Those banners rolled out at a time when the majority of people seeing it were on IE. It could be seen as an attempt to save the web from IE.
-
-
That being said, I think it would be reasonable to retire the hard sell given a new climate of generally-pretty-good desktop browsers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Caveat: I'm not on a team that's even close to those decisions. This is my personal take on it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mbleigh
I could have believed that a few years ago. I find it very un-credible that the banners continue purely due to inertia.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
How do you feel about http://google.com significantly incentivizing AMP pages served on http://google.com domains?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats
Misstep to put AMP cache on http://google.com . Mechanisms should have existed (do they now?) to make sharing the non-AMP URL default.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mbleigh
I could accept preferring fast sites, but preferring and actually speeding up sites served using Google tech via Google domains seems bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't attribute any of this to bad faith but I do think that good faith discussions too often result in problematic decisions at Google.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Fair enough. Great power, great responsibility, etc. I've seen things change when these missteps are pointed out. Hard balance to strike.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mbleigh
It seems that people assume: good faith + smart people = moral decisions But of course subtle incentives can change that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I often hear "why are you assuming bad faith" or "Google is not one thing" as if it's a good defense against critiques of structural issues
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.