From: Patrick Jankowiak (recycler@swbell.net)
Date: Thu Apr 20 2006 - 19:30:53 PDT
This certainly touched upon one of my interests.
Not only do some sites have almost no content, but they use an enormous
amount of unnecessary code to display that miniscule amount of information,
what amounts to a "business card". The first one mentioned below uses 7,856
bytes not including any images in order to display 1086 printed characters.
The ratio of code to text is 7.23:1 (and almost zero content behind it.)
Another site, which I shall not name but which is an example of better HTML
technique, uses 22128 bytes to display 12167 characters. The ratio of code
to text is 1.82:1 (It also has about 8 gigabytes of info behind it.)
But this isn't about content behind links, it's about the quality of the
code writing. -how much computer gobbletygook and gibblegabble do you have
to download in order to see the page, so you can then decide what to click
on, that is, if anything is clickable..?
So in the first case not only is our bandwidth and time wasted, because
In the 'example site', there are a couple hundred bytes used to change text
Now I fully expect the owner of that page might start a fuss about these
there's nothing there but a picture of an MV, but 900 bytes are downloaded
just to display that scrolling text composed of exactly 86 bytes
(characters)! Just for fun, I rewrote that page locally, and got it down
from 7856 to 4439 bytes. I didn't try too hard and kind of got bored, so
probably could have gotten down a bit more by eliminating redundant
repetitions of code ('cargo cult syndrome' as often seen when pages are
written using automation tools). Got rid of the scrolling javascript text,
just made a banner GIF of it and centered it. I'm not sure an animated
scrolling text GIF could be made smaller than 900 bytes.
color, do formatting, etc, but the vast majority of the "invisible" code is
links to actual content, not stubs and tailings left over from some
HTML-writing program. Geez, these things need to be cleaned up after
they're done. The program can't do that, takes a human.
comments, but so then let the bytes fall where they may, it's not personal
but only observations on the efficacy of HTML implementations, since the
subject was brought up.
dgrev wrote:
> Jim
>
>> Just leafing through the latest copy of 'Classic Military Vehicle'
>> examining the adverts and generally perusing the web sites listed
>> therein and it struck me, as usual, as to how many dealers still think
>> that a buyer is going to troll halfway across the country/Europe/the
>> world (delete as applicable) to buy a vehicle from them based on a
>> postage stamp sized image on their web site?
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that bigger images and more of them means
>> that there is more chance of a potential buyer turning up to look at
>> the vehicle?
>
>
> I couldn't agree with you more.
>
> I can only assume one of the following applies.
>
> 1) Too lazy to do the effort required to take the pics and then
> upload them to the website?
>
> 2) Paying for someone else to do their website, and too lousy to
> pay for updates and extra bits?
>
> 3) Have been told they have to have a website and so they have, but
> don't care/not interested/don't want to know, so pay it lip service
> and then ignore it.
>
> Last time I looked at Bannister's it was right up there for the award
> of most pointless website ever made:
>
> http://www.milweb.net/go/banister/
>
> Chris Muy's comes a close 2nd.
>
> http://www.milweb.net/go/chrismuys/
>
> However, it is only because the competition haven't got a clue that
> Marcus Glenn's site appears to be so much better. Most of the links
> within his site lead to empty listings. A lot lead to nice pics of
> parts but no prices - very annoying.
>
> Regards
> Doug
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:44:01 PDT