Google AMP Issue: Links to visit the site currently not working

https://twitter.com/scotch_io/status/1138316707150348288

by _7siz • 7 years ago

355 240 7 years ago

I don't know anything about AMP, so I'm genuinely amazed that one could create bugs in it that just downright break hyper references.

I though links was a pretty important part of HTML, and so people took care to ensure they work?

piecu2• 7 years ago

Not for google. They want to kill links.

b3kart• 7 years ago

Which would be ironic, given their whole business has been built on following links and keeping track of what links to what.

Moxdi• 7 years ago

Wait what? What did I miss?

ehnto6• 7 years ago

What do they intend to replace them with?

tyingq4• 7 years ago

It a bug that's breaking some JavaScript that renders the AMP page header. It's breaking a link Google is supposed to generate via their mandatory included js for AMP pages.

justicz• 7 years ago

Yes! I’ve been having this issue for days but assumed it was just me. It is particularly frustrating for sites like Reddit where the AMP version is too aggressively cached and misses most of the recent comments.

ehnto6• 7 years ago

It feels like a solution to a problem no one was having, and now it's breaking the internet for people who never asked to use it.

loudtieblahblah3• 7 years ago

Reddit mobile is ridiculously slow in a browser.

But they did it to themselves. i.reddit.com is fast as hell.

m.reddit.com loads 100x the Javascript.

Thus Amp fixes a probme they created bc reasons.

mattmanser3• 7 years ago

Reddit implementing AMP seems such a bad decision, it defies the entire point of the site.

gatherhunterer2• 7 years ago

I looked at Reddit recently for the first time in a long time and the whole thing is a train wreck of marketing decisions built on shoddy code. If you look up a user who doesn’t exist[1] their karma reads “undefined”. If you navigate to their comments or about page (an info page for reddit accounts... why?) the site routes you to those pages with the value “undefined” as the username. But there is an actual user who chose that name so now you’re looking at their account page.

1.https://www.reddit.com/user/unidan

tannhaeuser2• 7 years ago

Reddit plays it's own games. While they dropped the aggressive "Use app" nagging, they now frequently and purposefully (?) break back-navigation (eg. from individual posts to the subreddit) with the all too common "Oh snap. Something went wrong" and cutesy picture excuse for a dysfunctional site.

bitL4• 7 years ago

Reddit is fun now; start Tor, try to visit a soon-to-be-banned sub-reddit, enjoy Tor's tracking notifications not present on normal reddit sub-reddits. Looks like reddit is turning into one large honeypot.

godelmachine• 7 years ago

May I ask what screen recording app is he using?

baloki• 7 years ago

It’s built into iOS nowadays, you can add it to your control centre via settings.

josefresco• 7 years ago

I just discovered this, after my daughter told me about it. You need to set it to show in your control center first.

dhruvrrp• 7 years ago

iOS has screen recording built in which stores the video in your photos.

It's the circle on the bottom right in the first frame of the video.

dgellow2• 7 years ago

Interesting, I didn't even consider that could be a bug. I just assumed that was how AMP was supposed to behave and moved to Duckduckgo for mobile search.

raverbashing• 7 years ago

Oh look another "completely innocent mistake" by Google

luckylion4• 7 years ago

You're getting downvoted, presumably because "they wouldn't be evil", but I find the alternative just as problematic: a superpower tech company with a budget larger than many nation states hiring the best and the brightest and paying them unbelievably well so they do their best.. breaking fundamental features in widely used software and not realizing it themselves (they wouldn't ship the update otherwise, I believe). What's happening there?

And the follow up thought: "move fast and break things" suggests that we should think twice before relying on these companies for anything close to critical infrastructure.

otabdeveloper3• 7 years ago

Why would you want to visit sites that aren't Google (c)? They're probably very unsafe and full of very annoying ads!

mtarnovan4• 7 years ago

<tinfoil> What if it's not a bug, but Google testing user response </tinfoil>

(assuming Google is not stupid so Hanlon's razor may not apply)

tobr3• 7 years ago

Not unreasonable, but then they would probably A/B test it rather than just break it for everyone. Although I guess they might be A/B testing and I’m just in the same group as OP.

mtarnovan4• 7 years ago

Would they? Cause that would obviously give away that the break was intentional. If they break it for everyone they can still just blame it on an unintentional mistake.

loudtieblahblah3• 7 years ago

I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to ponder.

