Facebook's turbo-charged Instant Articles: Another brick in the wall Facebook recently opened up its Instant Articles platform to all publishers after an early test run with an anointed few publishers. In a nutshell, it strips out everything a publisher has festooned across their site. In its current form, it uses a specially crafted RSS feed to reformat articles for Facebook. The result is a …
Or you serve ads from your own server without all the crap javascript vulnerabilities, etc. Having met the rational requirements why people block ads, other than selfishness, you then block people with adblockers, or force them through a wait screen.
You offer a subscription service for those who are regular viewers, but want to continue using adblock. You sign up with micropayment sites. You allow a smal number of articles to be read before the blocking adblokers comes into play, to accommodate for folks coming in from Twitter, Reddit and the like.
Or...you stop writing altogether and get a different job. Either way, you don't work for free. Any more than any of your readers do.
How about giving the end user a choice? Google's search results could have a little performance indicator next to each result, to give you an idea of how long the page takes to load. Facebook could do the same: a lightning symbol to indicate fast-loading pages, a snail symbol to indicate slow pages.
Google already shows the words "mobile friendly" to indicate that the page isn't too small to read; something similar could tell us that the page takes forever to load. But who benefits? Follow the money: all those slow advertising scripts probably lead back to Google's revenue stream. Are they really going to bite the hand that feeds?
The point of these "standards" such as they are - or even the CPP Specification - is to say "We wrote this page in a way devoid of annoying bloat"
...but the site owners are the ones including all that crud in the first place. They chose to do it - no one made them - and presumably they chose to do it because they have numbers that say that forcing flash ads and "Please sign up to our newsletter" popups actually _does_ increase site revenue.
To make them change, surely the first step is going to have to be to convince them otherwise, or else to the suits who sign off on the final site design, this is going to look like a deliberate attack on their revenue streams, and why on earth would they agree to that?
"three competing formats for three competing publishing platforms ... It's also a lot of work for publishers who'd like to support all three."
As the format you need to create in all 3 cases is XML (RSS variant options) or HTML (Google AMP) not a huge amount of work - if you produce some intermediate XML friendly format then trivial to run transforms to create the appropriate output.
But far simpler to create lightweight pages in the 1st place, then no need to worry about 3 competing formats
I wouldn't mind the pinit,arsebook,pop-ups and Google Analytics content if it would load and render in the background AFTER the worthwhile content has appeared.
As for best practices, has anyone at El Reg so much as looked at the eye-blinding ads that load into the banneron the Register App?
Talk about pot and kettle conversations.
Google AMP, though - in true Google fashion - AMP eschews existing standards like RSS or JSON in favor of re-inventing the wheel
Well, to be fair RSS is extremely limited and the extensions, such as the Yahoo media ones, are verbose because XML is verbose. JSON is poorly suited to rich media and would require transformation in any case. AMP is a subset of HTML which makes embedding in existing pages, such as a news preview, a doddle.
STUFF Google, Facebook, and Apple for attempting to create pointless standards. RSS works to feed Goodreads and USA Amazon Author page (Goodreads is owned by Amazon).
Stuff Facebook and Apple for trying to create walled gardens too.
Try getting stuff on/off an Apple gadget without iTunes, even if it has USB.
If they are tossing out the ads that's great for readers but why would the publishers be interested? Or does it allow some ads, just (hopefully) not the annoying types? Or does Facebook insert its own ads, and give the publisher a cut?
What they really need is a system that prevents the type of stupid "articles" that are basically showing you one picture and paragraph per page. I guess some people are willing to sit through that, but between the annoyance and how slowly they load I avoid those like the plague. I suppose they might suck less if each one loaded quickly, but I'd still probably avoid them.
Can't speak for Facebook - but have you hit crtl-U on the Google homepage? On this machine, it pops out 268 lines of text totalling 175,623 UTF-8 characters... which is no doubt why I can frequently type half a sentence before it rebuilds the page display.
No doubt ignoring that half sentence is a mere courtesy detail. Because there is *no* way I should be able to out-type a text entry field on even the most feeble of modern computers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
