Google AMP Can Go To Hell

Google wants websites to adopt AMP as the default approach to building webpages. Tell them no.

Let’s talk about Accelerated Mobile Pages, or AMP for short. AMP is a Google pet project that purports to be “an open-source initiative aiming to make the web better for all”. While there is a lot of emphasis on the official AMP site about its open source nature, the fact is that over 90% of contributions to this project come from Google employees, and it was initiated by Google. So let’s be real: AMP is a Google project.

Google is also the reason AMP sees any kind of adoption at all. Basically, Google has forced websites – specifically news publishers – to create AMP versions of their articles. For publishers, AMP is not optional; without AMP, a publisher’s articles will be extremely unlikely to appear in the Top Stories carousel on mobile search in Google.

And due to the popularity of mobile search compared to desktop search, visibility in Google’s mobile search results is a must for publishers that want to survive in this era of diminishing revenue and fierce online competition for eyeballs.

If publishers had a choice, they’d ignore AMP entirely. It already takes a lot of resources to keep a news site running smoothly and performing well. AMP adds the extra burden of creating separate AMP versions of articles, and keeping these articles compliant with the ever-evolving standard.

So AMP is being kept alive artificially. AMP survives not because of its merits as a project, but because Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic.

And Google is not satisfied with that. No, Google wants more from AMP. A lot more.

Search Console Messages

Yesterday some of my publishing clients received these messages from Google Search Console:

Reported page navigation issue on your AMP pages

Reported missing non-critical content issue on your AMP pages

Reported social media issue on your AMP pages

Reported media issue on your AMP pages

Take a good look at those messages. A very good look. These are the issues that Google sees with the AMP versions of these websites:

“The AMP page is missing all navigational features present in the canonical page, such as a table of contents and/or hamburger menu.”

“The canonical page allows users to view and add comments, but the AMP article does not. This is often considered missing content by users.”

“The canonical URL allows users to share content directly to diverse social media platforms. This feature is missing on the AMP page.”

“The canonical page contains a media carousel that is missing or broken in the AMP version of the page.”

Basically, any difference between the AMP version and the regular version of a page is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed. Google wants the AMP version to be 100% identical to the canonical version of the page.

Yet due to the restrictive nature of AMP, putting these features in to an article’s AMP version is not easy. It requires a lot of development resources to make this happen and appease Google. It basically means developers have to do all the work they already put in to building the normal version of the site all over again specifically for the AMP version.

Canonical AMP

The underlying message is clear: Google wants full equivalency between AMP and canonical URL. Every element that is present on a website’s regular version should also be present on its AMP version: every navigation item, every social media sharing button, every comment box, every image gallery.

Google wants publishers’ AMP version to look, feel, and behave exactly like the regular version of the website.

What is the easiest, most cost-efficient, least problematic method of doing this? Yes, you guessed it – just build your entire site in AMP. Rather than create two separate versions of your site, why not just build the whole site in AMP and so drastically reduce the cost of keeping your site up and running?

Google doesn’t quite come out and say this explicitly, but they’ve been hinting at it for quite a while. It was part of the discussion at AMP Conf 2018 in Amsterdam, and these latest Search Console messages are not-so-subtle hints at publishers: fully embracing AMP as the default front-end codebase for their websites is the path of least resistance.

That’s what Google wants. They want websites to become fully AMP, every page AMP compliant and adhering to the limitations of the AMP standard.

AMP

The Google-Shaped Web

The web is a messy, complicated place. Since the web’s inception developers have played loose and fast with official standards, and web browsers like Netscape and Internet Explorer added to this mess by introducing their own unofficial technologies to help advance the web’s capabilities.

The end result is an enormously diverse and anarchic free-for-all where almost no two websites use the same code. It’s extremely rare to find websites that look good, have great functionality, and are fully W3C compliant.

For a search engine like Google, whose entire premise is based on understanding what people have published on the web, this is a huge challenge. Google’s crawlers and indexers have to be very forgiving and process a lot of junk to be able to find and index content on the web. And as the web continues to evolve and becomes more complex, Google struggles more and more with this.

For years Google has been nudging webmasters to create better websites – ‘better’ meaning ‘easier for Google to understand’. Technologies like XML sitemaps and schema.org structured data are strongly supported by Google because they make the search engine’s life easier.

