I think part of parent's point is that you're probably in the minority. I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that the users who make up the "long tail" of web traffic tend to visit a higher number of websites than the vast majority of users who mostly stick to the "walled gardens."

of course I don't have any real data, but I'd bet a lot that most of the internet's non-automated (i.e. human) web traffic is to big publications and organizations. The "private web" is kind of dead. (Let's assume a generous 20% usage, which is still kinda dead).

So your web traffic might be to personal websites (mine is, too) - but we're a minority I guess.

So while the goal is laudable, even a 100% change would probably be a result of 20-30% of the web, I guess even less.

>So your web traffic might be to personal websites (mine is, too) - but we're a minority I guess

But then that would be an improved situation for the two of you, right? (And many others like you, including me.) So it would still make some difference to those who care.

The overall load on the web would still be higher than it could be, though, due to the bloat.

Small improvements should not necessarily be neglected or dismissed, though. Otherwise it becomes like a symptom of the original problem being discussed.

Sure, especially as it won't hurt. I think I've been doing pretty good with the websites I control - but I don't have many visitors (which is fine).

Everything is 'every little bit helps' and it shouldn't make you listen to the naysayers (e.g yours truly) - I'm just a little disappointed because I think it will not make a big difference. At least my conscience is clear ;)

Got you now, makes sense.