Live data from Hacker News

We analyzed 425k favicons

iconmap.io

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#51
post #2

Also see the gigantic map - https://iconmap.io The blog post is the analysis of the data set, the map is the visualization.

Is the dataset available for download? I couldn't immediately find a download to the dataset in the linked article. My hands itch to do some dimension reduction on that data and make some nice plots

We'd be happy to share the data. Reach us at help at gurge.com if you're interested.

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know the story behind these? How do seemingly obscure sites consistently get massive amount of obscure content placed highly in results.

What most of them do is they will use Wordpress exploits to get into random wordpress website ran by people who know nothing about managing a website and are running on a $3/mo shared hosting account. After they get into these random wordpress sites, then then embed links back to their sketchy site in obscure places on the wordpress site that they hacked, so that owners of the site don't notice, but search bots do. T…

> "had their nephew throw up a wordpress site instead of hiring a professional"

The web is supposed to be accessible to everyone.

This type of "blame the victim" attitude is a poor way to handle criminal activity.

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#55
Favicons are slightly useful. You can serve your page at http://www.example.com with a favicon from https://example.com that has a HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header with includeSubDomains, and then future page loads in that browser will be https (across your whole domain). (This assumes you want your domain to be https)

Other than that, I'm still pretty meh about them.

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#57
post #34
post #26

I got mine down to 160 bytes with some pixel tweaking and converting it to a 16-color indexed PNG. It's not a lot of work or very difficult (I'm an idiot at graphics editing), but you do need to spend the (small amount of) effort. I embed it as a data URI and it's just four lines of (col-80 wrapped) base64 text, which seems reasonable to me. Haven't managed to get my headshot down to less than 10k without looking hor…

Oh hey, Discord must have seen this article -- their favicon is down to 14k now.

It's not, at least for me. If you checked in devtools, that's gzip over the wire size. Hover over the size and it'll show you the actual resource size, still 285k for me.

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are png optimizer programs, e.g. optipng

The Squoosh (web) app is awesome for this too! All processing is done locally with wasm. https://squoosh.app

Yep, just tried the Discord icon with OxyPNG and it went from 285k to 6.35k, visually indistinguishable.

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What most of them do is they will use Wordpress exploits to get into random wordpress website ran by people who know nothing about managing a website and are running on a $3/mo shared hosting account. After they get into these random wordpress sites, then then embed links back to their sketchy site in obscure places on the wordpress site that they hacked, so that owners of the site don't notice, but search bots do. T…

> "had their nephew throw up a wordpress site instead of hiring a professional" The web is supposed to be accessible to everyone. This type of "blame the victim" attitude is a poor way to handle criminal activity.

If they had used static content, it would remain 100% accessible to them, but also vastly more secure.

Dynamic content generation on the fly for a blog is unnecessary complexity that invites attacks.

Re: We analyzed 425k favicons

#60
post #17

> In fact, I recommend that browsers ignore these hints because they are wrong much of the time. I don't agree. That's the kind of coddling that encourages incompetence. Instead of compensating for others' mistakes, just let their stuff break. I wonder if Safai on iOS ignores the hints. When I tested, I was surprised to see that pressing the share icon, which holds the option for `Add to Home Screen`, would cause a d…

That may be your viewpoint but browsers have historically always taken the other viewpoint. Take HTML parsing for example. You can miss closing tags and a ton of other stuff, and it'll all work on a best-effort basis.

The browsers job is to do the best it can, that's what users want. No one would use a browser that breaks at the smallest tiniest error in the source code.

Post reply on HN