Other initiatives like disavow files and rel=nofollow help Google keep its link graph clean and free from egregious spam. All the articles published on Google’s developer website are intended to ensure the chaotic, messy web becomes more like a clean, easy-to-understand web. In other words, a Google-shaped web. This is a battle Google has been fighting for decades.

And the latest weapon in Google’s arsenal is AMP.

Websites built entirely in AMP are a total wet dream for Google. AMP pages are fast to load (so fast to crawl), easy to understand (thanks to mandatory structured data), and devoid of any unwanted clutter or mess (as that breaks the standard).

An AMPified web makes Google’s life so much easier. They would no longer struggle to crawl and index websites, they would require significantly less effort to extract meaningful content from webpages, and would enable them to rank the best possible pages in any given search result.

Moreover, AMP allows Google to basically take over hosting the web as well. The Google AMP Cache will serve AMP pages instead of a website’s own hosting environment, and also allow Google to perform their own optimisations to further enhance user experience.

As a side benefit, it also allows Google full control over content monetisation. No more rogue ad networks, no more malicious ads, all monetisation approved and regulated by Google. If anything happens that falls outside of the AMP standard’s restrictions, the page in question simply becomes AMP-invalid and is ejected from the AMP cache – and subsequently from Google’s results. At that point the page might as well not exist any more.

Neat. Tidy. Homogenous. Google-shaped.

Google absolute power

Dance, Dance for Google

Is this what we want? Should we just succumb to Google’s desires and embrace AMP, hand over control of our websites and content to Google? Yes, we’d be beholden to what Google deems is acceptable and publishable, but at least we’ll get to share in the spoils. Google makes so much money, plenty of companies would be happy feeding off the crumbs that fall from Google’s richly laden table.

It would be easy, wouldn’t it? Just do what Google tells you to. Stop struggling with tough decisions, just let go of the reins and dance to Google’s fiddle. Dance, dance like your company’s life depends on it. Because it does.

You know what I say to that? No.

Google can go to hell.

Who are they to decide how the web should work? They didn’t invent it, they didn’t popularise it – they got filthy rich off of it, and think that gives them the right to tell the web what to do. “Don’t wear that dress,” Google is saying, “it makes you look cheap. Wear this instead, nice and prim and tidy.”

F#&! you Google, and f#&! the AMP horse you rode in on.

This is the World Wide Web – not the Google Wide Web. We will do as we damn well please. It’s not our job to please Google and make our websites nice for them. No, they got this the wrong way round – it’s their job to make sense of our websites, because without us Google wouldn’t exist.

Google has built their entire empire on the backs of other people’s effort. People use Google to find content on the web. Google is just a doorman, not the destination. Yet the search engine has epic delusions of grandeur and has started to believe they are the destination, that they are the gatekeepers of the web, that they should dictate how the web evolves.

Take your dirty paws off our web, Google. It’s not your plaything, it belongs to everyone.

Fight Back

Some of my clients will ask me what to do with those messages. I will tell them to delete them. Ignore Google’s nudging, pay no heed.

Google is going to keep pushing. I expect those messages to turn in to warnings, and eventually become full-fledged errors that invalidate the AMP standard.

AMP errors and warnings in GSC

Google wants a cleaner, tidier, less diverse web, and they will use every weapon at their disposal to accomplish that. Canonical AMP is just one of those weapons, and they have plenty more. Their partnership with the web’s most popular CMS, for example, is worth keeping an eye on.

The easy thing to do is to simply obey. Do what Google says. Accept their proclamations and jump when they tell you to.

Or you could fight back. You could tell them to stuff it, and find ways to undermine their dominance. Use a different search engine, and convince your friends and family to do the same. Write to your elected officials and ask them to investigate Google’s monopoly. Stop using the Chrome browser. Ditch your Android phone. Turn off Google’s tracking of your every move.

And, for goodness sake, disable AMP on your website.

Don’t feed the monster – fight it.

Mobile, News SEO, Technical

Comments

  1. Hear hear ….. We need more articles like this. Come the revolution brother. My favourite bit was ‘F#&! you Google, and f#&! the AMP horse you rode in on’.

    Reply »

  2. Looking through your client list, I see that the majority of your clients have absolutely terrible websites, full of multiple megabyte javascript blobs, autoplay videos, screen takeover ads, etc. I hope Google wins this battle.

