Current time: 03-03-2021, 10:38 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Slow website; what's your take on this?
05-04-2014, 07:17 PM
Post: #25
RE: Slow website; what's your take on this?
(05-04-2014 03:04 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 08:00 PM)JMTC Wrote:  Edit: Do you guys know how reliable Pingdom's RUM data is? I've tried to replicate the poor results from Australia, but I still get a load time less than 3 seconds (test result), which is nowhere near the poor results Pingdom suggest.
All I know is, multiple tests from multiple sites just muddy the waters.
I'm inclined to agree after more looking into this.

For example, a test today from Dulles shows 0,5s load time and from Sydney 0,4s. That are quite difference numbers than Pingdom suggests.

Furthermore, Google Analytics' page timing tells the average load time last week was 2,19s, and not 3,9s as Pingdom says. Pingdom says their timing is better than Analytics', but the results from Analytics are much more in-line with WPT results and what I experience myself when browsing the website.

More specifically, more than half of the pageviews are below 1.5 seconds according to Analytics:


(05-04-2014 03:04 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  And I test my sites against only one parameter in WPT - fact cable connection, IE10 browser in Virginia. Then after I have them grading well on that, I test using WPT from other locations, other browsers and other connections just to see how they do with those. But I make my adjustments, based on only the one set of test parameters.


(Note: I chose the one test parameter in WPT - the IE 10 cable connection out of Dulles VA - because it is the most consistent and reliable of all the other locations and connections available in WPT. I used to test scattershot, as Patrick suggests, but then learned better. I make all adjustments based on the one parameter, then check other parameters just out of curiosity. But I never make any adjustments, based on those tests. And I only, ever, use ONE site. WPT.)
Thanks for sharing that approach Anton. How do you deal with the incidental nature of WPT's test? For example, if you have made a website change, do you run a test every 10 minutes?

(05-04-2014 03:04 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  Remember my most important things about website optimization: 1.) There is a point of diminishing returns re: the amount of time and effort you're putting in vs. results. 2.) The goal is to achieve a nice balance between form and function. You want to look good, but load fast. Never sacrifice performance for looks. Find that balance. And finally 3.) Keep checking your site, especially after adding anything. See if the addition(s) mess up your grades. And above all, keep it simple.
Good points, thanks.

(05-04-2014 03:04 AM)Anton Chigurh Wrote:  I don't know why people think CloudFlare helps. It demonstrably does not. Think about it - it still relies ON YOUR HOST and it cannot ever, make that host machine any faster than it is. And when it is down, your site is down. It's a SHAM. I used it for two years before figuring this out.
For dynamic websites, where CF still relies on the host, I think you're right. But with caching everything while being on shared hosting, I think it helps. For me it's an easier and more cost-efficient option than using a dedicated server for a small website.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Messages In This Thread
RE: Slow website; what's your take on this? - JMTC - 05-04-2014 07:17 PM

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)