Favicon.ico's Effect on Page Loading Time?

[Garrett]

If I put a link to it in my page,say ten times, will I see a 569% increase in sales?


Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

OH SHIT BRB I CANT BELIEVE I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT

See ya' on the other side boys

 

[Hyphen]

HAHAHA
Great troll.

 

[VedoMedia]

haha well just make one in paint and rename the png to .ico and upload it...

 

[efeezy]

r u joking about u

Please GO AWAY!

 

[bizzykehl]

I have done extensive split testing on the favicon, it turns out that it has absolutely no bearing at all whatsoever and you're a complete fucking moron for asking this question.

 

[noveltysystems]

 

[fm1234]

There's something for everyone in this thread.


Frank

 

[acidie]

I have done extensive split testing on the favicon, it turns out that it has absolutely no bearing at all whatsoever

This was only true for se0, but since Google updated their algorithm to se3 it plays a major role in ranking.

 

[gopher]

Lots of idiots in this thread.

Depending on whether you have keep-alive enabled or not, you're looking at about 100ms with and 300ms without to establish a TCP connection. 404s usually are slower than 200s. But the single biggest reason to have the favicon is that you can have the browser cache it. set expires to +1 year, remove the etag, remove last-modified, set cache-control to public (applies to firefox and ssl) and you won't even have the browser checking for 304s.

Also, depending on how you render the page, the client and whether you're sending the content in chunks, 404s may delay rendering.

 

[jlknauff]

If your site doesn't have it, and a browser requests it - that will produce a 404 error. The other option is to have it as a 0-byte file.

My question is: which is faster?

Thanks for reminding me why I should get back to work and stop wasting my time reading stupid ass posts like yours.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[LeFluffy]

why dig up a retarded thread from two weeks ago, for the love of all that is good in humanity, why?!?!?!?!