What is Reddit's opinion of
WebPagetest?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ WebPagetest website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
76 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
Just from a quick 30 second review:
Consider turning on HTTP/2 on your origin server and/or using a CDN like Cloudflare for front-end load balancing and content delivery.
Use an image optimization service (I like ImageOptim or Kraken.io). Available on pro tier of Cloudflare with "Polish" feature.
Don't load that many full scale images (all the company logos are loaded full scale) that are below the fold. Not a big deal on fast connections but with my cell phone on LTE, a bit slow on the first load. Scale or lazy load where appropriate. Available on pro tier of Cloudflare with "Mirage" feature.
Right now there are ~320 distinct requests to get to first load. If you only listen to one piece of advice that should be free to implement; turn on HTTP/2.
I don't work for Cloudflare or anything, just a bit of a performance nut. You could spend time learning how to configure and tie it all together yourself but at a huge opportunity cost that would be better spent in development and bizdev.
Holy crap. Just seeing the yuuge list of ad providers and trackers puts me off ever going to that site. Plus they appear to use All The Things ™. So I ran it through webpagetest: results...
Google.com got me 407kb: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/181123_NN_220f16382eeacf5b1251a51b69f2f8f0/
Facebook.com was 4MBs: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/181123_E5_548441974d7a1ba1ab5df7765e0fe9e6/
notify.moe is a new and modern alternative that is very fast and has a responsive mobile layout.
It has importers for Kitsu, Anilist and MAL.
dig A pornolab[dot]net says their A record is mapped to 127.0.0.11 and there is no AAAA record.
I tested with few different DNS(over TLS, So my ISP can't be interfering here).
Looks like, It's a issue on their end.
Also tested with webpagetest and it also errored with Connection refused
FWIW there are some other benefits to Google-hosted web fonts. Allowing Google to generate the stylesheet offloads advanced optimizations like subsetting, browser compatibility, cache configuration, and update management. If you're using a common font like Roboto, there's a good chance that users will already have the resources in cache and the network cost wouldn't be an issue.
The performance tests linked from this post do show a tangible benefit: https://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=170125_GR_GDCE-l:Before,170125_VD_GFA5-l:After . The version with the self-hosted fonts is significantly faster by 500ms. However, there are a few caveats.
- The tests are on different web servers.
- The tests were only run once, contrary to the recommendation to let WPT run the test 9 times and pick the median to account for any variance. May not make a difference, but worth noting.
- The test page uses 5 fonts. YMMV depending on how many fonts your site uses.
- The repeat view is actually slower: https://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=170125_GR_GDCE-l:Before-c:1,170125_VD_GFA5-l:After-c:1 . The cache headers are probably different.
great to have you on board :) - I work for Plesk :)
Few things on this:
- Enable gzip on the server
- Make sure you use the latest PHP (can make a big impact)
- Enable nginx caching in the WordPress toolkit
- I usually use Swift performance or WP Rocket for caching on the WP level but I guess you know best how to achive the same with the plugins you mentioned :)
- Make sure you have the right/recommended settings on the caching plugin(s). For example I use elementor as a page builder and that needs a bit of custom settings on my WPs.
- Use something like Smush or Imagify to properly compress and minify images - or whatever plugin or method you prefer for this
That is usually the starting point so that I'm getting good results on gtmetrix or pingdom. There are additional things you might need in terms of an ecommerce website, but optional. There is also the so-called Speed Kit for Plesk - but as this happens mostly on the client side, you can see its effect only through www.webpagetest.org currently and not gtmetrix or pingdom.
Hope that helps - performance optimization can be a bit of a science sometimes, depending on the site you are operating :-)
you might also want to join our FB group as this is much more active than reddit usually :-)
Your site is timing out - I can't even complete a basic speed test: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/180731_J5_a821e36ff9f62aa1c041187a7683daab/1/details/#waterfall_view_step1 You need to get Bluehost to sort this out for you - or - better yet- find a better host - plain and simple.
Put your domain in here: https://www.webpagetest.org/video/.
Once it's done running, scroll down past the waterfall chart to see the bar charts.
To get a comparison you can put multiple domains in. You can also choose from a few countries of origin for the test. To compare two different countries on the same domain I think you can run two sperate test and grab the test IDs out of the URL. Then run a test with any two domains and replace the test IDs in the URLs with your previous ones.
Imo CloudFlare is the better CDN. You might speed up your site a little by going to AWS but I would suspect not heaps.
What you more need to look at is your caching strategy and site optimisation.
You can use sites like webpagetest and Mozilla Observatory to dive deep into what's getting served and how big things are. This let's you look at scaling down images or swapping to on demand loading for big pages. Maybe you want to do some static image paths that you cache for longer then the html, maybe you do want higher end servers so you're not caching html because it changes to much. Maybe you don't need a full size javasript library and will get away with a mini one.
There are a few things changing hosting can do,
- Speed up origin response times, for anything not cached.
- Scale your site to meet demand, if you run ecommerce you will hit the origin at some point.
- Create highly available infrastructure with auto recovery or fail over. This reduces down time when there are issues.
And in some cases reduce cost, but it normally takes an investment in development up front to save in the long run.
I would suggest having a chat with CloudFlare support and asking for some help getting the best out of your site, then looking at if a migration will solve your issues and the costs involved l.
Strictly speaking, you're right – it's not that they can't coexist, but that page builders always add to load time.
It's a question of more or less.
You've obviously been more careful with your choices beyond Elementor. However, for the content you have on that page I'd expect better performance.
Your GT Metrix link went to a 404. But their results are often off anyway. Probably due to caching.
Actual load time for your site was 2-2.5 when I tested.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190126_FR_8cbb87eeff12b56489b622eb9909f700/
Visitor/user experience is indeed what matters most, or should. The extra 500 or 1500ms of overall load time you're getting because you used Elementor are not going to drive visitors away.
In my experience, however, pages created with site builders are far more bloated than that.
For that reason, pros building sites should have better tools in their kit (save, perhaps, for the odd landing page). Anyone else who cares about revenue or user experience should stay away from them.
Sure, that's the simplest way. WebPageTest is a great tool for assessing page speed.
Chrome and Firefox both have fantastic developer tools with similar features too.
Your website is pretty fast as it is. https://www.webpagetest.org/result/180713_0X_40d57d17dde9cd1d87b523f6cb11ed07/1/details/
You are already using PHP 7.2 and LiteSpeed so you have a good webhost. You could have them add a security certificate and enable HTTP2, that would help. Also, you could try removing AddThis.
Thanks so much for doing this, you're amazing! And the site rocks. All websites should be that fast, clean, and simple!
I'd love one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Olight-H1R/dp/B01MT86L0Y/?tag=parametrek-20
The score does not always mean a faster site. It is frustrating to optimize towards a score that may make things slower overall. I've seen this happen all the time.
I suggest picking a real site speed tester (that measures in seconds, not grades). My fav is WebPageTest. Then consistently run it so you're always aware of how recent changes (such as a new post or plugin upgrade) affected your real speed.
Set a calendar reminder to do this at least weekly, or find another way to automate it. I ended up setting up a private instance of WPT that I have scheduled to run tests daily for me (I made it available to others as MachMetrics if you're interested).
Now I have my speed data aggregated in nice charts emailed to me weekly, and I'm not concerned with any one score that could steer me in the wrong direction.
ではWebPageTestで分析してみましょう
dev.to/ https://www.webpagetest.org/result/171116_8T_fa4f2ce33d7166f14e26acc6237cdc19/
abehiroshi.la.coocan.jp/ https://www.webpagetest.org/result/171116_M9_3860621476b367d1a31fc13ea2c7faf5/
| Item | First Byte Time | Keep-alive Enabled | Compress Transfer | Compress Images | Cache static content | Effective use of CDN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dev.io | A | A | A | B | F | ✓ |
| Abe | A | A | F | F | F | X |
Second the use of https://www.webpagetest.org/. Look at the waterfall graph view. Very handy for finding the root cause. Also, you should try reaching out to your host. I work at WP Engine and our support staff will help clients figure out what the problem is. Also, we made this tool to give you some WP specific speed recommendations (https://wpengine.com/speed-tool/), but WPT.org works great for an overall analysis. Good luck!
Run those lighthouse tests that I added in my edit, it might give you some insights on what's going on "under the hood" and what you need to change.
There is also https://www.webpagetest.org/
If you'd like you can post the result link and have others look at the results.
Yes, I hope you guys use <strong>Webpagetest</strong> to improve the weak points and make the service better. Seems there is certainly room for improvement.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190326_C6_ce1f884059b4e9c8345805d9b803ce16/
A GitHub page I manage loads just fine in Indonesia.
I also tested Mumbai, Mauritius, Warsaw, and Argentina, and found comparable results.
Look at "waterfall" report of your site loading:
Biggie #1
First byte time - 2.5sec - too much... should be under 1 sec... Solution: try better hosting (WPEngine, Flywheel) - but those are more expensive Alternative: Cloudfare (has free package which will help) More painful alternatives: use caching plugins... kinda pain to setup and IMHO not as efficient (well, not always)
Next thing:
You have lots of css / js files loaded from between 2.5 and 4 sec marks... would be nice to join those together / load from CDN... There are some plugins like W3 cache, but may be somewhat painful to setup and manage , but may be worth the effort.
From my experience having a good hosting is the most efficient solution...
- 10 ways to speed up your Blogger blog
Holy Christ - 44 seconds - you've got 12MB of images, by the way. Learn how to save images for the web.
A good developer (which it looks like /u/swordx10 is) knows and can explain to clients that PageSpeed score is by no means the be-all and end-all. In fact, optimizing for that can lead other parts of the project to suffer.
The important metrics are TTFB, and page load time, which his site scores well on.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/161130_XW_HVRF/
The total load time is 12.4s, which is high, but everything is visible, usable, and to the end user, done at 1.8s, which is fairly respectable. ( < 2s target time), on first load.
Very sharp site!
Edit Source: WordPress Dev who specializes in optimization. There are very few things that I would say could be improved without sacrificing quality, other than a shorter video. (which is a sacrifice), and some minor image optimization.
Quick comments:
Site is super slow in the US. It took like 10 seconds to start loading over here. Clicking through pages takes several seconds. First byte time is over 2 seconds, good is considered under 0.3 seconds. https://www.webpagetest.org/result/161116_ZE_BNGB/ It appears that you're on cheap hosting with Godaddy. This might be OK for starters, but if you have more than 1-2 customers on the site at once you'll want to get some legit hosting and set up a CDN like cloudflare. You may also want to pay a developer to tune up the site for speed. If you set up proper caching and such, the speed can really improve on a given hosting plan.
Full disclosure: I work at a hosting company and we do work with sites like yours, but we're in the $300/mo range so we might be a little much for you at this stage. But, the point stands - speed is important to conversion wherever you host.
Potential customers who aren't already committed to buying from you will not wait around for your site to load. This is commonly overlooked in ecommerce until it becomes an extreme problem - if you get more than a few visitors at once, it will be. However, even if the site is a bit slow, you stand to lose those marginal shoppers.
Agree that "welcome home" is not an intuitive top nav. Maybe "about us" or "who we are" or something would be better.
I would consider just making "handbags" and "accessories" top-nav categories instead of "shop".
On my screen when I click through to the e.g. Hobo page, I don't see any product images, just a wall of text. I think what the customer will probably want to see is pictures of hobo bags. Same goes for the other categories. You've made your category description more important than the product! Seems backwards to me.
Otherwise photos and descriptions and layout seem clean and professional so you've got some good material to work with.
Slowness is probably part of the problem, traffic quality is probably the other part.
If people are coming from FB they probably have low purchase intent, i.e. not ready to go straight from browsing articles about Trump's hair and friends' babies to shelling out $5K for a ring.
Find a way to draw them in, collect emails and sell them over time. What is the purchase cycle for a ring? Closer to 10 weeks than 10 seconds or 10 minutes. Use email and social media to work with people over that period of time - which means collecting their info.
Unless you are bargain-basement you can't expect conversion on first visit in this niche.
Regarding speed: TTFB of 0.7s is not great, start render of 7 seconds is horrible. If people have to wait 7 seconds before they see anything, no wonder your bounce rate is so high. I'm guessing you are on a VPS or Shared (more or less the same thing) Bluehost plan <$50, and obviously your environment is not optimized for speed. Talk to your developer about it (if you have a good one) and see what you can do. At my work (eboundhost) we have clients in your niche that have great performance, but it does cost a bit more than that.
domInteractive fires 200ms sooner, and domContentLoaded 400ms sooner. That's awesome! You're not seeing any FCP improvements because it looks like you now have an injected stylesheet, __error.svelte-0f604f1d.css, that blocks render.
You should also really either inline or preload those fonts, like I mentioned. It's worth taking a look at the shift that occurs on the video for that load: https://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?tests=220124_BiDcND_56a2b9d1bcb2178e43f944ea36625686-r:1-c:0. You can see it happen from 1.8s to 2.3s.
You nearly have 100 on mobile Lighthouse and the biggest reason you're not there is because your HTML document is HALF A MEGABYTE in size. Sorry for the caps :) It's such a big document that the browser has to start downloading things before the HTML itself has even finished downloading, check it out: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/220122_BiDcEX_eada609b1e50841272e45370dfaf4765/1/details/#waterfall_view_step1
This is happening because the page has 340kB of JSON embedded into it describing all of your posts.
I recommend inlining all of this CSS file into your body head, basically as high up as you can, so that the browser can kick off these downloads fast.
- The site loads fast even in bad conditions. So why show a progress bar at all? Why not instead load with a static page that you hydrate, e.g. the trending stocks fade in. I'll also note that loading indicators like this ultimately worsen LCP. If you're planning on making this a business, that's SEO adjacent :)
- Your FCP is slow and Typekit is to blame. Load the font file directly with their asynchronous JS instead. Having a blazing fast FCP is preferable to no font shift. Seriously, look at how bad it makes your waterfall: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/220122_AiDc4C_436ce47529f6cb7fd6720dc512a13886/1/details/#waterfall_view_step1. Typekit
import()'s their CSS files, making FCP dependent on serial downloads. Terrible.
Your FCP is outrageously late for how fast everything else is, and it should be clear that it's because you have two external domains in the critical path. Self-host both. That also means there will be one fewer file between the user and their fonts (the intermediary Google CSS file).
Then, preload the font files and mark them as optional in font-display. That will prevent the flicker you see of the font loading in.
Next – do not mark your logo as lazy loaded! It's super important! Stabilizing the header is one of the best things you can do for CLS and perceived performance. My two cents: move that to SVG and inline it so that the logo is just there on first paint. That's a lovely feeling.
Your CSS has a bug in it. font-stolzl is your fallback font, but it doesn't exist. If a user has a network issue and the font cannot be loaded, you still want the fallback font to look good. Look at this difference: https://imgur.com/a/y759c4d
Also, candidly, mobile design definitely has some issue right now :)
That's it! Everything else looks good!
Some stats on the page you are looking at, from webpagetest:
Total HTTP requests: 158
Bytes uncompressed ------------------ video 2,899,741 js 8,225,469 image 1,549,977 font 446,188 other 283,666 html 1,011,452 css 122,613
Seems like a lot, doesn't it?
So a quick glance for desktop:
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/211210_AiDcTD_0026a5d117208365816d5e8b123c63dd/
You are showing 14 megabytes worth of data to people, but you're showing all of 2 pictures above the fold. Alone getting those images lazy loaded properly will probably have a good impact. You are also for some odd reason bypassing srcsets that would make them scale properly.
And you are probably render blocking on 1 of 3 fonts as you forgot the &swap.
This doesn't even feel optimized, it feels like whoever did you design has no education in best practice and shouldn't be doing websites in 2021.
You're attacking this wrong. You need to figure out what's slow, then work to speed that up.
Go to a site like https://www.webpagetest.org/ and check what's up. What's loading slowly? Is it fonts? Is it 110 different CSS files? Does it take 3 seconds before the initial connection is made? Is your header file 21 megabytes in size?
Find the problems, then fix them. Smaller images help, CDNs help, caching helps, but if you randomly throw those in trying to "speed up your site" you're not going to be nearly as effective as if you'd identified one problem, addressed that, and moved to the next one.
Sure. I should probably write a blog post on this, but what you're actually looking to do is build a really fast site.
- Load as little as possible. This is where HTMX should actually help you out—big frameworks like React need to download lots of js before the page works.
- Also spreading out the load over time, like lazy-loading images, is always a good idea.
- Use Lighthouse. Don't just look at the score, it's kind of arbitrary. Read up all why it's giving you that score. Web Page Test is also an excellent tool.
- Study the network panel. You'll notice images and fonts tend to be heavy. Also be ware of loading things that load additional things, creating a waterfall of requests and responses before the app is usable.
- Test and use your app with network throttling on. You can simulate 2g and 3g speeds with dev tools.
- Test while shutting off your wifi and pushing a button. If you're offline, what happens? Do you get stuck? If you push the button again and the connection is back will it recover? (This sounds basic, but many popular sites fail this test completely).
I'm using https://www.webpagetest.org/ and I've blocked every other script or style on my site in an attempt to improve total blocking time, it seems though I still see this giant spike on my browser main thread, why is this so?
That's true. The only external scripts I load are google analytics, adsense and the quantcast choice consent popup and then I can get my pagespeed to 55 on mobile and 80 on desktop.
The stuff I did to get there:
- proper caching
- minfying and compacting css and javascript to 1 file each.
- Seperate out the css that is needed to load everything above the fold and inline this on the page. I use the grunt scripts grunt-uncss, grunt-contrib-uglify, grunt-contrib-cssmin and grunt-strip-css-comments.
- convert images to svg and properly resize them. (at least the stuff that is used in the main interface)
- fix all cumulative layout shift issues. (Give all css items and images a proper width / height basically)
- remove trackers and stuff like facebook like box, twitter widgets, ...
- set proper cache expiration values for all filetypes in .htaccess
- move resources that might block rendering to the bottom of the page. (google analytics, some scripts that load maps, etc ...)
I truly think the pagespeed index does not matter that much for SEO. Another site to test your site is https://www.webpagetest.org/ I usually gives you a better result than google pagespeed.
Have you looked into CDN's? Some will fix a bunch of the above issues for you automatically. (minifying, convert images to svg and resize, etc ...)
Hmmm, I wonder if it is the level of products you have? Wordpress does not do well with multi language in my view, as all it does is duplicate everything and then allow a plugin to switch from one page/post to them next.
So if in practice you have 8000 products ... I wonder if this is the issue -- or could be your database need some cleaning. It is hard to say as the rest of what you have shared sounds like you have that under control.
Do you have an url? Have you tested and looked at your waterfall and see what is loading, how long, and how big?
This is one of the best I feel: https://www.webpagetest.org
Ah, yes, Pixiv: the slowest website I have ever visited
You can check my test results here:
Yeah give those a shot. There are two speed meters at the top of the page. You should see those change when you turn them on. I always recommend doing https://www.webpagetest.org/ before and after to see how the changes have an impact!
“Big mages” are always going to be a problem...more bits = more time to load. I’d suggest you run your site through https://www.webpagetest.org - that will give you data on how much time each element is taking, which may guide you to different mitigation strategies.
You can get all the details of how your site loads at https://www.webpagetest.org/. My first suspicion would be a graphic file that is very large; I try to keep them under 50k, 100k max. Other suggestions here about plugins are also good.
>Any ideea how to make a secure Wordpress site?
Besides using Cloudflare DNS nameservers, use the free Wordfence plugin. Use its 2F authentication. Also enable Google recaptcha v3. Change the login link. Run Wordfence scan regularly.
Run a webpage test & check result of security score. Add security headers in your .htaccess file. Change file permissions if needed.
At the moment I’m near Werne and Lünen and your site loads like a rocket.
GTMetrix is ok, but not the best. Try https://www.webpagetest.org This is one of the better tools floating around ze internets.
https://www.webpagetest.org/lighthouse shows my website as complete PWA, but yours does not. Do you have any idea why? If you want, I can message you the URL.
If it's accessible using cellular on your phone then you did set your port forwarding right, and your dns name is forwarding to your public IP. So my assumption is that the problem is in your remote PC and not the way you set things up locally.
Try testing if your website is up by entering your sub.domain.com on one of those website testers you find on Google.
Using domain name to access your server on your local network would require you to setup a dns resolver on your router for it to work, I could be wrong on this, but I use to have the same issue with my isp router until I changed it to a pfsense box.
Can't even access that Disc Golf website on your portfolio. This is super sneaky. Plus, if you need to do that sort of check then you need to get a better web hosting solution because websites should be able to scale with traffic.
And Bastet Exotics scores an abysmal 37/100 on Lighthouse.
Sorry for the attitude, but that first thing really pissed me off. That's taking advantage of the site's visitors.
Look at the caching score on https://www.webpagetest.org/result/200208_FY_05e7c13d7f36bc781c1ae5ff993f8827/ — in this case we don't actually have caching.
There's also one other major caveat here: CDNs help but they can't magically solve the last mile problem. Anyone on a slow connection is going to notice if you don't have transfer compression enabled because even if caching was enabled you still have to transfer the content the first time, which means your first page load will be a lot worse. In this case, it's probably moot since the app is pretty small but it's a real consideration and given how trivial it is to enable gzip compression these days there's really no excuse not to.
It’s also worth noting that “larger” in many cases is not really meaningful: HTTP has supported transfer compression for a couple decades and that works pretty well for normal JS - if you don’t have huge amounts of dead code which the tool chain is able to discard the savings from a minifier are likely not going to be noticeable.
Unfortunately, this server isn’t using that feature. If I worked on this project that’s the first thing I’d setup (followed by static asset caching) since it’s such a cheap win:
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/200208_FY_05e7c13d7f36bc781c1ae5ff993f8827/
I would check the site using https://www.webpagetest.org/. Then you can see the waterfall and the details of the speed changes.
But, there have also been Google updates that could have affected the performance. Is it a YMYL site?
Jesus, that's fast.
One I built is sonicsolar.co. 40 Requests relative to your 11 lol.
My speed index is 1.372 seconds
Yours is 1.237 seconds
Beat me by .14 seconds ;). Although I had the edge on TTFB because I cache my HTML on Cloudflare. If you did that you'd absolutely crush me. But I see you think that's overrated, why is that?
neat, new news site. good luck.
their wordpress install is kinda broken tho: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/191019_BZ_a9f1461f5aac0df3f89ccb8471f34971/
I run a test with this link: https://streamable.com/8twj3
Its ~1sec slower in Ireland on the first load
| Location | First load time |
|---|---|
| Frankfurt, Germany | 2.455s |
| Ireland | 3.594s |
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190801_66_1fc88acdcda6bb2b851ad03c1e4b0241/
Scores pretty well, loaded fast and responsive. On a seperate note, may want to put a modal for age verificayion on load, considering content
Your time to first byte is really bad. The handful of static requests to your website are fine though.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190402_H2_34a050d5f2deafd1c484c5042b40bf1e/
You can use a plugin like Query Monitor to see if the loading issues are in the database:
7 MB is a behemoth when you have to send it over the wire to your poor 3G users. Are you measuring your repo size or the actual payload you deliver to your users? If it's the payload you're talking about then you should seriously consider taking measures to reduce it. I'd be curious to see a webpagetest of such an application.
It gets pretty good scores though:
​
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190319_YV_7195645e4e9dabb4b7000a90859dc35b/
WHS - I tested 2 sites I know are doing well, gave both a page score of 0/100.
Use Google tools, GTMetrix and https://www.webpagetest.org for a better overall result.
Update...
I kept the page rule. Installed WP Super Cache & disabled server's Zlib compression. I know get an A on First Byte Time. Having a page rule got me an F on Cache Static Content but the site loads fast though but I'm fine with this.
I tested running the sites on a different server at home with same result. Also uninstalled any UTM software (pfSense) running on both servers used in testing which I though at first bottlenecking the network traffic. Home network is blanketed on VPN via router with VPN client with Stubby DNS resolver using Cloudflare DNS. The server is port forwarded right & routed off VPN tunnel via sellective/policy based routing.
I already updated the server software (Apache, PHP, MariaDB) & got perfect score on health check. Also stopped using Wordfence as it's too redundant as Cloudflare DNS already firewalled. I used WP Rocket in the past but somehow using it on sites make them even slower so I opted with Autoptimize instead & Imagify for image optimization. Also disabled lazyloading & just used caching & auto minification of Javascript, CSS & HTML via Cloudflare to avoid image optimization conflicts.
Anyway, I rebuilt the sites using Flatsome theme that I used in the past. Removed any slider images. Webpage test still failing on First Byte.
Did you actually click the link and load the site? It loads in [2-3 seconds](https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190222_9X_f7bdf07ff322813831f9f94d10ab9a2d/) on throttled CPU and network conditions.
​
Curious to hear what you think "normal speed" is.
> Are they perceptible to a human?
yes, they absolutely are.
> Or, are you stating what happens using current bloated frameworks without SSR and without http/2?
no, i'm stating what happens when i use my own lightweight vdom layer [1], with node 10.15.1 behind nginx w/http2. there is 0 bloat, all assets are first-party, everything is tree-shaken, css-purged, bundled, compressed and gzipped. this is on a site that scores A+ on https://observatory.mozilla.org/ and straight As on https://www.webpagetest.org/ (in Fast 3G and Moto G Chrome) and gets 100% for Performance in devtools lighthouse audit (mobile/applied). total JS time is 10ms, domcontentloaded is 165ms and onload is 320ms (with images).
if you render only with JS, there is always an annoying blank page flash (even on my fast desktop). the same with loading webfonts. take my word for it. i'm at the point of questioning why Linode cannot achieve anything faster than 45ms TTFB on static content served by my nginx process, while a CDN can respond in 16ms (likely Linode's network hardware is to blame). i've personally profiled and tested it all. there is 0 kool-aid involved.
> Modern SEO does not require SSR or static pages
GoogleBot does execute JS, as does Bing. but not all crawlers do. executing all js is very expensive, considering how much third party bloat is typically present (ugh).
Den er bestemt ikke designet til mobil.
Den er ret tydeligt designet til et helt andet formål
Forsiden er også på ~10 mb
*Tone here is informative and not to sound like an asshole. I mean no disrespect*
If you have a degree in computer science and spend 100/month on a simple ecommerce site then you must not have any experience in ecommerce. Opencart is free. Linux is all free. A droplet/Linode with the specs to get 3ms or faster load is about 9$ a month. You are wasting $1092 a year.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190110_JJ_df1d835d8220e0ead14c0b71e047ea88/
Your page load is crap. You don't have SEO friendly urls. It's not user friendly. I'm not surprised you receive less than 1% of overall in web sales. You don't try to get them.