SCHiM• 7 years ago

Your post remined me of this twitter thread from one of mozzilla's developers:

https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871240432660480

Downthread:

""" And every time, they’d say, “oops. That was accidental. We’ll fix it in the next push in 2 weeks.” """

mtarnovan4• 7 years ago

I remember that thread now. Well, looks like standard Google behavior then.

mtgx3• 7 years ago

No tinfoil required. When in doubt about such issues think about whether or not the "bug" or "error" that people found in Google's solutions benefits Google. If it does, then it's much more likely than not that the "bug" was intentional.

At best they wanted to test user reaction, or at worst, they were hoping it wouldn't be discovered (see Wi-Fi scanning, Safari cookies block bypass, tracking Android users' location at all time, even when "disabled", etc).

Don't attribute to stupidity what can easily be explained by profit incentives (did I just invent a new saying/law?!).

mtarnovan4• 7 years ago

Looks like capitalism has blunted Hanlon's razor :-)

tobr3• 7 years ago

Arguably this means that Google is breaking point 11 of their own AMP Cache Guidelines [1]. If I ran any AMP pages, I would be quite upset.

1: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-c...

rangerpolitic• 7 years ago

When you have the power to write the rules, you can break the rules. Google is too powerful.

mtgx3• 7 years ago

I think Google is only going to play this "incompatibility" card more and more now that Chrome is the dominant browser.

We need more pushback against Google doing stuff like this, even when at first glance what they push for seems "positive."

plibither8• 7 years ago

Point 11:

No obstruction of the contents, branding or attribution of the original AMP document.

krn2• 7 years ago

The AMP links to visit the original site are working fine for me on Brave (based on Chromium) on Android: clicking on the "(i)" icon shows the URL.

The easiest way to to get rid of all AMP pages in Google search results is to disable javascript on www.google.com/*.

tobr3• 7 years ago

Doesn’t work on iPhone Safari for me, I get the same translucent gray overlay regardless of where I tap.

krn2• 7 years ago

Could it be an iOS/Safari-specific bug?

seieste4• 7 years ago

I don’t think you can disable AMP if you’re not signed in.

macintux• 7 years ago

Quite a few Google features to help you manage the level of intrusiveness they can exhibit are only available if you log in.

firasd2• 7 years ago

When AMP was introduced I assumed the actual content would be loaded from the canonical URL anyway. This whole in-between caching layer G introduced is very weird.

Also, I think what AMP was pitted against--Facebook instant articles--no longer exists, or at least doesn't particularly matter (now that FB is several pivots beyond the whole 'newsfeed is full of articles' stage).

jefftk2• 7 years ago

One way to think of AMP is as a solution to "When people click on links from search the pages often load very slowly. Can we make this instant?" Any preloading based solution has to involve caching, because otherwise sites could learn that they had shown up in your search results without you having clicked on then.

(Disclosure: I work at Google, not on AMP, and I'm only speaking for myself)

firasd2• 7 years ago

Preloading in the browser? I guess... my understanding was that the major benefit of AMP is the stripped-down markup. eg. in AMP you can't have a giant background video, or a bunch of JS email opt-ins driven through live A/B tests... all the random stuff that slows down sites these days.

iforgotpassword2• 7 years ago

While this might have been one of the reasons, most likely from the (sometimes rather native) perspective of devs, I still attribute mostly malice to this whole thing and hope it gets them good in the whole antitrust issue. Even if it were just that, trying to tackle slow loading pages out of selflessness on Google's side, I can only say: None of your ducking business. Make sure your pages load fast, and then that's it.

dmitriid2• 7 years ago

It was an answer to Facebook's Instant Articles, and nothing else. As a response to Instant Articles it's intent was to bend publishers to the company's will and create a tightly controlled walled garden.

Everything else is the result of that original decision. And the continuous apologetics for the myriad bad and malignant decisions are the direct result of that decision.

tinus_hn• 7 years ago

Then again, the problem is not loading the article, it’s loading 50 tracking scripts, ads, fonts, 20 megapixel photos and popup videos.

xupybd2• 7 years ago

Just came to say I hate amp. If I want to go to a site I want that site not a google cache of it. It’s not a better experience. It just means another click to get to where I was going. Stop the madness Google kill amp.

