help explain gap in waterfall

[newellstarks]

Pat,

This is an old post - I am, nonetheless, interested in why you are opposed to seals generally.

I ask because SSL is required generally in eCommerce and Google encourages secured sites - so should we simply use the https part of Verisign (or whoever) and skip the part where the end user can click on the Seal?

In the case of "credibility" would end users believe use if they could not verify that we are "real" and using "fake" seals that could not be clicked on?

We have run into similar issues with speed delays on our site with Seals.

Thanks

Newell[

quote='royster' pid='24551' dateline='1411760386']
Thanks Pat, this is helpful.

Could you help me "read" the timeline though? When I tried to view it, I looked for "seal.verisign..." and all I saw was the Send request and not where it was "finishing right before everything frees up".

(09-27-2014 05:20 AM)pmeenan Wrote:  I ran it with timeline, tcpdump and response body capture turned on and managed to repeat it: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/140926...8/details/

In the timeline ( http://www.webpagetest.org/chrome/timeli..._XGR&run=8 ) it looks like there is a message about seal.verisign.com/getseal?host_name=www.myspicesage.com&size=L&use_flash=YES&use_transparent=YES&lang=en finishing right before everything frees up.

Looking at the page code it looks like that is an external script though I'm not sure why it's not showing up in the waterfall.

From the looks of it, the verisign seal is timing out intermittently causing the 30-second page loads.

I'm kind of violently opposed to those things anyway because they don't actually add any value or security (and add failure modes like this) so if you can I'd highly recommend just ripping all of the seals off of your page anyway.

[/quote]