It's very slow for me as well. Here's a test you can look at, and you can use this site to run your own performance tests.
Excellent advice here for UI/UX testing. Don't forget to also test for performance (i.e. speed / load time) from various geographies. Webpagetest and Pingdom are good places to start.
The age old question. There are tons of factors. You'll need to figure out what is slowing down page load. You can start by running your site through webpagetest.org to see how long each asset or step in the process takes.
I've updated the OP with extra info. Mainly this though:
It seems theres a CSS file and a JS file that are part of the theme's files and they're taking an entire second to load, and apparently they don't even exist.. the fonts are taking 1.5 seconds as well. What the actual fuck though.
All of these cost money, and for your basic needs you don't need to pay to benchmark multiple sites. We built a free tool for this at our last company: http://websitespeedranker.com/
I have no idea if they've kept up with it, but it gave you free reports like this: http://websitespeedranker.com/example
Also, if you want to test ad hoc, just use: https://www.webpagetest.org/
Also, prepare yourself. Publisher load times (as tested by a synthetic monitoring tool like these) will be slllllooooowwwww. We're building tools to test the UX of ads, and in my experience, a single ad has as many requests as many entire web pages. That's why these publishers sites are so slow :(
> I would really like to see this guy's evidence on the non-AMP page being faster, instead of him just pulling "data" out of his butt
Edit: there is a lot less needed for the AMP page though as seen in that comparison.. a lot less
Oh pffft, why do you even care about PageSpeed Insights? It knocks points off when you use Google Analytics because the script isn't cached and tells you to fix it (which you obviously can't since you can't host it yourself and you can't change Google's caching strategies).
Use WebPageTest if you want a better speed measuring tool.
They probably just made mobile speeds more strict because they wanted to, not necessarily because of AMP.
> IMPROVE YOUR STYLE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BEING THE MOST STYLISH PERSON YOU KNOW THEN SUBSCRIBE FOR OUR EMAIL LIST!
The all caps and the banner make the run on sentence worse. It feels like you're jumping out of the screen to yell a bunch of words as fast as you can.
In other news, there's some performance work to be done.
It is clearly not expected. WP is pretty fast until overwhelmed with plugins and tons of custom content. You should contact HG support and they should be able to work this out.
Check out webpagetest though, maybe it's just your connection.
I'd be more inclined to thing that the error is with the server or the server's network, which can make it difficult for an error code to be delivered. In reality, each of the errors that you've shared give the same basic information, it's just the verbiage that differs.
You can use https://www.webpagetest.org/ to help diagnose this type of issue. (In this case, it looks like the server or server's network, is very slow.)
User merreborn noted in one of the more recent m.reddit vs /.compact threads that m.reddit has double the javascript bloat and takes more than twice as long to load a first page when hitting a m.reddit link.
Here's a link showing the data behind a user experience on m.reddit.
I recommend that you plug your site into https://www.webpagetest.org, and this will give you some good feedback. Figuring out if your host is slow is harder. I recommend looking at time to first byte.
There's two types of content, static and dynamic. A html, image, or css file is a static file as it is not generated dynamically. Dynamic pages are like php files such as index.Php. I recommend a phpinfo.php file for this test to eliminate the cms speed issues.
The static files are going to be quicker than dynamic. I recommend looking at the measured time for first byte for each and it will let you know how much slower the dynamic content is from the static.
I know this is over a month old, but...looking at your site again, it looks like you are loading around 7 different google fonts (which you probably aren't using on the site) a ton of jquery and js files, and a ton of images.
If you have any analytics for the site, start looking for anything weird, like ghost referral spam, bots, un-needed crawlers, etc that could be eating bandwidth.
I have a few Wordpress sites and even a Magento site set up on very basic hosting with no problems. (Granted these sites are not getting thousands of visitors a day or anything) Perhaps, try something like pingdom or this to give you more a visual of what your page load looks like.
I'd also take a look into some other things to see if there's a reason for the site being slow, but