# Why videos is not appearing on Median page weight by content type figure? **URL:** \ **Category:** Analysis\ **Created:** [April 17, 2023, 3:33pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-videos-is-not-appearing-on-median-page-weight-by-content-type-figure/2565 "2023-04-17T15:33:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bbarneoud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@bbarneoud](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/bbarneoud)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2023, 3:33pm UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-videos-is-not-appearing-on-median-page-weight-by-content-type-figure/2565/1 "2023-04-17T15:33:39Z")
Is it because videos are mainly tierce assets? How to compare videos weight regarding other content type in that case? ---
**Author:** ![tunetheweb](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/tunetheweb/32/1671_2.png) [@tunetheweb](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/tunetheweb)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2023, 11:19am UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-videos-is-not-appearing-on-median-page-weight-by-content-type-figure/2565/2 "2023-04-18T11:19:29Z")
Where is it you’re asking about? I can see video on the graph here: > **[HTTP Archive: Page Weight](https://httparchive.org/reports/page-weight#bytesVideo)** > > This report tracks the size and quantity of many popular web page resources. Sizes represent the number of bytes sent over the network, which may be compressed. ---
**Author:** ![bbarneoud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@bbarneoud](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/bbarneoud)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2023, 11:42am UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-videos-is-not-appearing-on-median-page-weight-by-content-type-figure/2565/3 "2023-04-18T11:42:47Z")
Thank you @tunetheweb. I’ve already spotted this graph but it doesn’t quite answer my questioning as it tells us that the median video weight is 3.5Mo, which is more than the whole weight of median page. I’m looking for a way to compare video’s contribution to median page weight regarding other assets (HTML, css, js, images, others…). PS : sorry for my pour English writing. ---
**Author:** ![tunetheweb](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discuss.httparchive.org/tunetheweb/32/1671_2.png) [@tunetheweb](https://discuss.httparchive.org/u/tunetheweb)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2023, 11:57am UTC](https://discuss.httparchive.org/t/why-videos-is-not-appearing-on-median-page-weight-by-content-type-figure/2565/4 "2023-04-18T11:57:38Z")
Ah OK. Yes you are correct it doesn’t show the breakdown in that way. It’s more there to answer “what’s the average size of videos when it’s used on page” rather than “how much do videos make up the median size of web pages” We delve into the data more in our Web Almanac publication and you can get an answer to your question here: > **[Page Weight | 2022 | The Web Almanac by HTTP Archive](https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2022/page-weight#fig-8)** > > Page Weight chapter of the 2022 Web Almanac covering why page weight matters, bandwidth, complex pages, page weight over time, page requests, and file formats. ![Median page weight by content type](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/2X/9/9c5407bcfdd40521bc86655bd0f869ffea8197a3.png) Video doesn’t show on this graph, but if you click the Three dots in the top right you can see the data behind that: ![Three dots menu](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/uploads/httparchive/original/2X/2/2b7ac40989b570300f3878f9210e665c7a1a660e.png) and viewing that you see this: | percentile | client | total\_kbytes | html\_kbytes | js\_kbytes | css\_kbytes | img\_kbytes | other\_kbytes | html\_doc\_kbytes | font\_kbytes | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 10 | desktop | 529 | 6 | 95 | 9 | 82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 25 | desktop | 1,141 | 13 | 236 | 32 | 331 | 0 | 6 | 41 | | 50 | desktop | 2,314 | 31 | 509 | 72 | 1,026 | 0 | 16 | 116 | | 75 | desktop | 4,643 | 69 | 941 | 145 | 2,694 | 0 | 31 | 225 | | 90 | desktop | 9,064 | 139 | 1,504 | 262 | 6,066 | 0 | 59 | 401 | | 100 | desktop | 678,439 | 67,738 | 106,210 | 62,631 | 671,672 | 71,775 | 55,298 | 68,285 | | 10 | mobile | 445 | 6 | 87 | 6 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | 25 | mobile | 990 | 13 | 209 | 28 | 260 | 0 | 5 | 29 | | 50 | mobile | 2,019 | 30 | 461 | 68 | 881 | 0 | 15 | 97 | | 75 | mobile | 4,042 | 67 | 857 | 139 | 2,402 | 0 | 30 | 191 | | 90 | mobile | 8,082 | 135 | 1,367 | 256 | 5,474 | 0 | 60 | 338 | | 100 | mobile | 390,511 | 122,001 | 121,591 | 78,543 | 385,425 | 122,724 | 46,597 | 110,404 | So the “other bytes” is zero for all but the 100th percentile. This makes sense to me as video is not that common, and I’d be VERY surprised if half of the websites we check have a video on them. Hence the median will be 0. This also shows why showing the graph in the way you’d like would not make for a very interesting graph!