OskarS• 7 years ago

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on HN defend AMP. We all hate it. It's a pox on the modern web.

dmitriid2• 7 years ago

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on HN defend AMP

I present to you AMP tech lead: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=cramforce

a254613e• 7 years ago

Depends on who you mean by "we", people working directly on implementing/supporting AMP? Anti-google crowd? Sure, you're probably right.

But as someone who's just an end user, and not working on frontend development who likes AMP, I don't bother commenting when the opinion is extremely skewed to one side.

I love AMP. The website loads faster, feels a lot snappier, and is overall positive experience for me. That's what I care about. I don't care how it got to that point, I want usable and fast loading website - and AMP gives me that.

Can this be speed and mobile friendliness be implemented without AMP? Yes. Is it implemented without AMP? Very rarely.

Of course there's the argument with google trying to get a tighter grip on web and while that is not a good thing the truth is that I, and huge majority of average consumers, just don't care if it means better results for me.

Aissen• 7 years ago

I've defended it in the past when it used to be faster (combined with pre-loading) than most websites, on mobile. Nowadays, it should be quite easy to optimize a website enough to be faster than the AMP version, but it seems not many websites are even trying…

lern_too_spel5• 7 years ago

As a mobile web user, I love AMP. Pages load instantly. I can and do click through multiple articles on the same topic before finding one that is the highest quality because the time cost of clicking through is nearly zero.

Google's, Bing's, Baidu's, etc.'s users by and large also love AMP or else they wouldn't spend the money on the infrastructure.

eclipxe2• 7 years ago

I love AMP pages. They load fast and get me in and out of content quickly.

Eric_WVGG3• 7 years ago

I could have sworn that Google promised a user preference to disable AMP results this year, but I can’t find any references.

I’ve been using DuckDuckGo for over a year now and it’s just painful.

zrobotics2• 7 years ago

I'm just curious, since I see this brought up all the time- what is painful about DDG? The only times I have poor DDG results is for anything that leverages Google maps, such as a local business. Considering even Apple can't touch gMaps I don't find this surprising, but for general search I switched to DDG because the results were better. For example, my last search was "mdd 3754" to find the data sheet for a mosfet. DDG links to the result as the first click, whereas Google serves an ad so large I need to scroll down on mobile to even see a result, and the first 3 results aren't even in English. I'm genuinely asking, what sort of search queries does DDG return painful results for?

bmn__• 7 years ago

"Redirect AMP to HTML" https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/amp2html/

xupybd2• 7 years ago

I thank you from the bottom of my heart!

koboll• 7 years ago

AMP should be the first stop on the federal government's antitrust investigation. The sheer unfairness of being granted search priority if you hand over your content to Google is the pinnacle of leveraging monopoly power to gain power in another industry.

GavinMcG2• 7 years ago

What "power in another industry" is being gained?

yreg• 7 years ago

That moment when you tap the omnibox planning to copy the URL and realise you are not on the actual site you meant to visit.

benatkin• 7 years ago

"I want that site not a google cache of it" might be true for you, but for me, I don't want the site so much as the article or product listing, and for most users, they don't know that it's a google cache of it.

I think AMP provides the tools for a good UX but many sites don't provide it because they want the user to go to their site, because they mistakenly don't think they can get enough ad revenue or CTAs to get the user to sign up for mailing lists or add a product to a shopping cart on the AMP page. These are supported. So they only show an excerpt of the article on the AMP page and you have to go to the site in order to get it.

bduerst• 7 years ago

If I want to go to a site I want that site not a google cache of it.

AMP isn't limited to Google cache. Websites and CDNs (like Bing and Cloudflare) can roll their own AMP and cache it themselves, while still getting the icon in search results.

Example: https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6yj6iw/what_did_...

hexo• 7 years ago

Simple. Don't use it. It doesn't make any sense anyway.

tannhaeuser2• 7 years ago

Sure if it's your site, you don't use AMP - it just indicates disregard for basic web usability and competence. But what about the (rare) site using AMP with you having no control? Hmm ... ok thinking about it I don't know any site using AMP worth reading. I guess using AMP, like script-heavy content, is just a negative marker for quality content.

geofft2• 7 years ago

How do you do that?

