Menu Close

Google slowed down non-AMP sites

Google slowed down non-AMP sites

Google slowed down non-AMP sites and built a framework to hinder header bidding in an antitrust complaint.

Newly unredacted complaints filed against Google alleged that AMP, which the search giant announced in 2015 would “dramatically improve” mobile web performance, was a ploy to force publishers to use the format to restrict the number of advertising dollars not spent on Google’s ad exchanges.

According to a report from the New York Times, Google has agreed to change its practices regarding its dominance in search, specifically advertising. The company has seen an antitrust complaint filed by European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager, who claims that Google “hindered rival companies using other advertising platforms” and “devised secret ways of cracking down on competitors who used their technology”

The Use of the AMP Boosts

To provide AMP with “a nice comparative boost,” Texas is leading a lawsuit on behalf of 16 primarily Republican states, alleging that Google slowed down the loading speed of sites that don’t use AMP. The state of Texas makes this claim on behalf of 16 states, the majority of which are Republican.

Ads that aren’t AMP are being throttled, which slows down header bidding, which Google argues is proof that header bidding is too slow. When header bidding is implemented incorrectly, it may increase website load time and create security risks.

Documents from Google’s internal archives are the subject of the lawsuit, which was initially filed on September 9 and has since been heavily redacted. However, a New York judge ruled that Friday’s disclosure of the version that was mostly unredacted was necessary by law.

Search Engine Land received an email from Allie Bodack, a spokesman for Google, who described the case as “riddled with inaccuracies.”

Bidding on the headers

Publishers may list their ad inventory on several ad exchanges simultaneously using the header bidding advertising approach, which is at the center of the debate. To avoid Google’s “waterfall” bidding approach, which favors the company’s ad servers, this tactic is used instead. Publishers like header bidding because it provides the potential for more earnings and total transparency.

Header bidding, on the other hand, requires publishers to integrate JavaScript into their sites before the auction can begin. This JavaScript is not supported by AMP websites.

A damning indictment against AMP

That publishers love and hate the AMP format is an accurate assumption, and it is not erroneous. It’s a concept that runs against everything a publisher stands for. Because AMP requires several copies of our material to be created on servers we don’t control, we have no choice but to utilize templates we don’t have full control over. The trade-off resulted in a better mobile experience and a higher likelihood of being included in the website’s “Top Stories” section. This makes it harder for website administrators to track visitors since they switch between AMP and non-AMP sites more often. This is just one more example of how AMP can hurt internal analytics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *