SEO Chat is giving away money, why?

I’m a newer member to SEO Chat but was shocked to see how badly built the SEO Chat homepage was (coding wise).

Working on several major websites we’ve learned one of the easiest ways to make our clients happy was by instantly saving them money.

This was done by simply reviewing their html coding and removing the dead space and useless <!-- --> tags. We had though our one client with a savings of 8kb was good but when we looked at SEO Chats source we where saw 13kb of dead space, we didn’t even touch on converting the " to ' and where possible href="http to just href=http this would have another 3-4kb as there are numerous amounts of links and " on the index page.

Now what is 17kb of savings going to do, well look at the numbers if you page only gets 100,000 loads a day you will save over 620 G’s of bandwidth a year (51+/monthly) now say the average users loads 7 pages on your site your looking at 4 terabyte plus of bandwidth savings. Not to mention the faster speed your users will have.

(please remember some people are still with the wonderful Dialup AOL aka Always Online Loading)

You forgot the part which can save most,- CSS and div's when that can be used, and format tables, fonts etc. using CSS.

Somebody did that to Microsoft's homepage, and they found out that MS could save approx. 329 terrabytes a year.
http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/

only problem with this is it's not w3c compliant, when you're putting characters in attributes for tags they should be in quotation marks of some sort, either " or '. When you're putting numbers in it's fine to leave off the quotation marks.

e.g. <img src="../images/pixel.gif" border=0> is valid

Also, think about turning on gzip on your web server, if the browser can support it then it saves a fair bit of bandwidth.

This is important for large sites that get lots of traffic - a good point well made, but tehre are other thing to consider in design and not just savinga few thousand dollars on bandwidth.

Cheers

bandwidth is inexpensive at this point so I would prefer to use proper conforming coding and use a few extra GB a month myself.

Who cares if the code conforms as long as it displays well in all browsers.

Brandon

It costs more for those of us building database driven sites to spend the hours needed to clean up those very minor things that it does in bandwidth. Microsoft's site is almost w3c compliant (13 errors), so I'd say they're doing a pretty good job.