    Reply »

  3. Dude I feel for you and I do hope the rant does help you blow off a bit of steam. Sad truth is Google’s products are good enough for users to even gladly trade their privacy for.

    Personally as a developer, can’t imagine using another browser but chrome for debugging.

    Tried Firefox and Edge but it wasn’t as efficient.

    As for ditching Android, not only would you be giving up a freer OS for a more restrictive one, but subjectively iOS wouldn’t be bringing enough extras to justify the lower quality of integration with (you guessed it) Google’s services, i.e a huge part of the ‘smart’ in smartphone.

    Finally from an end user point of view, a web page that loads instantaneously and is not crammed full of cruft and popups is also probably a way better experience than trying to load a traditional desktop page on a mobile browser and shaky GSM connection.

    Reply »

  4. Love the article, and love the attitude!

    What would you suggest as an alternative though?

    The web, as you say, is a total mess. I enjoy AMP pages more than other pages from my phone, on the go, with a limited package of monthly data. I know they’re fast, and I personally don’t care about the additional features Google suggests we should have in AMP. Like you, I’m happy to ignore these for now unless my users have genuinely been asking for it (not yet).

    If I can skip from publisher to publisher without loading a whole new package of scripted trash for caching, then I’m all for it as a consumer.

    As a webmaster however, turning off AMP would be a damaging step to take. I note you say that you’d recommend we do that, but have you done that on your sites yet?

    Sometimes in a messy and confusing industry, new industry standards need to be shoved down our throats. Think shipping containers, electrical plugs, and petrol stations.

    Big tech might be the closest thing we have to regulating the experience of using the web. Google ultimately claims to push AMP to bring more people onto it through the lowering of total package size. Keep it up I say.

    Reply »

  5. This article is missing any mention of what the user wants which is central in the internet. Most publishers’ websites are bad and slow. Mobile users want fast loading websites. AMP tries to solve that. If publishers had no “push” from Google, most of them probably wouldn’t even have a mobile version of their site – let alone responsive and AMP.

    Reply »

    1. It’s Google pushing for this, not users. I’m not arguing about the UX advantages of AMP, but whether we should surrender control of the web to Google. They’re not in it for the love of it – they want to profit from the web, and while they’re very good at masking their intentions behind “it’s good for the user”, this is not always the real underlying reason.

      Reply »

  6. As an end user, AMP pages are so much better an experience on most news websites, especially on mobile, but on desktop too. They don’t have to in theory, but in practise most local new outlets non-amp pages eat tonnes of data with loading pointless scripts tracking scripts and showing me ads. Loading times are huge. When you try to read the article, the text jumps up and down as the ads above the fold load and unfurl, and sometimes close again.

    Reply »

  7. Wait. What? AMP is still a thing? I’m not a professional web developer but I do develop websites and I took a look at amp when it was first ‘suggested’ by Google. I couldn’t see the point. From my point of view and with the websites I work on, putting in all this amp #%&@ would make them bigger in code size. So that was ignored and I’ve never looked at it again. And I didn’t realise news websites used amp. I thought they were just ‘mobile friendly’ versions. Something, which I add, does not make them load easier or quicker and the majority of the time I will load the desktop version of the website because I want the full experience of the site and not some washed down, “slim-fast” alternative. Google can take my websites out of their search engine for all I care. I’m in others and there are plenty of other ways to advertise.

    Reply »

  8. Interesting, I wish it was different but Google and and Facebook instant articles are controlling what’s best for users, so, unless there is another search engine or another approach to get you website load faster u just have to accepts to be fucked by Google commands

    Reply »

  9. This must really perturb you, as a WordPress user… but what’s the alternative? (Honestly speaking, not from some absurdly-positioned stance)

    Google has been the leader in search for quite a while and, as an SEO, you know that search feeds sales – for a business there’s no “alternative” to generating sales if it wants to survive and it would be irresponsible to recommend to a business owner that they ignore Google (or AMP).

    Your polemics need to be grounded in reality if you’re looking to generate more than a chuckle.

    Reply »

  10. If you’re serious about fighting Google, why not block their crawlers outright by using robots.txt or set your web server to send an X-Robots-Tag header? We aren’t obligated to let Google index the web, and every website that boycotts Google’s crawlers is another cut to one of their primary revenue streams.