The broken feature is the exact feature that lets you not use it....

graeme3• 7 years ago

AMP links are a major reason I switched to duckduckgo on mobile. Google seems to be shortsighted in doing this.

Yes, only a tiny minority of technical users will know what amp pages are and switch search engines to avoid them. But, a larger group will likely find the amp pages annoying, even if they can't precisely articulate why. This weakens google's hold on the market.

michaelmior5• 7 years ago

Why do you think a larger group will find AMP annoying? I know I'm in the minority, but I generally like AMP in my search results.

graeme3• 7 years ago

If it breaks things. For example, I had a common issue where reddit links in search didn't have comments and I had to click through to get to them

If the amp page displays what you expect, it works well. It it makes you click through, it doesn't.

Of course, users may or may not realize amp/google are the reason a site is broke.

Dunno how many people have issues like this though. Reddit was the main one for me, plus a few random sites having issues.

maaaats• 7 years ago

Google is serving a broken page for Firefox on Android (intentionally serving something along oldschool wap pages). I used an addon to fix that, but then the page suddenly was full of ads, videos, smart boxes and amp links.

granshaw• 7 years ago

I hope AMP is the straw that breaks the camels back in googles antitrust suit - its the most blatant and shameless abuse of their position, IMO

sexy_seedbox• 7 years ago

Use Kiwi Browser, it has built-in AMP removal.

seieste4• 7 years ago

This seems to be a way for Google to make revenue from news sites and is a clear abuse of monopoly power. When I click on an AMP news link, I see a “carousel” at the top that shows multiple news articles. I can go to various articles on a topic by swiping left or right, all without going back to the news site.

But now that Google has removed the link to visit the site, it is clear they don’t want you to visit the actual news site but do everything through Google.

This means that only the Google ad network will be allowed, so they stand to benefit from this arrangement, and news sites can have no hope of receiving any traffic.

ec1096854• 7 years ago

No, multiple ad networks (100+) are allowed in google amp, so publishers are free to chose what monetizes best: https://marketingland.com/google-says-100-ad-networks-suppor...

dgellow2• 7 years ago

Maybe an obvious or stupid question, but that's worth asking: As a user, do we have a way to disable AMP?

robin_reala2• 7 years ago

Use DuckDuckGo instead? There’s no switch in Google.

ComputerGuru• 7 years ago

Not a dumb question at all! The answer is no, but there are workarounds like playing with the user agent or using an unsupported browser.

eska• 7 years ago

When I attended the Drupal Europe 2018 conference I had the opportunity to talk to Barb Palser of the AMP global relations team. I asked her in an intentionally innocent way: "I thought AMP is supposed to replace RSS, but from the presentation it seems like it's trying to be a better HTML?" to which she replied yes. I acted all optimistic, so she wouldn't be defensive, but this conversation sent chills down my spine and I remember it to this day.

gowld• 7 years ago

Why? AMP was promoted as a better HTML (a "good parts" subset plus a tiny extension) from day 1. It never had anything to do with RSS.

ec1096854• 7 years ago

What would it even mean to be better RSS? The idea is sites can preload an AMP page safely so that when you click on it, it can display to the user instantly.

In that specific case, isn’t Barb correct, no chills needed?

UweSchmidt3• 7 years ago

The fundamental change is that now the content comes from Google's servers. Google is hosting the Internet.

Of course Google can't host illegal content on their service, right? And won't host content that goes against a future AMP user agreement...

From there they can tighten the screws against competitors, or future attempts at privacy, or basically anything they get away with.

vortico2• 7 years ago

Isn't AMP blatant copyright infringement? If so, how does a website owner demand the infringement to be taken down?

bluetidepro5• 7 years ago

The sites themselves are opting into AMP, I believe. Google isn't just converting the site to AMP automatically. The owners of the site themselves have to add code to their site for it to work with AMP...

vortico2• 7 years ago

Oh, I see. Never mind then. I've never used AMP so thought it was automatic for all or most websites on the internet.

hn_throwaway_99• 7 years ago

I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion on the actual bug in the comments. In the screen capture the user shows, the AMP header shows the link icon in the upper right corner, and when you click it it should show the real URL and let you navigate through (but that's not happening, hence the bug).

