46 ms·

You can even do: http://amzn.com/B009PJ9L3Y http://amzn.com/B009PJ9L3Y

• walshemj 14y ago
  you do realise that they are using rel=canonical here? But OMG is amazons html fracking messy or what huge amounts of white space which increases the page size.
  • mcovey 14y ago
    they own so much bandwidth it's probably cheaper for them to just send uncompressed html than to waste time + power recompressing it when things change. Being so large, they're an exception to the general rule.
    • zaphar 14y ago
      The more pages you send to a user the costly a single byte on a page is. Conversly the more costly a single byte is the more money you can save by compressing or removing said byte. Owning lots of bandwidth is often highly correlated with sending lots of pages. I think you may find that it's more cost efficient for them to "waste" time and power recompressing than you think. Scale challenges a lot of your preconceptions when you actually get there.
  • goblin89 14y ago
    Probably leftovers from their templating engine? I wonder if this really matters with gzip. Or at least whether traffic overhead beats one from implementing and using HTML compression. I bet they have it measured.
  • aphexairlines 14y ago
    Mason emits a lot of unnecessary whitespace, but gzip helps a lot.