The Google SEO +s are multiple pages with "high quality" non-repeated content, with a good reputation score, and linkbacks. Have a site all on one page can hurt SEO if you don't have any of the other criteria met.
Hilariously enough both https://1mb.club/ and https://10kbclub.com/ itself are included in the listing. This means that they will eventually have to retire as the clubs grow...
Good point! https://1mb.club/ has a compressed transfer size of 7.6 KB and https://10kbclub.com/ has a transferred size of 6.1 KB right now. I did a few quick tests and found that https://1mb.club/ can take about 50 more entries and https://10kbclub.com/ can take 10 more entries without exceeding 10 KB compressed transfer size with the current page layout.
I see two possible optimizations for the 10kbclub.com index page. First, you could rely on Brotli for compression (gain of ~1300 bytes on the current page) as you seem to rely on a Chrome headless which I assume would have br in its Accept-Encoding. Second, you could try removing a few response headers which take a full 664 bytes.
Reminds me some old book collections in Pirate Bay. They had all famous authors and then one or two really shitty books from some unknown never-published writer. This self-promotion technique seems to work somewhat, because one Swede eventually published and thanks to native English editors the book was not so bad anymore.
> timonoko: Reminds me some old book collections in Pirate Bay. They had all famous authors and then one or two really shitty books from some unknown never-published writer. This self-promotion technique seems to work somewhat, because one Swede eventually published and thanks to native English editors the book was not so bad anymore.
This comment sounds like an insinuation that someone or I have deceptively added my own website to this list. I apologize if that is not the case. However, let me clarify the criteria I used to select the websites. I initially took the list of websites already available from https://1mb.club/, https://512kb.club/, and https://250kb.club/, and then fed them to a script to select the websites that consume less than 10 KB compressed transfer size and that have received at least 100 upvotes on Hacker News.
Later I relaxed the rules to include upvotes on Reddit and Lobsters in the eligibility criteria. There is no self-promotion going on here. Doing so and especially insinuating that others are doing so would be taking this tiny project too seriously. Indeed there are many who rightfully argue that keeping a website under N KB (for arbitrarily chosen N) is not an interesting goal by itself. This is just a hobby project made for fun over a weekend because https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25176794.
See https://10kbclub.com/#club-rules for the inclusion criteria. Also click on any row of the data table to see Hacker News, Reddit, and Lobsters discussion threads about the website along with how many upvotes the thread has received. If there are more websites like this, please suggest it for addition by creating a new issue at https://github.com/susam/10kbclub.
the no plastics club would be amazing - plastics have invaded all forms of our life. it's nearly impossible to find anything that isn't made or wrapped in plastic these days.
even in clothes, every major brand I looked at has at least some or all of it's material based from polyester.
Plastic is an incredible engineering material though. Just that it’s commoditized to the point where nothing can compete with its properties given a fixed cost. So, everything is now made of plastic.
I wish plastic was an expensive material because it really is incredible and there are thousands of different blends.
I appreciate the attention to detail. This is something I wondered about too while deciding the transfer size limit. Finally, I decided that this website is neither 10 KiB Club nor 10 kB club but instead 10 KB Club where "KB" colloquially means 1024 bytes.
"In the International System of Units (SI) the prefix kilo means 1000; therefore, one kilobyte is 1000 bytes. The unit symbol is kB."
"The binary meaning of the kilobyte for 1024 bytes typically uses the symbol KB, with an uppercase letter K."
"In December 1998, the IEC addressed such multiple usages and definitions by creating prefixes such as kibi, mebi, gibi, etc., to unambiguously denote powers of 1024. Thus the kibibyte, symbol KiB, represents 210 bytes = 1024 bytes."
Point taken and I will reconsider the choice of the unit. By the way, I got curious about how various tools deal with the KiB vs. kB vs. KB situation.
