Major Overhall

[McBuff]

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

[Marincky]

Re: Major Overhall

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!

[Collectors-info]

Re: Major Overhall

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.

[McBuff]

Re: Major Overhall

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?

[Collectors-info]

Re: Major Overhall

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.

[McBuff]

Re: Major Overhall

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

[McBuff]

Re: Major Overhall

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. . .?

[Collectors-info]

Re: Major Overhall

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.

[McBuff]

Re: Major Overhall

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!

[Collectors-info]

Re: Major Overhall

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

[philipc9635]

Re: Major Overhall

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.

[Vasili]

Re: Major Overhall

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!

[philipc9635]

Re: Major Overhall

Thanks Vasili

That is important information I wasn't aware of.

[McBuff]

Re: Major Overhall

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?

[McBuff]

Re: Major Overhall

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!!