Lea de Groot wrote:
On 10/12/2005, at 1:53 PM, Brian Cummiskey wrote:
I wonder how many visits google gets in a day...
Probably in the billions - plenty of people have it as their homepage.
Of course, there'd be a lot of caching happening...
Lea
On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote:
Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind
spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web
On 12/10/05, matt andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt's example has more text, which explains the difference... and
imagine if the CSS and JS were in an external file... how often do
people reuse Google throughout the day? If all
Don't you just love W3C recommendations?
Google is stuck farther into the dark ages than we all thought... I
just realized Google's logo is a GIF image, and you know what that
means...
so I downloaded it, opened it with the GIMP, and saved it as a PNG
with the highest compression.
The GIF: 8.35
...
Updated valid page, based on the above:
http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes)
Ok I took your version and got it to extreme:
http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google1.html (1729 bytes).
What I did: got rid of some optional tags, shortened name of CSS file
to
I feel you are forgetting a number of things.
- Response times:
Response times are every bit as important to Google as bandwidth usage
is. A user should never have to wait for the Google page, or the
Google search results. Ever.
CSS and JavaScript in separate files means the browser needs two
On 12/10/05, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel you are forgetting a number of things.
- Response times:
- Hidden bandwidth consumption:
- Obvious bandwidth consumption:
See Rimantas' version... I think you are focusing too much on the
specific implementation of standards, and not the
On 10/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See Rimantas' version... I think you are focusing too much on the
specific implementation of standards, and not the simple fact that if
Google used standards, they would save a lot. At least Rimantas
thought ahead and solved these
On 12/10/05, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Dynamic elements:
Things such as being logged in/not logged in, having Google Desktop or
not, sponsored links, search listings etc. all need be take in
consideration.
How? What does that have to do with it?
Consider the entire
...
I'm wondering what led MSN to go with external files, and Yahoo with
CSS in the header. MSN is obviously much more optomized than Yahoo
(the yahoo markup is a mess), and I'm thinking MSN might have picked
the right choice. Their CSS file is massive and probably covers all
the internal
liorean wrote:
Consider the entire www.google.com site. Or at least the search part
of it. You probably want to create one stylesheet file and one
javascript file for the entire thing, probably sent compressed if
client supports it, so it gets cached and not requested again in that
browser
Surely either you jest, didn't read the whole article or need to update your
feeds. ;)
From the article itself:
This is a spoof article. Please compare it with the original and you will
see how little it has been changed.
From the blogosphere:
http://www.forgetfoo.com/?blogid=5150
On 09/12/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote:
Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an
organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there
are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire
On 12/9/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely either you jest, didn't read the whole article or need to update your
feeds. ;)
Sorry, I should have made it more clear I was kidding. They do remind
me of that article though :)
--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ...
On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote:
Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind
spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web
standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of
the Google Search page:
blog entry:
On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/2005, at 1:20 AM, matt andrews wrote:
Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind
spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web
standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version
...
I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time.
Interestingly, comparing the two pages in
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/
shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat
that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original)
...
Michael Cordover's comments were the correct answer. :)Here is an excerpt from an Interview with Matt Cutts, Google engineer, just last month:Q: In more general terms, what do you think is the relationship between Google and the W3C? Do you think it would be important for Google to
e.g. be
Chris Dimmock wrote:
*Google's home page doesn't
validate and that's mostly by design to save precious bytes.
So, he's saying
font color=red loads faster than font color=red
?
I'd like to see some documented proof of this.
The homepage of google is only a couple lines of code... but yet
Multiply those two by millions of hits every day
and we're talking big bandwidth!
--- Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Dimmock wrote:
*Google's home page doesn't
validate and that's mostly by design to save
precious bytes.
So, he's saying
font color=red loads
Francesco wrote:
Multiply those two by millions of hits every day
and we're talking big bandwidth!
Good point. I didn't even think about it like that.
I wonder how many visits google gets in a day...
**
The discussion list for
I wonder how many visits Google gets in a day...?
Brian - I'm not sure how many visits Google gets in a day,but Danny Sullivan reported on the Nielsen netratings numbers back in Julythat Google has 46.2%market share of 4.5 billion searches/ month
On 12/9/05, Chris Dimmock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either way - small coding issues (and vaildation/ use of semantic code etc)
are going to mean a lot of bandwidth when looked at in light of that kind of
volume...
You all act like you don't know how much bandwidth can be saved with
Just quickly, speaking in Google's favour, I've had to use Gmail in an
emergency via SSH on a text terminal, and it remained eminently
usable. Screenreaders may not fare so well, but for the vast majority
of users, it's key strength is usability and the depth of their
products. It seems they value
On 08/12/2005, at 5:35 PM, Bert Doorn wrote:
Just thinking Google may fall into this category as it's obviously
script driven.
Yeah, its probably mostly that - they are back end coders and aren't
aware of the front end issues.
But - this is *Google*!! They are hiring the best of breed. I
Hi Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire programmers who understand standards.
I think the Google question more comes down to if you are on to a good
On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote:
Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an
organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there
are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire
programmers who understand standards.
See, thats where I
Makes it interesting when you are trying to sell clients "validated"
code and web sites if they ask "does Google have validated code?".
Regards,
Ric
James Ellis wrote:
Hi
Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an organisation
attempts to be socially responsible. I'm
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple
issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is
compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these
days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort of thing,
takes a lot of
From: Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me!
I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate.
I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could
all just shake it off - they are no where near validating.
Lets just look at
G'day
Michael Cordover wrote:
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple
issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is
compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these
days. Inserting a doctype, separating style data, that sort
On 12/8/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day
Michael Cordover wrote:
I think that Google's failure to validate may be due to the simple
issue of bandwidth. Certainly on the main page, the whole source is
compressed and effectively minimised. Bandwidth is expensive these
days.
On 09/12/2005, at 12:20 AM, Al Sparber wrote:
But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into
them about this :-)
What, when I can whinge on a mailing list?
No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;)
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address
Well, if they don't know about it already, consider Gmail conspiracy
theories disproved ;-)
On 12/9/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/12/2005, at 12:20 AM, Al Sparber wrote:
But if I were you, I'd get in touch with Google and really lay into
them about this :-)
What, when I
What, when I can whinge on a mailing list?
No, no - I'm leading open and earnest discussion, honest I am ;)
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :)
Yeah, good luck finding usable contact details on their site ;)
As far as I can tell, Google doesn't write
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :)
Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is
going to become their new My Google style portal page.
The markup still stinks.
h
--
--- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just
On 12/9/05, heretic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, OK, I'll try to figure out what email address to use later today :)
Interesting timing rumour is that http://www.google.com/ig is
going to become their new My Google style portal page.
The markup still stinks.
That has been around for a
Single sane reason: Well now, I suppose they're not trying to get
themselves indexed by a search engine, are they? ;-)
josh
--
Joshua Street
http://www.joahua.com/
+61 (0) 425 808 469
On 12/8/05, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/12/2005, at 12:54 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:
Lea de Groot wrote:
On 08/12/2005, at 12:54 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:
Trolling?
Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me!
I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate.
I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could
all just shake it off - they
On 08/12/2005, at 12:54 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:
Trolling?
Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me!
I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate.
I mean its not as if they were just a couple of errors, and we could
all just shake it off - they are no where near
On 12/8/05, Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Single sane reason: Well now, I suppose they're not trying to get
themselves indexed by a search engine, are they? ;-)
josh
Good answer. Maybe also:
- they aren't making a browser
- they use lots of javascript
- they don't care
Maybe the
G'day
Well, it isn't the first thing that occurred to me!
I've often wondered why it is that Google doesn't validate.
I never looked at it closely, but you're right - it's tagsoup,
tables for layout and deprecated elements and attributes galore
(font, center anyone?). No DTD either.
42 matches
Mail list logo
