Page 2 of 7 First 12345 ... Last
Results 26 to 50 of 152

  1. Post
    #26
    Markuchi wrote:
    So the speed went from absolute dog shit to just shit. Well done /s
    Even the most basic page takes 6-7seconds to load. what is this 1999?
    Took my ad blocker/script blocking off and now its even slower....
    That's not true

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 11-32-40.png 
Views:	94 
Size:	57.2 KB 
ID:	225589

  2. Post
    #27
    magebinary wrote:
    That's not true

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 11-32-40.png 
Views:	94 
Size:	57.2 KB 
ID:	225589
    What a naive thing to say. Your graph is deceiving you.
    Its very sad to see such an unoptimised new site.

  3. Post
    #28
    Markuchi wrote:
    What a naive thing to say. Your graph is deceiving you.
    Its very sad to see such an unoptimised new site.
    Can you please post your chrome console network recording with a screenshot, please? You can simply do it by pressing F12 -> then restart the page -> click on network.

  4. Post
    #29
    magebinary wrote:
    Can you please post your chrome console network recording with a screenshot, please? You can simply do it by pressing F12 -> then restart the page -> click on network.
    Have a look at all the background loading of irrelevant images. It will help a lot.
    Also need to compress images better, too large.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.GIF 
Views:	62 
Size:	149.9 KB 
ID:	225594

  5. Post
    #30
    magebinary wrote:
    That's not true

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 11-32-40.png 
Views:	94 
Size:	57.2 KB 
ID:	225589
    Never trust a dashbroad.

    What is the proximity with that test server to the server?

    And it says response time, usually that means first contact rather than page load.

    Markuchi wrote:
    Have a look at all the background loading of irrelevant images. It will help a lot.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.GIF 
Views:	62 
Size:	149.9 KB 
ID:	225594
    200kb is pretty heavy for images of the resolution I saw on the site. The products can't be more than 200x200. That's like 10kb territory.

    Curious as to the hardware it's running on.

  6. Post
    #31
    Yeah ive looked at all the images that are large and they are all irrelevant.
    Could easily save 90% loading by cutting out all that crap.

  7. Post
    #32
    Wow it loads slow on Chrome!

  8. Post
    #33
    Just run it through something like gtmetrix: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/playtech.co.nz/CZr6kMZW

    A lot of very very very simple things that shouldnt have made it past development stages

  9. Post
    #34
    suntoucher wrote:
    Never trust a dashbroad.

    What is the proximity with that test server to the server?

    And it says response time, usually that means first contact rather than page load.



    200kb is pretty heavy for images of the resolution I saw on the site. The products can't be more than 200x200. That's like 10kb territory.

    Curious as to the hardware it's running on.
    hey! Can you please put up the html load time? (usuaully the first request is being loaded) from the server. We have to run high resolution images because lots of people are running 4k monitors now days. And NZ avg network speed is 50 mbps so that means a computer can download at 6.25 mbps / sec so it should be max of 2 secs of load time for most. The web server is currently support HTTP2 so HTTP1 waterfall timeline shoudn't really apply. Please google HTTP2 for more details.

    The current infursracture is running in NZ datacenters with proper setup. ZFS based baremental containers and avg spec at 64gb ram / 24 cores.

  10. Post
    #35
    Can't do, I'm in Malaysia at the moment on 3G and my phone. Back in NZ in April so probably better someone else does.

    It's a rare scenario where someone is sitting close enough to a 4K monitor on 100% scaling to see the difference.

    Meet the needs of the 99%, not the 1%.

  11. Post
    #36
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 13-26-57.png 
Views:	38 
Size:	853.4 KB 
ID:	225597

    Our load time vs AMAZON.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 13-27-39.png 
Views:	39 
Size:	890.5 KB 
ID:	225598

  12. Post
    #37
    suntoucher wrote:
    Can't do, I'm in Malaysia at the moment on 3G and my phone. Back in NZ in April so probably better someone else does.

