I get antsy when I made a page over 100KB (excluding images, and even then anything over 1MB starts to feel excessive unless it's something particularly reliant on images). 5MB feels very high.
Fetched the same on the AMP Cache: https://www-fool-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.fool.com/amp... 200KB cold cache. Removing the likely cached resources (amp javascript, fontawesome cdn font) and the payload is ~35KB.
It's certainly possible to make a lightweight page, as hacker news is a great example, but people aren't doing it. For whatever reason, AMP seems to be effective at making the web actually follow best practices.
Then those best practices aren't very good. In my experience, AMP is, on the whole, a detrimental thing that degrades web pages.
All I want is some way of telling sites to never give me an AMP page.
I am constantly amazed at just how bloated (and carelessly built) websites have become.
Right. It's super easy to make lightning fast web pages. In fact, that's the default state of a static HTML page. It actually takes a lot _more_ work to make pages slow by adding tons of javascript, dependencies, server-side applications, etc.
From the article linked elsewhere in this thread: >The 90th percentile weight for the canonical version is 5,229kb. [...] The 90th percentile request count for the canonical version is 647
There's the problem. Over 5 megabytes and 647 requests for one article? 5MB is equivalent to about 20 full-length novels or 1,000 pages of text. And 647 requests?! That must be one extremely comprehensive article, right? No, it's 1 request for a brief article and 646 unnecessary requests wasting bandwidth to load unnecessary stuff. Then people wonder why it's slow. But someone put in a lot of work to fluff that page up to be that huge and slow and use that many requests.