Register Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 13 Jan 2015, 17:14
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
But please, let's keep this on the OP topic - whether the JS and CSS that are native to vB 4 can be defered and/or optimized in such as way as to speed page load. For all other ways to speed page load, we can have another thread.
I've not seen you have these issues affecting pageload. Because they're not. But, you're convinced you need it. All I do is recommend what works for speed and optimization, every time it is tried.

I'll let others help chase the red herring now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 13 Jan 2015, 17:32
asabet asabet is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Thank you.

--------------- Added 13 Jan 2015 at 21:25 ---------------

Originally Posted by Max Taxable View Post
There's no indication of that at all, here.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150113_Y3_W40/

There aren't any delays in your waterfall. Everything is loading nicely, uninterrupted.

How about this:

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 00:00
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
How about this:
Answered over at Ozzy's place in same thread.

But for readers here, what you're seeing isn't interference with parallel downloads, and js files actually behave differently almost every time they're downloaded. Multiple tests - as I showed in the thread at Ozz, confirm this. Plus when you test with Chrome you don't get real-world results. I recommend IE 10 for all testing.


By the way your performance is much improved, congrats! A little common sense goes a long way.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150114_KK_3H2/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 00:28
asabet asabet is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
I think my graphic above speaks for itself unless someone can tell me why it only looks like lightbox.js is delaying onload.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 00:40
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
I think my graphic above speaks for itself unless someone can tell me why it only looks like lightbox.js is delaying onload.
You are visually complete when it is finished downloading. Try several tests, see the lightbox load differently each time.

Cherry picking one out of how many tests wastes whose time exactly? "Your graphic" does not represent what's really happening.

Your site is greatly faster now. As fast as any v4 out there. You should wait for someone else to come along and harpoon your js and css red herrings, I don't have time for non problems.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 00:57
asabet asabet is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
How is my site any faster now? I temporarily disabled ads to remove that variable, but my sites need ads, and when I put them back, my site speed will be the same as before.

Cherry picking one example shows that sometimes these things affect performance. As Google Page Speed Insights suggests. It's not like I randomly encountered the only time this will ever happen.

And no one is asking you specifically to make time for anything. You consider a non-issue, fair enough. For others who agree with me that it is an issue worth addressing, the thread can go on.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:02
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
How is my site any faster now? I temporarily disabled ads to remove that variable, but my sites need ads, and when I put them back, my site speed will be the same as before.
You said you didn't need the ads, they weren't making you any money. And no, the site WILL be faster because now since you are caching static content.

You're worried about milliseconds, when the poorly served adverts add entire seconds. Yes I am trying not to laugh.

And no one is asking you specifically to make time for anything. You consider a non-issue, fair enough.
Just like alot of folks here, I give my time freely, to help people out. Thanks for appreciating it.
For others who agree with me that it is an issue worth addressing, the thread can go on.
And you can be Buddy Holly then, and his Crickets.

A difference which makes no difference, is no difference. - Klingon Proverb.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:08
asabet asabet is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by Max Taxable View Post
You said you didn't need the ads, they weren't making you any money.
Maybe I was unclear. I have 5 sites all with the same ads. This one has little activity and makes minimal money, so it makes a good test case where I can remove the ads temporarily without affecting the bottom line. But my goal is to speed up all my sites, especially the more active ones, so a solution that involves removing my revenue streams and eliminates my ability to pay for hosting is not a solution.

Originally Posted by Max Taxable View Post
You said you didn't need the ads, they weren't making you any money. And no, the site WILL be faster because now since you are caching static content.
I was caching static content all along. My .htaccess never changed. Just my score was low before because the ads affected that parameter.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:11
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
I was caching static content all along. My .htaccess never changed. Just my score was low before because the ads affected that parameter.
We saw where the forum had the caching, the CMS did not. AFTER you leveraged it via .htaccess.

You're now saying you never did?

Keep up the windmill tilting though, you'll eventually knock one down.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:16
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
Google's Page Speed Insights tells me the following:




I suppose a similar result would come for any vBulletin 4 site. Has anyone figured out how to:

A) defer or async the javascript so that it is no longer render blocking without breaking functionality

B) Inline and/or combine the mentioned CSS so that it is faster

Would appreciate some pointers.
I do think it's funny though, and a little ironic - that google gives you ads which destroy your page speed performance, but the problem is somehow maybe a quarter second of js and css. Why not take this up with the advert providers, ask them why the adverts aren't optimized?

Fill the site full of third party junk for pennies, then wonder why the site is slow. THEN, worry about a frikkin quarter second!

Can't make this stuff up, Man.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:18
asabet asabet is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
I don't know what you are talking about. You thought you saw something about the CMS, but it must have been a red herring because the only thing I changed was removing Adsense, Amazon CPM, Skimlinks script, and Google Analytics script. All of which needs to go back.

My CMS is vBadvanced CMPS, in my site root. My forum is also in my site root. Both in the same place as my .htaccess. There is no way the .htaccess could leverage caching for one and not the other.


--------------- Added 14 Jan 2015 at 01:22 ---------------

Originally Posted by Max Taxable View Post
I do think it's funny though, and a little ironic - that google gives you ads which destroy your page speed performance, but the problem is somehow maybe a quarter second of js and css...Can't make this stuff up, Man.
What I think is funny is that I start a thread about how to shave a bit of time because that has been proven in many studies to have a real impact on the bottom line, and the thread gets completely derailed to the point where we're talking about asking Google to improve Adsense.

Last edited by asabet; 14 Jan 2015 at 01:26.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:23
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
I don't know what you are talking about. You thought you saw something about the CMS, but it must have been a red herring because the only thing I changed was removing Adsense, Amazon CPM, Skimlinks script, and Google Analytics script. All of which needs to go back.
Which means you lied? Because you said you added the code we provided, to your .htaccess file.

There's no doubt of the testing. You WERE caching static content on the forum only, but not the CMS.

You LIE to people who are helping you?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:25
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post

What I think is funny is that I start a thread about how to shave a bit of time because that has been proven in many studies to have a real impact on the bottom line.
Studies where? By whom? Links? Sure you're not lying about that too?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:29
Max Taxable's Avatar
Max Taxable Max Taxable is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Originally Posted by asabet View Post
There is no way the .htaccess could leverage caching for one and not the other.
I didn't say it was. If you will recall I said something is interfering because static content was NOT being cached in the CMS. And, asked to see the entire .htaccess file.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 14 Jan 2015, 01:39
asabet asabet is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
I'm done wasting my time with you, and since you've trashed this thread, I'm done here too.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 23:20.

Layout Options | Width: Wide Color: