New unresolved complaints against Google allege that the search giant's Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP), which the company claims will "significantly improve" mobile web performance when it came out 2015 .
Complain . promote good comparison” for AMP.
“Adjusting non-AMP ads slows header bidding, which Google then uses to negate excessively slow header bidding,” it wrote. “”Header bidding can often increase the latency of web pages and create security flaws when executed incorrectly,” falsely claimed by Google. Internally, Google employees grapple with 'how to justify [Google] do something slower '", according to the complaint.
The lawsuit, citing internal Google documents, was originally filed September 9 and has since been redone. The Manhattan judge's ruling, however, forced the release of an almost unanswered version on Friday. in an emailed statement to Search Engine Land.
“In fact, our ad technology helps websites and apps sponsor their content, and allows small businesses to reach customers around the world. There is strong competition in online advertising, which has brought down ad technology fees and broadened options for publishers and advertisers,” she said. “We will vigorously defend ourselves from [Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s] baseless claims in court.”
Targeted header bidding. At the heart of the matter is header bidding, an advertising method where publishers can place their inventory on multiple ad exchanges at once. It's a method that bypasses Google's "waterfall" approach to bidding, which typically powers Google's ad servers. Publishers generally prefer header bidding because of its potential for higher revenue and transparency.
However, header bidding requires publishers to place JavaScript on their pages to trigger an auction, and AMP pages don't support that JavaScript.
“In response to the threat of header bidding, Google created Accelerated Mobile Pages (“AMP”), a framework for developing mobile web pages, and made AMP essentially incompatible. with JavaScript and header bidding. Google then used its power in the search market to effectively force publishers to use AMP,” the lawsuit alleges.
Google also denied this, pointing to a January blog post It reads, “Engineers at Google designed AMP in partnership with publishers and other tech companies to help web pages load faster and improve the mobile user experience—Without bad for title bidding. ”
A damn indictment of AMP. The claim is not false that publishers have kept a love/hate relationship with AMP. The premise itself went against the publisher's instincts. AMP requires us to create versions of our content on servers we don't own using templates over which we have limited control. The balance means an improved user experience on mobile and higher visibility in Top Stories, a location that can drive significant traffic. Using AMP also hurts internal analytics, as it makes it very difficult to track users moving across a site's AMP and non-AMP pages.
However, the complaint claims that the speed benefits are both exaggerated and manipulated because Google allegedly throttles non-AMP pages.
“In those years, all the Googlers, developers and SEOs defended AMP… And this was just the tip of the iceberg,”SparkToro founder Rand Fishkin wrote on Twitter , which aroused a torrent of indignation and disgust. accusations.
Google earlier this year stopped requiring publishers to use AMP to score for the Top Stories slots. But it also launched Page experience update This year, it claims that factors like site speed become a ranking factor. This combination has certainly made publishers wary of tearing up their AMP architecture (it certainly worked in our favor).
Why do we care. First, these are allegations made in a highly politicized lawsuit, and without access to all of these internal documents, it is difficult to know if some of these claims could be made. show erroneous interpretations. But Google's lack of transparency has always worked against it in terms of public trust.
This lawsuit, one of only four antitrust complaints to date, highlights how manipulation is possible for AMP. It also highlights the allegation colluding with Facebook to give the social media giant an unfair advantage in advertising bidding. All of this supports growing concern about a toxic relationship between Google, the only search platform that really matters to publishers and content creators and search marketers. is looking to compete fairly for a spot on its platform. Whether it's the result preferred Google products the takeover of the ad position of the SERP, the rise of on- SERP elements prevent clicks on actual content creators and those who are curious rewrite publisher titles the creators were fed up.
“I'm so fed up with Google. And unfortunately, I've made a decent chunk of my life working on it. That gave me a stomach ache,” SEO Sam Insalaco wrote in response to Fiskin's Tweet.
The AMP allegations also put a strain on publishers, whose businesses Their interruptions have been witnessed over the past decade as advertising shifted to search and social and reach became too reliant on Google. AMP is seen as a way to give publishers a chance to stand on par with the competition. If these allegations are true, it is hard to believe that publishers would trust Google again.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment