The banners are a very heavy thumb on the scale. For a company with such a meritocratic culture, why do you need it?
-
-
Replying to @wycats
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
I think google needs an ombuds-committee.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Strong agree. With outside folks. Like the NYT "public editor"
-
-
Yep. Probably several for different product spaces.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.