Site News: Site Size Trends And The Bloating Of Ubersoft.net
Slashdot has a story about how Websiteoptimization.com is reporting that web page sizes have trippled in size between 2003 and 2008.
Here is what they're reporting:
2003 sizes: 93.7K
2008 sizes: 312K
Out of curiosity I used their site analyzer to see how Ubersoft.net measured up:
375K
... that's not good.
Here's a more granular breakdown:
html: 6.3K
images: 306.84 K
(images from banner advertisements: 130.14K)
(images from css: 2.63K)
javascript: 35.5K
Google Analytics: 6.28K (this is probably part of the javascript calculation)
CSS: 26.84K
This is... ridiculous. Obviously I need to find a way to slim the site down -- I had no idea it was that bad and it's got to be killing people on modems to try to load the front page. Drupal is rather hefty, however, and it's going to take me some time to figure out how to trim the fat.
Obviously I could stop running banner ads and save 130K right off the bat. That has a few other problems associated with it, however.
PayPal
Your donations help! Support your local rabble-rouser.
Help Desk
- Sat May 17th
Kernel Panic
- Sat Apr 5th
Old Skool Webcomic
- Mon Oct 15th
Technology Is Not Your Friend
Spread the word! Available at the Uberware store on Zazzle.
Comments
no way!
Size may have increased, but average bandwidth has to - or how many people do you think are still on 28.8? Not many, and they've long given up trying to read comics.
You shouldn't listen to these people, and here's why:
html: 6.3K
You only have 6K of html?? You are doing *brilliantly*! That is such a light page. This is what Drupal puts out, and I can't imagine how you can do any better than that.
There is still old table based stuff out there where the html is > 100K
You're doing fine
images: 306.84 K
(images from banner advertisements: 130.14K)
ok, so this is a bit excessive, but they are paying the bills.
But I'll give you a tip - people on low bandwidth connections have turned off images.
They may have specially turned on images from your domain, or they may have just given up reading webcomics, but either way, they are unlikely to be affected by the size of the images.
Presumably this number also includes *your comic*
Don't go slimming that baby down! ;)
(images from css: 2.63K)
Again, your site design has a gorgeously low figure.
My compliments to your designer.
javascript: 35.5K
Google Analytics: 6.28K (this is probably part of the javascript calculation)
Javascript is probably a little high, but how much of that is reusable libraries? Packages like analytics are so common on websites that people probably have them cached and don't download them at all often.
Something to take into account.
CSS: 26.84K
OK, this is a little fat, but given how good some of your other results are, this isn't that bad.
You might be able to trim this out so specific css is only delivered on the correct page, but you may well then lose any benefit through the download of the extra file. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
Overall - I don't see anything to worry about here.
You're doing well in a world that is coming to expect high bandwidth.
thats M2CW - hope it helps :)