Thread: Major Overhall

Hi everybody,

I would like to resubmit my site www.connectuswell.com which has recently been revamped. I would appreciate any advice you can offer!

Thanks

Hi McBuff,

Great site you got there, very appealing, wonderfully laid out.

However, It took me 43 seconds to get a fully downloaded Home Page. My PC initialy froze for a while waiting.

Then trying to click on your other pages I found myself waiting again for quite some time. I do have broadband, although not the quickest it should open a bit quicker than it did.

I think a lot of people will be put off by this. If you can find a way to speed the site up it would improve things for you drastically.

You also need to ensure you page title every page with your products / service in mind. At the moment they just read 'Home Page' etc

But as I mentioned earlier, the design and layout of the site is stunning!

Hi, all is looking good on the style side, but ditto with above, the page is well over 1.5 meg & very slow to load.
IE: these are about 370kb & the one's below are about 15kb. So there would be a big saving with all the images.

Thank you very much Chris & Marincky. .. .I downsized the photos and I think it is loading faster. How's it doing on your side, now?

Hi, it is quicker, but could still bring the images down quite a bit. What happening is you are reducing the KB's in the image (which is great) but not reducing the physical size of the image. This can save a massive amount of KB's again. IE: this image http://www.connectuswell.com/Britneytees.gif on your page is about 30kb & you have used the blue handles on the side of the image to make it smaller. This has made the image look smaller, but still kept the same KB's.
If you notice that the same image in the previous post (same size as the one on your site) is only about 5KB. which is around 500% less to load on just one image.

Good luck.

Eureka. . .of course. ..BIG DUH on me!!! Thanks Chris. ..my goodness there is so much to learn. . .it's at once frustrating AND exciting!

I just ran a test on my site. . .I'm okay in all areas EXCEPT LOAD TIME. . .I got the lowest rating. . .1 out of 10. . . .I've reduced all my photos. . .what could it be. . .how about my background photo. . .?

Hi, where did you run the test?
You will find a lot of web test sites say you should have a page around the 100 to 150 kb which is achievable with small thumbnails & a bit of work on the main images. But a lot of these sites are also looking for work.

Originally Posted by Collectors-info

Hi, where did you run the test?
You will find a lot of web test sites say you should have a page around the 100 to 150 kb which is achievable with small thumbnails & a bit of work on the main images. But a lot of these sites are also looking for work.

It's www.sitereportcard.com I'm clocking in at around 232 seconds. .. which sounds nuts to me. . . and I still rank 1 out of 10. .with 10 being the best. It seems to me to be loading fine and I've tested on several computers. .so I don't know. . .

I know I'm much faster than yesterday thanks to your tip!. . .I must have rated a minus 10 yesterday!

Hi, i think they are giving out info to cater for users that live in a swamp with 2 tin cans & string for a broadband connection. LOL. I only get a rating of 4/10 with a 134kb page.
Still a handy tool.



Total Page Size: 113.82 Kb.
Total objects on the site: 14
HTML Page Size: 20.78 Kb.
Images: 93.04 Kb.
Rating: 4/10

Hey McBuff

You must have been working over time as your page loaded in under 20 seconds in my browser today. Keep up the hard work. You site looks very professional.

Cache vs. true load always confuses people! (varying connection does not help matters any when trying to "average" viewer experiences)

>> Anything taking over 10 seconds to load (when it is not Flash or specifically a media file) is subject to penalty by major Search Engines as "non-compliant" ....both with regard to page/site build according to Perfect Page modelling, as well as performance outlines for source metrics for Search querries (reliability of relevant content response for reporting to Search clients).
Now you know why everyone harps on reducing image file sizes, and optimal builds!

Thanks Vasili

That is important information I wasn't aware of.

Well, I've reduced, reduced, reduced. .. .I still can't get better then a bottom of the barrel rating from sitereportcard for my load time. . .127 seconds (from 240). . . .I can't figure it. . .I've tried other sites and they get an 8 rating for load time and they look like they have just as many images as me. ..I'm flumoxed. If I reduce my images any more they start to look ****py and the site gets ugly. . .where's the balance?

I'm down to 94 seconds and still ranked 1 out of 10. . ..I'm throwing in everything I got. . .I can't give anymore captain. .. .she's going to blow I tell you!!