However, in my experience the header is totally different. There is an (i) icon in the upper left corner that shows the link when tapped, and the upper right corner shows the share icon and tapping it opens the share dialog. Note this changed for me recently (I used to get the link icon like the poster).

So Google is clearly testing different behavior, which probably led to the bug. In any case, I'd note the version I got that I think the (i) is much less clear than the link icon, and I'm sure the end result is people clicking through to the source site less often. Fuck Google and their aggressive attempts to hijack the web even more than they already have.

geofft2• 7 years ago

Why should a community of highly skilled engineers provide free debugging labor to a giant corporation to fix a bug in a product that only exists because Malte Ubl wanted to get promoted?

kunday• 7 years ago

I think in general anything about amp receives a bit of attention to put it mildly. I'm curious if anyone from amp/google is lurking around to give a perspective. It is reproducible on all my devices now. I remember it working at least yesterday...

SimeVidas• 7 years ago

A reminder that AMP results don’t show up on Google Search if you use the mobile version of Firefox ;)

robin_reala2• 7 years ago

Yet…

bluetidepro5• 7 years ago

It's ironic to me that AMP is a problem we all brought upon ourselves, really. It's almost (jokingly) a Prisoner's dilemma [1]. Had no one ever opted into it, it probably would have just been swept under the rug by Google, and a win-win for us all. But since a competitor of yours (probably) opted into it to get ahead of you, you now have to opt into it also, to compete and get the same SEO "power juice" it gave them. The fact that everyone now adds the code to their site to make it work with AMP is the problem. Google gave us the rope. And then all the SEO managers/marketers/specialists hung us with it. Ha

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

etrma• 7 years ago

You think SEO specialists give a shit about AMP? They just care about how high your page ranks in Google--if anything, they'd love it if the web was more Google-centric.

nurettin• 7 years ago

This is sadly true. There is no universe in which e-commerce would not wholly try to swallow something that google recommends in order to increase their chances of ending up on the front page.

laumars• 7 years ago

Agreed. Further to your point, AMP was only ever needed because we made our pages so artificiality heavy in the first place

jhabdas• 7 years ago

It's okay to use more data. But it's important to respect users on faster mobile networks who pay by quota. Getting to the top of Google isn't at all difficult if you know how to build a fast website. And that doesn't require AMP at all.

grey-area• 7 years ago

That's not why AMP is needed. It is needed (by google) to extend their dominance of search results into the results themselves. It is not needed by anyone else.

You can easily make pages lighter without AMP, and we shouldn't so easily swallow the reasons given by Google for its introduction.

untog3• 7 years ago

Pages being heavy is just the justification Google used to implement AMP. They should have prioritised search results based on page size (they have the data) instead to reach the same goal.

(AMP isn't even that light - Google preloads pages in its AMP carousel, using bandwidth whether you tap to view them or not)

Fiahil• 7 years ago

Same thing happens in agriculture over pesticide use !

apexalpha3• 7 years ago

Counterpoint:

WE don't live in an ideal world and AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages. I would love if managers and directors would do this themselves and AMP wouldn't be needed, but that's just not the case.

I have to choose between downloading some text and images to read an article or load 5MB JavaScript SinglePageApp with tracking, ads, auto playing video's...

I know in an ideal world AMP would be useless, but until we reach that world I'm going to prefer AMP links over normal ones.

bluetidepro5• 7 years ago

I understand your point, but I guess I just wish it wasn't an "either or" world, so we both could enjoy the web how we would respectively like. Why won't Google let us have both? Right now, I don't believe there is a way to disable AMP (unless you use like a Firefox mobile extension for that specific use case). That's what bothers me the most, personally. Google shoving it down our throats, and force feeding us AMP is so user hostile. Let the user decide, even if it was hidden under a super obscure setting in something like chrome://flags/, that'd be better. It's a simple win-win for everyone.

untog3• 7 years ago

AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages

It isn't, though. Plenty of sites out there are de-bloated, and things like Reader Mode in browsers makes the rest work just fine.

SomeOldThrow• 7 years ago

I will never get prioritizing speed over quality. Search results are worse than ever but Google is still claiming to know what we want. If only they had a business model that encouraged development of high quality tools rather than selling ads....

