back to article Google kicks itself out of its own cache when serving AMP pages

Google’s come up with a way to kick itself out of URLs served to mobile devices from its cache, an effort that will mean pages from around the web no longer score an unwanted address. URLs appear to come from Google thanks to the Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) project the company championed. Like so many Google …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google AMP is shit

    It's just another way for the billion dollar, tax avoiding, data slurping maggots to resell someone else's content for money.

    Another bastard US megacorp polluting the world.

  2. Anonymous Coward Silver badge


    So they're making a way for content loaded from one place to say that it was loaded from another place?

    Yeah, I can't see any problems with that. I mean phishers will never be able to take advantage, surely.

  3. timecop1818

    AMP is garbage and should be killed, not "improved"

    Shit is like mobile cancer, just fucking admit that it was a failure and go away with it, Google.

    Nobody wants it, whether its served from or from the site itself.

    1. JetSetJim Silver badge

      Re: AMP is garbage and should be killed, not "improved"

      All I want is a way to disable it - give me a config option somewhere, don't force it on me. Perhaps a toggle at the top of the page.

      AMP - DO NOT WANT (in proper shouty!)

      1. Ivan Vorpatril

        Re: AMP is garbage and should be killed, not "improved"

        "All I want is a way to disable it"

        DeAMPify on the google play store, which strangely has only 1000-5000 installs

        1. JetSetJim Silver badge

          Re: AMP is garbage and should be killed, not "improved"

          Possibly because it doesn't work inside chrome, but good first effort. There's a few user script apps out there, but not sure my confidence in them is high

          1. timecop1818

            Re: AMP is garbage and should be killed, not "improved"

            On Android you can simply switch your search engine to (go to that site, search for something once, then go to chrome settings, set search engine, and pick from the list).

            I'm not sure why that would need a separate app.

            1. JetSetJim Silver badge


              Ta very much, have an upvote and a pint. Much nicer now.

  4. RyokuMas Silver badge

    "Ubl wrote that Google hopes to implement its work in the second half of 2018, by adding some new bits to the WebKit browser engine and helpingforcing other browser-makers to adopt it"


    Once again, Google leading the web down the proprietary, good-for-google path under the claim that it makes things "better for everyone".

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      As opposed to Apple's laughable attempts to get its notch accepted in CSS?

      1. FIA

        As opposed to Apple's laughable attempts to get its notch accepted in CSS?

        No. It's the exact opposite of that. That's trying to get something added to a standard, not 'adding it to the most common thing' and hoping inertia will drive it's adoption.

        Think more MS in the 90s or Apple and their -webkit extensions in the 2000s.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          No. It's the exact opposite of that.

          Is it fuck: Apple has already made the changes to its own code and is now post facto trying to get them included in the standard. Apple only works on Webkit when it wants something new hence the lack of support for WebP or service workers and lots of other stuff. And then there's the ban on other rendering engines on IOS.

  5. Dan 55 Silver badge

    How does El Reg even know it got a visit if the page is served from

    It'd screw up your ABC figures, Shirley?

  6. Blotto
    Paris Hilton

    Explanation needed

    Google’s Tech Lead for the AMP Project, Malte Ubl, offered a third reason in a Tuesday post in which he wrote that current arrangements meant removing the URL would have let publishers know what readers were keen on before they visited sites, a privacy no-no.

    El Reg probably needs to explain that URL you visit is also told about the URL you've just come from, hence the third reason quoted above. Effectively, the URL you visit from goggle can decode the google URL and decipher what you searched for hence the privacy issue. Removing the google amp prefix and making it seem like you visited the URL fresh enhances users privacy.

    Google amp most likely increases page visits but like net neutrality is probably skewed in favour of the big outfits.

  7. Tim Warren


    .. of course if webmasters actually bothered to code their own websites for the functionality they need rather than pulling in some huge library of code, that they only need a fraction of to do something that the end user probably doesn't want... then we wouldn't need AMP in the first place!

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: FFS

      I guess other reasons are if you want a higher pagerank then you need AMP, if you want analytics on Google's AMP cache then you probably need Google Analytics, and if you want advertising on your AMP page then you probably need AdWords. I'm guessing at the last two, but if true it would answer my question above.

      Lock-in fun for all the family.

  8. LeahroyNake Bronze badge

    Amp is poo

    Just scroll down below the ads then scroll below AMP results.... then consider using a different search engine ?

  9. CRConrad

    AMP has been fucking up my links for months now.

    I click on a link in a certain Android app, and more often than not I get " ... 400 Page not found".

    The irony is that the app is Google's own Google Plus.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019