On macOS Catalina 10.15.7:
$ head -c 92160 /dev/urandom > foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 susam staff 92160 Dec 29 15:04 foo
$ ls -lh foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 susam staff 90K Dec 29 15:04 foo
On Debian GNU/Linux 10.6 (buster):
$ head -c 92160 /dev/urandom > foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 susam susam 92160 Dec 29 09:35 foo
$ ls -lh foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 susam susam 90K Dec 29 09:35 foo
$ ls -lh --si foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 susam susam 93k Dec 29 09:35 foo
$ sudo cp foo /var/www/html/foo
$ wget http://127.0.0.1/foo -O /dev/null
--2020-12-29 09:41:05-- http://127.0.0.1/foo
Connecting to 127.0.0.1:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 92160 (90K) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: '/dev/null'
/dev/null 100%[===================>] 90.00K --.-KB/s in 0s
2020-12-29 09:41:05 (845 MB/s) - '/dev/null' saved [92160/92160]
This 90 kB (92 KiB) is also hosted temporarily at http://172.105.48.21/foo . When Firefox downloads it shows 90 KB in the Developer Tools > Network tab as well as in the download box [1]. However, after the file is downloaded, macOS Finder shows the file to be of 92 KB [2].
"Shilling" rolls off the tongue better than "12 pence", but England still switched to decimal currency.
So make it 10000 bytes, then. That way it's easier to calculate how long it takes to transmit on the wire, since network speeds have always been 1000-based.
Edit: yes, I'm probably getting the pre-decimalization math wrong above, since I'm likely confusing pre-decimalization pence with post.
IIRC in pre-decimal Britain we used 'pence' a lot in a spoken names for the discrete sub-shilling coins but the names of the coins themselves all had distinct colloquial abbreviations for the amount, notably 'tuppence', 'thruppence' and 'ha'penny' for 2, 3 and half a penny respectively. 'Sixpence' - the half shilling - was pronounced as you might expect. The 3 penny coin (yes!) was colloquially called a 'thruppeny bit'. The pre-decimal abbreviation for a penny was 'd' (denari) rather than 'p'
(pence) so you would never say '2p' or '5p' as we would today. Decimal quantities such as 5 or 10 pennies didn't have dedicated coins and there was no special name for these amounts.
In 1971, a cheap paperback book was sold for two shillings and sixpence, which was said as 'two-and-six'. Decimalisation [0] was my first experience of price gouging, when the same paperbacks were suddenly repriced at 15p (~three shillings) instead of the 12.5p which was the decimal equivalent of their old price.
I see the value of these sites loading almost instantaneously on any device and connection, but other than the novelty value. I don’t see anything else.
Not digging into the actual load speed by ms or even the number of bytes loaded. Just using my human perception of loading times, I cannot see any difference between apple.com (I assume is one of the worst offenders, if not at the very least doesn’t make the 10KB club) and the sites listed in this site.
Is there any text-only reddit api wrapper?
https://teddit.net/ almost makes it but it has:
* images
* some custom font (just why...)
* and little bit too bloated stylesheet
At work we have one huge react app with multiple megs of JS bundle. I want to make text-only version or similar to teddit in size for a long time but management are not keen to allocate time for this...
IMO, a profile pic is better for an "about" page. The 10 KB Club excludes favicons and the like from page size, since they're non-blocking and not needed to read an article's text.
For what it's worth, even a large 256x256 PNG favicon can fit within 1 KB to 2 KB size if properly optimized, say, using ImageOptim or another similar tool.
> For what it's worth, even a large 256x256 PNG favicon can fit within 1 KB to 2 KB size if properly optimized, say, using ImageOptim or another similar tool.
This is a heavily optimised PNG favicon [0], which is only 192x192. But without trashing the palette, I can't really deduce it further, and it's already 2.7K. Niether pngcrush nor imageoptim can do much with it.
I tried zopflipng [1] with the very expensive option suggested from the usage and got 2,493 bytes (original 2,740 bytes, nowhere practical as it took 3 minutes) so you don't have to sacrifice the palette, though I'm not sure if 16 or even 4 color palette will significantly alter the visual.
It's more about the content of the image, the optimization can only do so much. If it's a pixel art or the palette is reduced to hell, then yeah, probably; otherwise I don't think you can display a 256x256 photo in 2KB.
