CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking

Re:CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Googl... by Dalewyn on Thursday August 10, 2023 @02:00AM (#37072473)

>If we wanted browsers to be fed code that for performance reasons isn't human-readable,

Worth keeping in mind that "performance" here refers to saving bandwidth costs as the host. Every single unnecessary whitespace or character is a byte that didn't need to be uploaded, hence minify and save on that bandwidth and thus $$$$.

The performance difference on the browser end between original and minified source code is negligible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Googl... by hnlmorg on Thursday August 10, 2023 @02:41AM (#37072731)

Last time I ran the numbers (which admittedly was quite a number of years ago now), the difference between minified and unminified code was negligible once you factored in compression because unminified code compresses better.

What really adds to the source code footprint is all of those trackers, adverts and, in a lot of cases, framework overhead.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Googl... by hunter2_ on Thursday August 10, 2023 @02:36AM (#37072683)

I was thinking transfer speed, although even then, the difference is probably negligible if compressing regardless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Googl... by Dalewyn on Thursday August 10, 2023 @02:41AM (#37072737)

The way I see it, if someone needs to minify their JavaShit (and HTML?! CSS?!) to improve user download times, that download time was horseshit to start with and they need to rebuild everything properly from the ground up.

[ Parent | on HN ]