Meanwhile, the easiest way to speed up pages is to stop selling ads and splitting up content over multiple clicks.

LoSboccacc• 7 years ago

you can still put your wallet to vote and support outlets that provide a RSS feed, like a proper one with full articles and images

austinshea3• 7 years ago

Why is it your only option? AMP sucks, and I don't see why any user would feel like they need it.

AMP is about getting into the carousel search results, and if AMP wasn't the only way to do that, we wouldn't feel forced to use it.

To just download text and images I use www.outline.com, but there are lots of ways to accomplish this.

asdff2• 7 years ago

Reader view gives you a nice debloated page. So far firefox has been able to accurately cleanse most mobile websites I've used reader view on (some sites like reddit disable it, but I bet threading would be poor on reader view anyway).

It would be nice to just disable JS on mobile though.

jwr• 7 years ago

AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages

How about de-bloating your webpages instead?

Seriously, people, come on — just put less cruft in your web pages. Don't load 500 trackers. Say no when the marketing guys come over and tell you to add 10 more. Tell your bosses that marketing is incompetent. Push back and tell people that adding cruft is bad.

Please don't bother telling me how it "can't be done". It can, but you might not want to.

I'm actually quite happy about the way this AMP thing is unrolling: the bloated crappy sites will walk into the jaws of AMP and get badly owned by Google eventually, being completely dependent on them.

JoshMnem7• 7 years ago

umatrix and ublock origin are better options for getting de-bloated webpages. If you're stuck on mobile, ublock origin works in Firefox for Android.

benjymo• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, Google can rank by whatever criteria they want and we are forced to implement it. And it isn't always in the best interest of the end user.

E.g. at a company we had to add "useless" content on our shop pages, otherwise google ranked the pages lower due to having not enough content.

hknd• 7 years ago

The Google Search team is always ranking pages to get the best metric (ctr, time-spend-on-website), s.t. it indicates that users are happy with the result.

If any feature/change introduces a regression, they will not ship it. (That kinda indicates that people outside of hn actually like amp)

Keep in mind that: amp team != search team.

StreamBright• 7 years ago

You are talking about a small fraction of companies. Anyways, I would not bend over for Google not for AMP not for anything similar to it.

onesmallcoin• 7 years ago

Chromium on mobile has always had issues with AMP for me, I've just come to acept it I think it's wrong for a monopoly to take control of what another entitys site looks like. It's a we can take care of EVERYBODY feature: we were fine without it and will be fine when it doesn't exist anymore

kerng• 7 years ago

Google's power abuse with AMP is really upsetting. Hopefully this is being looked into and AMP canned before its spread via monopoly is irreversible. It's bad for all, but Google.

ycombonator2• 7 years ago

Happens in iOS Safari too

sn_master• 7 years ago

I also absolutely hate how it lets you zoom out but not zoom in. Have to reload the entire page to get it to the original size :/

vbsteven• 7 years ago

So many people in this thread complain about AMP being forced on them as an end user. Nobody forces you to use Google...

Just use another search engine like DuckDuckGo. It is sufficient for over 90% of my searches and I haven’t seen an amp page in ages.

AMP for SEO is another discussion, in that case it is kind of forced on you if you want to rank high on the Googlenet.

ckuhl• 7 years ago

The problem is that _everyone else uses Google_.

Even though I don’t use Google for search, my friends do and they’ll gladly share AMP pages with me.

ndiscussion• 7 years ago

"Weird, what web site even is that?"

CDSlice• 7 years ago

First of all, I'm not a web developer, so I may not get all the problems with AMP.

I actually love AMP on mobile. Every site I've used(1) that has an AMP version loads faster and works better even with some ads than the normal version on Firefox mobile with uBlock Origin. Given that it's possible for people to host their own AMP cache (like Cloudflare does), I really don't see the problem with AMP itself.

(1) Other then Reddit, but considering how much of a dumpster fire their normal mobile site is I honestly think that it's broken on purpose to try and make people use the app.

ycombonator2• 7 years ago

Try this https://phys.org/news/2019-06-mass-anomaly-moon-largest-crat... on iOS safari. The source link does not open.

Google AMP Issue: Links to visit the site currently not working

Related Stories