    It's a rare scenario where someone is sitting close enough to a 4K monitor on 100% scaling to see the difference.
    wow. You are in Malaysia and is able to load the site? I'm already happy with the performance haha. Your second browsing actions will be really fast since 90% of the stuff are cached anyway.

  13. Post
    #38
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    Just run it through something like gtmetrix: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/playtech.co.nz/CZr6kMZW

    A lot of very very very simple things that shouldnt have made it past development stages
    Sorry I can't agree with the results. This tool is so outdated for moden websites since we are not living in 1999. We have high speed internet in NZ. We must show high res images for bigger screens. eg (2K, 4K, 8K).

    When the images are served from the webserver, it's GZIPED anyway.

  14. Post
    #39
    Are you saying that if I load the new website on my mobile using my limited data, it will use ~20MB and that is acceptable? Do you apply any optimisation techniques for this use case?

  15. Post
    #40
    Have a look at this.
    https://developers.google.com/speed/...ytech.co.nz%2F

    See the defer offscreen images? Just deal with those and you might have a reasonable load. Then maybe deal with compressing images better.

  16. Post
    #41
    magebinary wrote:
    wow. You are in Malaysia and is able to load the site? I'm already happy with the performance haha. Your second browsing actions will be really fast since 90% of the stuff are cached anyway.
    Cached for subsequent visits. Subsequent visitors shouldn't really be the focus and they'll benefit from any first time visitor improvements anyway.

    I was on my laptop yesterday, the second load times for nav were JavaScript which is client side, it has nothing to do with proximity to the server by that point. And returning to nav items took just as long. You can't hover on a phone.

  17. Post
    #42
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    Just run it through something like gtmetrix: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/playtech.co.nz/CZr6kMZW

    A lot of very very very simple things that shouldnt have made it past development stages
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot from 2019-03-25 13-31-32.png 
Views:	34 
Size:	113.0 KB 
ID:	225599

    What you should really look at is -> JS / CSS part. Lots of websites have shit load of CSS / JS requests where they just can't merge them together because of the quality of the code.

  18. Post
    #43
    Markuchi wrote:
    Have a look at this.
    https://developers.google.com/speed/...ytech.co.nz%2F

    See the defer offscreen images? Just deal with those and you might have a reasonable load. Then maybe deal with compressing images better.
    Please don't pick on the images. The images are gziped so it's technically compressed. And all large images are lazy-loaded............

  19. Post
    #44
    The Defragger wrote:
    Are you saying that if I load the new website on my mobile using my limited data, it will use ~20MB and that is acceptable? Do you apply any optimisation techniques for this use case?
    No. Mobile site is way smaller. It should be around 6mb. once gziped, it's around 2.5 - 4 mb.

  20. Post
    #45
    magebinary wrote:
    Please don't pick on the images. The images are gziped so it's technically compressed. And all large images are lazy-loaded............
    Why are images loaded which are not even on the screen?

  21. Post
    #46
    Na should definitely be picking on the images


  22. Post
    #47
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    Na should definitely be picking on the images

    Ignored

  23. Post
    #48
    magebinary wrote:
    Ignored
    Seriously? Yeesh.

    Asking for feedback then ignoring it, nice.

    You've essentially had the things you need to resolve handed to your on a silver platter, you can slap it away if you want but the main people that suffer for the naivety are the client and the clients customers.

    \_(ツ)_/

  24. Post
    #49
    Why did you even join GP?

    Your site would have been ripped apart for like five comments then the thread would have died.

    Because you're here it's now two pages and no one is feeling any better about it, and you're not here to make changes. So I'm struggling to work out why this thread is still going.

    It's similar to the Streisand effect, your defense and attempt to convince us we're wrong with no desire to take feedback is making us dig deeper into it which is just digging a deeper of hole where no one leaves happy with the website and its direction.

  25. Post
    #50
    I think its good, we now all know what company to avoid and advise against.