    Reply »

  11. I can’t stand the amount of hyperbolic complaints and whining in this article. You literally linked the lack of diversity at Google as a complaint with your Homogeneous link.

    I don’t understand how a SEO company can be so stupid to complain about Google, when Google it’s the only reason you have a job. Literally your job is to make sure results are on top at Google. And it being difficult is the whole reason you exist.

    Is building an AMP site too complex for your firm? I’m sure you’d rather charge companies to add a few tags to their site. But turns out having a seamless fast experience from Google it’s important. Just like it is on Facebook with FBIA and on devices with native applications.

    If you can’t see the value AMP brings to the web, Google, and to your firm then you are an idiot.

    Reply »

    1. Thanks for your comment Miguel. I’m very impressed that your total lack of understanding of the point I was making, combined with your profound ignorance about SEO, hasn’t stopped you from publicly voicing your opinion. Well done.

      Reply »

  12. LOL! You WILL use AMP. You think you have a choice? Who TF are you? Were you out protesting Citizens United? How much have you “donated to congressional campaigns”? As much as GOOG? LOL!

    This is a race to the bottom. Stand by your values! And while you’re doing that, I’ll be eating your lunch. GOOG must get there cut. I’ll get mine, and you’ll be telling your Mom how righteous you were from her basement.

    Reply »

  13. Hi dear Author,

    You aren’t the first one to talk about this and to point to the fact that we shouldn’t implement AMP – while I work in Customer Experience and I build websites I am not on the side of AMP is better — if anything I think it continues to dumb down the web for people and that is and isn’t a good thing.

    And while I don’t like the fact that AMP gives Google that much more control until web designers/developers build better quality / updates sites with selective content/design for selective sets of devices I’m not sure what is the alternative…

    I have had only 1 client ask about AMP and that was roughly a year ago and I steered them away at that time – and I hope this project like so many others by Google gets dropped/mutates into something less self-serving and better for the web at large.

    Reply »

  14. I laughed. Seriously? Probably the article was written with Chrome or, failing that, a Chromium-based browser. The signs were visible all along and even without Google AMP we’re already stuck in a googley monoculture.

    Trying to sign up or sign in on some random website of a business you _actually_ want to do business with? Here’s your crap reCAPTCHA:

    “Oh, of course you(1) may pass, being the one who submits to Google’s world-domination phantasies. We’ve collected enough information about you. One click in this checkbox should suffice.”

    “Oh, but you(2) shall not pass! You are deleting your cookies, blocking third-party crap and so on. Naughty! Here’s your twelfth round of CAPTCHAs, lol.”

    (rinse, lather, repeat)

    Brave new googley world. Never mind that you never actually voiced that you wanted to do _any_ business with Google. These days it’s customary to shove reCAPTCHAs down everyone’s throat regardless of the privacy implications. And Google loves it, of course. And the business owners seem to see no problem either. But I have turned away from purchases several times because they were pestering me with reCAPTCHAs. No thanks, I’ll take my money elsewhere. The only ones where you can’t get around this is when quasi-monopolists start using this crap Google technology on their websites.

    As long as you’re a submissive internaut, you may choose to avoid _some_ Google’s “services” here and there, but don’t resist too strongly.

    One other big problem is that website owners these days often seem to feel entitled to ad revenues. Well, sorry. You aren’t. Ads, especially digital ones, have become so aggressive and obnoxious I’m wondering there isn’t a bigger discussion and that not more people use content blocking extensions.

    Reply »

  15. If Google only cares about a faster, more semantic web, then why not just give an even bigger ranking boost to faster, more semantic websites? Where does the need for a new standard come in, other than to gain more control?

    Reply »

  16. I love this article.

    To all the people who didn’t get the point, yes, it’s a rant, (hint the word ‘polemic’ is in the domain), but the point is simple – AMP is Google’s attempt to funnel all publishers onto a labyrinthine, pseudo-open web platform, convincing the world that it’s all about the end user experience, but really just using it as a nefarious ploy to ensure that users never leave Google’s servers. (more data, vicar…..?)

    It’s exactly the same as when Facebook tried to strong arm publishers into Instant Articles and native video. The monopolies will always try to gain more control, it’s intrinsically part of their nature.

    Sure, I can see some benefits for end users – not having to dodge and weave through minefields of autoplaying videos, popups and JS redirects.

