Uh oh! Looks like would be well advised to also start practicing by themselves instead of only carrying out studies.

According to the , their website is dirtier than 91% of websites tested...

@3rik This measurement seems to be bullshit, I'd recommend not using this for anything real.

It doesn't say anything about rendering load, Javascript loads on the client, display-brightness of the website, load of the server induced by content management systems. It merely says "hey your website seems pretty big" and "oh, it's visited often". Not representitive of actual energy usage. Oh and the assumption, that they use grid-electricity may not hold true in some cases.


Well, at least a "big webpape" transfers a lot of data and thus a lot of energy is needed... but I understand the critic.

You know a better measurement / practice / application one can use?

@3rik No, because there are a lot of things you cannot possibly know from the clients side. Which CMS is used, which versions, which processors and virtualization techniques, which operating systems, what database server(s), redundancy, Caching strategies etc.

On the clients side complexity of HTML, CSS and JS-load, brightness of the webpage, frequency of redraws.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!