# Why is video so much less for top 100 sites, than for top 1000 sites and top 1 million sites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [April 25, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945 "2017-04-25T22:21:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Andy\_Favell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@Andy\_Favell](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/Andy_Favell)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945/1 "2017-04-25T22:21:21Z")
Is this due to: a) Using less video? b) Using video more efficiency? April 2017: Average bytes per page by content type. Top 100 = 3kB Top 1000 = 91kB All = 118 kB Video request per page: Top 100 = 0 98%; 1-2 2%. Top 1000 = 0: 95%; 1-2: 3%; 3-4: 1%. All = 0: 97%; 1-2: 1% Video transfer size per page: Top 100 = 0: 98%; 201-250k: 2%; Top 1000 = 0: 95%; 1-50K: 1%. All = 0: 97%; 1,351-1,400K: 1% Please also see my other discussion on video for mobile web best practice. Thanks, Andy Top 100; April 2017 ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/080ce0d7fb7b560c41d3ced39dc1716a51f46e33.png) ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/68168f84506462a8d2269f41771f2abb34d3d49c.png) ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/51fde96e41c3a2f8728230ef3f432189a55f3d19.png) Top 1000 ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/f254583a06cb7be477129ed794323667df37ca04.png) ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/a36bab79aa28768ebd40134fcc3bd0e2b26f8ad0.png) ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/8d931f51a274faf8822083e37baf33c025323d50.png) All ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/86460b8cc54718c7d8d2a11d77c9f1f2b132d858.png) ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/4d5d4297de176eeb90781e557458592abdd97c13.png) ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/1X/4abc88dfb90f2540fbdae750bfec62f0d213d198.png) ---
**Author:** ![rviscomi](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/rviscomi/32/835_2.png) [@rviscomi](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/rviscomi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945/2 "2017-04-26T14:16:29Z")
I think option B is the answer: efficiency. To be more specific, I think it comes down to autoplay. HTTP Archive just visits a page and records the page load without clicking around. Autoplay videos would be captured on those visits, while click-to-play would not. Autoplaying is wasteful for everyone involved because a page visit does not always demonstrate intent to watch. One notable exception is YouTube, where visiting a watch page is definitely intent to watch. Keep in mind that only home pages are crawled by HTTP Archive. So my theory is the top sites choose not to autoplay in order to keep bounce rates low and conversions high. ---
**Author:** ![charlie.clark](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/charlie.clark/32/842_2.png) [@charlie.clark](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/charlie.clark)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945/3 "2017-04-26T14:30:39Z")
Am .04.2017, 16:26 Uhr, schrieb Rick Viscomi [httparchive@discoursemail.com](mailto:httparchive@discoursemail.com): > I think option B is the answer: efficiency. To be more specific, I think > it comes down to autoplay. HTTP Archive just visits a page and records > the page load without clicking around. Autoplay videos would be captured > on those visits, while click-to-play would not. Autoplaying is wasteful > for everyone involved because a page visit does not always demonstrate > intent to watch. One notable exception is YouTube, where visiting a > watch page is definitely intent to watch. Keep in mind that only home > pages are crawled by HTTP Archive. So my theory is the top sites choose > not to autoplay in order to keep bounce rates low and conversions high. +1 on this and kudos to Google for changing the behaviour of embedded behaviour so that they don’t autoplay automatically. Charlie ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_Favell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@Andy\_Favell](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/Andy_Favell)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945/4 "2017-04-26T15:42:31Z")
Rick, Thanks for the excellent theory/explanation. I believe autoplay is frowned on for accessibility reasons, which may also be a reason top sites shun it. I am also told that until recently Chrome on Android didn’t allow autoplay. Andy ---
**Author:** ![charlie.clark](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/charlie.clark/32/842_2.png) [@charlie.clark](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/charlie.clark)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945/5 "2017-04-26T16:03:31Z")
Am .04.2017, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Andy\_Favell [httparchive@discoursemail.com](mailto:httparchive@discoursemail.com): > Rick, Thanks for the excellent theory/explanation. > I believe autoplay is frowned on for accessibility reasons, which may > also be a reason top sites shun it. To be honest I don’t think that accessibility is that high up any developer’s agenda. However, HTML5 means that most sites will have reasonable accessibility. But I think the trend towards SPA (single page apps) is the new Flash. Charlie ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_Favell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@Andy\_Favell](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/Andy_Favell)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-is-video-so-much-less-for-top-100-sites-than-for-top-1000-sites-and-top-1-million-sites/945/6 "2017-04-27T20:21:08Z")
> [@charlie.clark](#): > > I think the trend towards SPA (single page > apps) is the new Flash. I am wary of going off topic, but your comment is interesting, Charlie. Does that mean that SPA content has similar accessibility issues as Flash content? Andy