It's a fun way to push for a lighter web but without a way to distinguish the complexity of the sites on the list it's really not all that useful. It's kind of addressed in the FAQ "The whole point of the 512KB Club is to showcase what can be done with 512KB of space. Anyone can come along and make a <10KB site containing 3 lines of CSS and a handful of links to other pages" but without a way for the user to distinguish the site complexity at a glance I'm not sure I understand the point. Regardless of the FAQ the first few sites I clicked on while yes were quite light in size but also had nothing more than some text and background colors on their sites. Also any search site is going to be at the near top of the list e.g. https://steamosaic.com/

Complexity would be a subjective metric but without it I'm not sure what you take from this other than a fun little experiment, which is maybe all it's meant to be.

▲

unglaublich 3 days ago | parent [-]

So they should invert it like the demoscene.

Set the limit first, and then request folks to join the contest:

What crazy website can _you_ build in 512KB?

	▲	adamzwasserman 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Tag-based organization system with drag-drop, real-time filtering, row/column layouts. ~55KB gzipped. Built it frustrated with Trello's limitations. The 512KB constraint forced good architecture: server-side rendering, progressive enhancement, shared indexes instead of per-item duplication. Perfect Lighthouse score so far - the real test is keeping it through release. Extracting patterns into genX framework (genx.software) for release later this month.
	▲	timenotwasted 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"What crazy website can _you_ build in 512KB?" Exactly! That would be super fun and interesting.