21–30 of 56 posts
If the plot had a similar curve from 0-50kB would everyone still be commenting? What about 0-5 kB?
Is this about the absolute values or the curve?
Unless everyone is expecting exponential page size growth to continue indefinitely (and ignoring bandwidth increases), I don't see the point.
I find this interesting as well as unimportant at the same time. Interesting because it shows that Google has responded to increasing connection speeds by adding bells and whistles to their homepage. That's really great. Unimportant because with Google Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc. - going to the google homepage is almost entirely optional. Google is working so hard into baking themselves into almost any facet of web…
..and to ping internet :)
$ curl -sL http://google.com | wc -c
11328
Perhaps OP forgot to put id_ after the capture timestamp in the archive URLs? The id_ makes sure that the Wayback Machine only returns the page as it was when it was indexed.
This looks incorrect. http://web.archive.org/web/20110713000446id_/http://www.goog... is only 28K according to ls -lh. Perhaps OP forgot to put id_ after the capture timestamp in the archive URLs? The id_ makes sure that the Wayback Machine only returns the page as it was when it was indexed.
Seems like it goes down hill roughly when Marissa moved on.
This looks incorrect. http://web.archive.org/web/20110713000446id_/http://www.goog... is only 28K according to ls -lh. Perhaps OP forgot to put id_ after the capture timestamp in the archive URLs? The id_ makes sure that the Wayback Machine only returns the page as it was when it was indexed.
I definitely used id_ . I saved the source that I used; I'll recheck things.
Thank you.
Nowadays there are lots of really fat websites with tons of resources. Personally, I think that's kinda convenient. This way it's a lot easier to make sites which are much faster than those of the competition.
More and more people start to merge all of their CSS and all of their JS files, then they minify them, and finally the whole thing is gzipped. This surely helps a lot. However, their sites still continue to grow, because they continue to add more and more crap.
On average, the size of a website triples every ~5 years. Nowadays there are lots of really fat websites with tons of resources. Personally, I think that's kinda convenient. This way it's a lot easier to make sites which are much faster than those of the competition. More and more people start to merge all of their CSS and all of their JS files, then they minify them, and finally the whole thing is gzipped. This sure…
In reality, it was 28.8Kbps up to 1999, then has remained in the 2-3 Mbps range ever since.
This looks incorrect. http://web.archive.org/web/20110713000446id_/http://www.goog... is only 28K according to ls -lh. Perhaps OP forgot to put id_ after the capture timestamp in the archive URLs? The id_ makes sure that the Wayback Machine only returns the page as it was when it was indexed.
I definitely used id_ . I saved the source that I used; I'll recheck things.