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: