Welcome to TalkGraphics.com
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boy View Post
    On my desktop computer the site loaded very fast and on my mobile phone (with wireless) it showed pretty fast as well. You use quite some pictures which tends to slow down loading times. By the way, nice pictures and nice site.

    I noticed "ma sm" written over the first picture on the Edinburgh page.

    Thank you very much for your comments! Yeah I took one page and wrote a reminder of what each variant was for something I was doing. These are all gone now.
    I really appreciate you checking out the page.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,503

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Pleasure.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Winchester, Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    30

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    I don’t think the OP is worrying unnecessarily about page load speed, I understand Google do use it in their rankings.

  4. #14

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Room101 View Post
    I don’t think the OP is worrying unnecessarily about page load speed, I understand Google do use it in their rankings.
    That was one worry I had, the other was that I had other weird effects. I've still go a 'slow' site but last night I upgraded my 1and1 package with their CDN Plus and the weird effects I was having before hand (images not appearing, background colour boxes not showing, buttons missing) have disappeared. I'm sure I need to deal with this more effectively but, for now, this seems to have helped a lot.
    Thank you for helping.
    Yours,
    Robert

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,503

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    But now the link doesn't seem to work anymore: http://www.actualeducation.co.uk/

  6. #16

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boy View Post
    But now the link doesn't seem to work anymore: http://www.actualeducation.co.uk/

    Apologies!
    I went for a 'soft launch' of the website. It is now 'live' at www.historicedinburghtours.co.uk

    Thanks,
    Robert

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,503

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Ah, it's the same site as mentioned in the other thread.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    4,619

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    It loads very quickly for me.
    Keith
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    There are 10 types of people in this world .... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Harwich, Essex, England
    Posts
    21,932

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Pingdom loaded the home page in 2.2secs

    It's a nice tool to test things on:

    LINK
    Egg

    Minis Forum UM780XTX AMD Ryzen7 7840HS with AMD Radeon 780M Graphics + 32 GB Ram + MSI Optix Mag321 Curv monitor
    + 1Tb SSD + 232 GB SSD + 250 GB SSD portable drive + ISP = BT + Web Hosting = TSO Host

  10. #20

    Default Re: Terrible Google PageSpeed ratings...for a blank website.

    Thanks everyone for checking in on this and offering help and results. I deleted the biggest 'variant' and it sped things up. Was sad to lose it but it really was too big and I needed to be a bit less proud and a lot more realistic!

    Ah the perks of thinking 'I was there'!

    Your help was much appreciated,
    Yours,
    Robert

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •