AMPXF - AMP for Xenforo 2 [Paid] 1.4.9

[Anatoliy]

No I'm serious.

I might be bad at explaining this, but I'm very sure it is impossible with any accuracy to say if something is better or worse after event X, unless I have the data from both before and after the event to compare to eachother

If someone can explain to me why and how my thinking is wrong and why it doesn't work like that, I'll happily change my mind

A man takes "enlarge your penis" pills for 3 months. During these 3 months the length of his penis stays the same.
Can we state that the pills don't work if we don't know how big his penis was last year?
)

 

[mazzly]

A man takes "enlarge your penis" pills for 3 months. During these 3 months the length of his penis stays the same.
Can we state that the pills don't work if we don't know how big his penis was last year?
)

hehe funny analogy although I don't think it applies here as the traffic stats will jump up and down due to various factors that we can't control (google). So we have to look at the average trend, both before and after.

For example, does this graph look good or bad to you? (to me it looks like a downtrend)

Edit: added 2 month window also:

 

[Anatoliy]

I built a test page using materialized library and put all the content from a thread page on it. All core web vitals are green. That's what Google wants to see. If we replace too slow pages with too slow amp pages, why we expect that Google will place those higher in serps?

 

[Masetrix]

If we replace too slow pages with too slow amp pages

Since you are not showing any comparison data in your example, this is completely unusable.
Therefore, here are some data that are understandable and comparable.
Desktopspeed: (without amp)


The same Site MobileSpeed: (without amp)


Same Site, Desktopspeed with AMP:


Same Site, MobileSpeed with AMP:





The data are now comparable and understandable for everyone.

Everyone can immediately tell the difference in page speed with and without an amp, desktop and mobile, because Google also differentiates here.
As you can see, if you consider the difference in page load times for mobile pages with and without an amp, mobile pages with AMP are loaded much faster than without AMP.

It is precisely this improvement that Google honors.

To want to accuse the author of AMPXF, with your comparison, AMPXF brings no improvements, is at least incorrect and unfair.

 

[mazzly]

I built a test page using materialized library and put all the content from a thread page on it. All core web vitals are green. That's what Google wants to see. If we replace too slow pages with too slow amp pages, why we expect that Google will place those higher in serps?

View attachment 247312

Some quick questions, does your example contain any of the following AMP components?:

• amp-analytics
• amp-ad
• amp-notificiations
• amp-consent (required by law with EUGPDR / CCCPA)
• amp-sidebar to get menu showing
• amp-bind to be able to have expandable quotes/articles and dismissable notices
• other amp-X components that load as needed for the pages that are generated (e.g amp-youtube when youtube embed shows)

Because if you leave out all things that add functionality you will get very good speeds. And you are free to strip out those from the AMP_CONTAINER template if you think it will help your ranking

We are trying to remove all extra things that are not needed, and if you have suggestions for where we might have missed something, please let us know and we will strip out further things

 

[mazzly]

Since you are not showing any comparison data in your example, this is completely unusable.
Therefore, here are some data that are understandable and comparable.
Desktopspeed: (without amp)
View attachment 247314

The same Site MobileSpeed: (without amp)
View attachment 247315

Same Site, Desktopspeed with AMP:
View attachment 247316

Same Site, MobileSpeed with AMP:
View attachment 247317




The data are now comparable and understandable for everyone.

Everyone can immediately tell the difference in page speed with and without an amp, desktop and mobile, because Google also differentiates here.
As you can see, if you consider the difference in page load times for mobile pages with and without an amp, mobile pages with AMP are loaded much faster than without AMP.

It is precisely this improvement that Google honors.

Yes exactly this, that is why I say that data before install is also important when checking traffic graphs

 

[Anatoliy]

here are some data that are understandable and comparable

those are not data )
show the FCP and LCP.

 

[mazzly]

hehe funny analogy although I don't think it applies here as the traffic stats will jump up and down due to various factors that we can't control (google). So we have to look at the average trend, both before and after.

For example, does this graph look good or bad to you? (to me it looks like a downtrend)
View attachment 247310
Edit: added 2 month window also:
View attachment 247311

@Anatoliy here is the reason why I'm saying the 3months data before is also important.

If you check the 2 graphs in the above quoted message, the site actually looks to be worse off after installing the addon..

But when we zoom out to contain the 3 months before and after, we quickly can see that the site is much better off:


Context is everything, especially when looking at the graphs.

Note: From these graphs it is very easy to see growth because that site saw over 100% traffic growth only a few days after serving AMP.
For other sites that maybe only get 5% it will be much harder unless you draw in some lines to compare the previous "highs and lows" to the current data. Google analytics can be helpful there to get the data, and then selecting the "compare to previous period" to also see the line for exact same period (before the install)

Hope that makes sense

 

[Anatoliy]

Some quick questions, does your example contain any of the following AMP components?:

of course not. ) that example is not amp but a regular html.
I just want to say that if a page doesn't meet Google core web vitals requirements, Goggle will not push it up in serp regarding if it's an amp or not.

 

[mazzly]

those are not data )
show the FCP and LCP.

Yes they are..

Those scores at the top of the page contain the "whole picture" of what Google looks at.

Why should we only stare blindly at those 2 stats which are part of the full score, when Google's own tool says it is good?

Don't get me wrong, if we can improve the FCP/LCP we should of course do so, but just looking at those when the overall score is much better seems a bit moot

 

[Anatoliy]

Hope that makes sense

we talked about a site that installed addon on 22th and showed starts from 23th. whatever happened prior to that has no any relation to the adon. Right?

 

[mazzly]

of course not. ) that example is not amp but a regular html.

We have to compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges

I just want to say that if a page doesn't meet Google core web vitals requirements, Goggle will not push it up in serp regarding if it's an amp or not.

What I'm failing to see here, is how a score of 80+ is not much better than a score of 39 without it ?

If you have some good suggestions for how to improve the LCP and FCP, please let us know and we will incorporate it

 

[Anatoliy]

Yes they are..

Those scores at the top of the page contain the "whole picture" of what Google looks at.

Why should we only stare blindly at those 2 stats which are part of the full score, when Google's own tool says it is good?

Don't get me wrong, if we can improve the FCP/LCP we should of course do so, but just looking at those when the overall score is much better seems a bit moot

you are free to measure as you wish )

 

[Anatoliy]

What I'm failing to see here, is how a score of 80+ is not much better than a score of 39 without it ?

too slow is still too slow, even if it's faster than another too slow )

 

[mazzly]

we talked about a site that installed addon on 22th and showed starts from 23th. whatever happened prior to that has no any relation to the adon. Right?

How can we say that the traffic is better or worse off than before the addon was installed, when we can't see what the traffic was before?

you are free to measure as you wish )

As are you

too slow is still too slow, even if it's faster than another too slow )

If you have some good suggestions for how to improve the LCP and FCP, please let us know and we will incorporate it

 

[Nicolas FR]

How can we say that the traffic is better or worse off than before the addon was installed, when we can't see what the traffic was before?

it's so obvious! I don't understand how he doesn't understand...

 

[Anatoliy]

If you have some good suggestions for how to improve the LCP and FCP, please let us know and we will incorporate it

no, I don't have (
I guess I just realized that xF built with members in mind, not with first-time visitors. And whatever we try to do about it will not change it...

 

[Masetrix]

those are not data )
show the FCP and LCP.

These are also "data".

Are my pages faster with AMP than without AMP.
This is exactly the data that matters, which everyone can quickly check for themselves when it comes to assessing AMPXF in its effectiveness.

If you use the statistics of search engines for this, you must also take into account the changes and "updates" of these search engines in your considerations and comparisons. Otherwise, your comparisons are useless.

 

[Anatoliy]

Are my pages faster with AMP than without AMP.

speed measures in seconds, not in "scores" )
you want to state that pages are faster - show the difference in seconds.

 

[Nicolas FR]

This is exactly the data that matters, which everyone can quickly check for themselves when it comes to assessing AMPXF in its effectiveness.

I do not really approve of this. AMPXF was touted to increase traffic on forums using it, with the tagline stating up to 100% increase. It is not sold to speed up pages, speeding up pages is the way to increase traffic, it is not intended for user comfort.