    But for any publisher/small business that doesn’t have the luxury of a full-time dev team, implementing AMP is like pulling teeth… without anaesthesia.

    My AMP pages rank really well at the moment. But there’s a big problem. They SUCK big time. They get a fraction of the ad RPMs, bounce rates are higher, they’re missing all the important conversion elements (CTA, product information etc etc) and they look sh*t.

    So, I’m looking to give AMP the middle finger. Anyone who can tell me to do this without losing my rankings will get a free lollipop. I promise….

    Reply »

  17. > Yes, sacrificing the freedom of the entire web because you’re annoyed at a few websites makes perfect sense.

    It’s not just a few websites – content publishers’ websites are pretty universally terrible, because there are compelling incentives for them to be. That’s not going to change unless the incentives change, and Google is one a of the few organizations powerful enough to change them.

    As for the “freedom of the web”, I don’t think that the ability to use nonstandard markup is what most people mean by it. The important freedom is the freedom to publish, which is not affected by AMP.

    Reply »

    1. Freedom to publish may not be affected by Google, but freedom to be found is. Google decides (to a large extent) what news you read, which sites you buy from, which videos you watch.

      I’m not debating the need for a faster web. But if Google really wanted a fast, open web, they could just strongly reward fast-loading and clutter-free websites with better visibility in Google search. That’d be all the incentive needed. Instead, they use AMP as leverage to recast the entire web in their image.

      Reply »

  18. You say Google AMP is bad, but do you know how fucking horrible it is in the german mobile network to get a page loaded in the rural area? There are too much web administrators who give a shit on caring about the size which get loaded. Without AMP it were impossible to get a news page loaded. Sure, its not great, but where are the Open Source alternatives which work decentral and not do any blockchain shit what is not working correctly?
    We need fast loaded pages, if you live in New York, Silicon Valley, or even South Korea, this are things you dont care about because its pretty fast, but in Germany we pay a lot money for mobile data volumes, I have only 4GB per month and pay 15 euro ~ 17 dollar. Is it normal at your country?

    Before saying something is bad, provide a better solution, than you can say whats better and that AMP is bad.

    Reply »

  19. I agree with so many of the things you’ve said in this article. Particularly your comments on how Google uses AMP as a way to standardize data to make it more efficient for their crawlers—I suspect they are doing this to enhance featured snippets, Google’s “One True Answer”, and their conversational UI capabilities.

    You said “Google doesn’t quite come out and say [just build your entire site in AMP] explicitly”… well, Malte Ubl, tech lead of the AMP Project actually has: https://twitter.com/cramforce/status/925364477071040512

    I’ve written a similar article that you might appreciate: https://joeyhoer.com/the-url-is-dead-long-live-the-url

    Reply »

    1. Thanks Joey – great piece about the death of the URL, which is again a hot topic today with Google’s new browser versions hiding URLs. Google really is trying to cram their own vision of what the web should be down everyone’s throat.

      Reply »

  20. Great article!
    You said exactly what I think.
    Well,I do also think that AMP isn’t the only thing where Google wants full control over the full web (Chrome and their bad search engine are big problems,too) but I agree that it’s a very big problem.
    My webpages don’t support fucking AMP,instead I made normal mobile versions of them.
    And guess what?Google doesn’t even care about that because they’re locked out of my page anyway.
    It isn’t that complicated to place an Error 403 for their IPs on every page :P
    We should really fight back,fight for the free and decentral internet.
    I use nothing of their shit anymore and I recommend everyone to do the same.
    – Don’t use their browser – Firefox ist better anyway
    – Don’t user their OS – iOS,Blackberry OS,Sailfish OS and the Purism Librem 5 are great alternatives
    – Don’t use their search – DuckDuckGo,Qwant,MetaGer or Unbubble are the ways to go
    – Don’t use their ads – A-Ads is a alternative which respects the users privacy
    – Don’t use their tracking shit – Piwik/Matomo is a alternative you can host on your own server
    – Don’t use thei Youtube shit – Invidio.us displays the videos without giving them ad money (also for embedding in webpages)
    – Don’t use their translator – DeepL has a much better quality anyway
    I hope my list of partly unknown but really good services can help some of you to get rid of the internet dictator.