Originally Posted by McBuff

I'm down to 94 seconds and still ranked 1 out of 10. . ..I'm throwing in everything I got. . .I can't give anymore captain. .. .she's going to blow I tell you!!

In site report cart you can click on load time and it will show you just what is casuing the extreme load times.
Have you done this?

Down to 67 seconds. .. .still ranked on the bottom. . . I'm totally discouraged. ...I think I get it. .. .just delete all images, all text and have a white screen with a banner: I'M AN IDIOT FOR TRYING THIS! . . .Oh look I'm up to 6. . . let me delete a few more words. . .there. . . I'M AN IDIOT. . .. .OH. ..ITS NOW UP TO 8 . . .one more time. . .IDIOT. ..there 10!!!

Calm down....I used 4 different browsers and doubled the tests by performing them on both cable and broadband (without any cached pages), and your site loaded in under 3-5 seconds with cable and under 7-11 on broadband.

You're fine........goes to show you that everyone's connection and system varies, and is not the reliable measuring stick you need to live by: build your sites as precisely as you can (within all the construct models presented here in VodaLand) and as satisfying as you can --- meaning be sure to please yourself first. You can only be expected to fulfill and sustain someting if you are enjoying yourself, for those are the clients you will find as well....like-minded!

Sometimes a lot of specific "advice" without resonnant reasoning is nothing more than perplexion .... there are reasons for certain occurances, and often are not addressed methodically first, no matter how well-intentioned the mentions are.

Whenever it feels like there are too many cooks in the kitchen, it may be time for barbeque!

Originally Posted by Vasili

Cache vs. true load always confuses people! (varying connection does not help matters any when trying to "average" viewer experiences)

>> Anything taking over 10 seconds to load (when it is not Flash or specifically a media file) is subject to penalty by major Search Engines as "non-compliant" ....both with regard to page/site build according to Perfect Page modelling, as well as performance outlines for source metrics for Search querries (reliability of relevant content response for reporting to Search clients).
Now you know why everyone harps on reducing image file sizes, and optimal builds!

Hi Vasili, i beleave this is also applicable to html over 100KB as well.
You mentioned the 10second load time? Do you know at what connection speed this is based on.
IE: 56k modem/1meg broadband. The only reason i ask is that many will say a certain site loads in few seconds on there 8-10 meg connection & on my 1.5 meg connection it may take 7 or 8 seconds.


Thanks.

23 seconds over an isdn connection, 1 second over a T1 connection ...

ideally should be 17 seconds over an isdn connection and 0 over a T1 connection

there is only one real culprit on your page that I can see quickly and that is this image, taking up 7 of your 17 seconds over an isdn ... you should consider replacing this image (58 kbs) in one way or another ...

Originally Posted by Collectors-info

You mentioned the 10second load time? Do you know at what connection speed this is based on.
IE: 56k modem/1meg broadband. The only reason i ask is that many will say a certain site loads in few seconds on there 8-10 meg connection & on my 1.5 meg connection it may take 7 or 8 seconds.

Standards have been upped since the 2006 release of Vista to the newer average of the old DSL benchmarks (since not everyone rushed out to up their RAM to either 1g or 2g, and even wi-fi and broadband is faster than DSL). That is where the "time" becomes an issue for the SE's......it is not about "speed" per se, as they optimally perform on their own set points. It is all about them retreiving info, not pleasing the traffic flow with surfers....

The old method included dial-up, and the mark was under 1 minute (why everyone was told to avoid Flash or dynamic pages, remember?), and since 2005 and the pervasive "turbo" for dial-up and the surge for cable even for older systems, the 10-second rule has been discussed and widely accepted within the industry for more than a year now (just like W2 lasted for only 9 months before W3 emerged).

Thank you guys.

Thank you guys.

Sorry McBuff, feel like i have hijacked the post.

Thanks Vasali, Chris, Phillip, et al,

I've cooled down from slamming my head into the wall. . .It is so frustrating. ..but, Hey. .I got no quit in me. ..I'm learning. .its all good! Thanks for being patient with my rave-outs and I will take Vasali sage advice: CALM DOWN!!!