> One look at the source code for most popular sites shows this isn't true Although I reject the idea that popular websites are representative of the web in ge

> One look at the source code for most popular sites shows this isn't true Although I reject the idea that popular websites are representative of the web in general, let's investigate that anyway. Currently on the HN homepage: 1. Netflix blog post scores 73/100 and 85/100 on Google PageSpeed Insights. 2. Flickr post gets 67/100 and 83/100 on PageSpeed. 3. Google's own post gets 61/100 and 79/100 -- oops! 4. gatech.edu gets 66/100 and 82/100. All bad, decided to stop there. Even many/most popular pages are bad (careful reading shows that I didn't say all) . This jives with what I've seen as someone who looks at Google PageSpeed Insights A LOT. > average sluggish site the bloat is mostly JavaScript rather than the HTML source Someone "drawing pictures with HTML editors" as I said is still going to add JavaScript, images, css, etc. They'll also specifically add tons of unoptimized images that aren't even losslessly optimized, let alone put through manual lossy optimizations. I bet the average webmaster can't even define lossless and lossy. FWIW I think AMP is just awful. In contrast, Google PageSpeed Insights is amazing. I adore the PageSpeed website and recommend it wholeheartedly. It's been a huge help to me. The solution to this mess is competition, not centralization. Make speed a major ranking signal and let the ecosystem say goodbye to those who can't hang. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/ https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/