    Reply »

  21. Just developed a new website and FULLY agree with you. Even if AMP is useful for the user(because the web is so heavy, and apparently we don’t know how to develop lighter sites anymore?,) we can’t give all the power to 1 company. That’s why when creating my new site I didn’t even make a simple AMP version. Just say no to Google.

    Reply »

  22. Sorry, but a guy with SEO written all over his site telling me to buy an iPhone and boycott Google isn’t really someone I can take seriously.

    Also, I noticed that ublock is killing a couple of connections to Google on this very page.

    Maybe you should like, take your own advice or something.

    Reply »

    1. Just wondering how often you use Google (or any search engine for that matter) and click on one of the top ranked results. If you feel that those results are 100% because of what the search engine did and 0% because of what good SEO has done, you have a very narrow and incomplete picture of the web indeed and it should be your opinion we shouldn’t take seriously.

      And yes I did consider turning off Google Analytics as well. Might still do once I find a decent alternative.

      Reply »

  23. Great article, Barry – pretty well sums up my feelings, too.
    As you know, I build mostly WordPress sites, and I specialize in technical SEO and making pages load fast. I have yet to work with a WP site that I can’t make load consistently in 2 seconds or less, so AMP isn’t even a consideration for my clients (none of whom are news publishers, thank goodness). Granted, WP doesn’t do that out-of-the-box, it takes some tweaking. But that tweaking is a lot more cost-effective for my clients than building AMP versions, and they don’t have to relinquish control of their websites or their users in the process. I’ll continue to resist AMP, at least until my client list includes a site which can see some ROI from it.

    Reply »

  24. The irony of you having a (not totally undeserved) go at Google regarding comments, when you can’t even get commenting working right on this very page!

    I click on one of the numerous “Reply >>” links, the page moves down a bit, no reply box appears. I finally work out the reply box is at the very bottom of the page, but now am I replying in the comment chain I click “Reply >>” in, or am I going to create a brand new comment? Who knows, but I guess I’ll find out very shortly.

    Reply »

  25. * There’s no need to ditch Android. You can just install Firefox on it.

    * The ‘instantaneous’ page load isn’t. Google’s real secret is preloading that eats data plans, and doesn’t actually need AMP to work.

    * Yes, the cost for Google not owning the web is less integration with Google.

    Reply »

  26. Why I avoid web development frameworks (and also CSS ‘methodologies’):

    * ampproject.org: Page size ~500k, 49 requests.
    * My website: Page size ~70k, 13 requests.

    I was subject to a very slow internet connection whilst on a ship this year, in the middle of the ocean. Most sites failed totally, they were just too heavyweight for slow connections.

    Optimising only for mobiles is wrong, anyway, if I tether my laptop to my mobile internet, what experience do I get?

    Reply »

  27. While I get what you’re saying, I don’t think Google wants pages to be “only AMP”. Site owners want their own site on their own domain, because it’s important for branding and identity. They also want a good experience for laptop and desktop users, who often represent important business to business customers.

    Not only that, but your CMS is producing a normal site on your web host *anyway*. It doesn’t make sense to hide those pages, or output only for the purpose of feeding the AMP site.

    Lastly, the console messages from Google that you’ve shown here are not mandatory rules that must be complied with.

    That said, I am not a fan of what Google are doing with Amp. They shouldn’t be hosting the content for it to be complient with AMP. I hate how “Google” appears at the top, which could be confusing for users not knowing exactly where they are….. are they on a fancy Google search page, or Google shopping? It’s just not clear.

    As a developer myself, I will not be jumping on Amp pages. I prefer to make a lightweight responsive site that loads quickly. That means both efficient frontend code and a good database setup and CMS. Not easy, but definitely possible.

    Reply »

  28. So sad that you never hit on all the technical aspects on why not to use Google AMP and how it would impact production and profit as they have made several site-breaking bug releases the last 10 months and makes it extremely difficult (insisting on using an API) to use API’s….So they expect you to invest time in an already functioning API to make special end-points just for AMP…. which doesn’t always work to begin with. Naw, I’ll just be a conscious developer instead of following the sheep for “better rankings”

    Reply »

Leave a Reply

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


Award Wins

DANI Awards 2018 Winners

UK Search Awards 2016 Winners

UK Search Awards 2017 Finalists

2018 Northern Ireland Business Awards winner