Since you don't tell us what you have, all you are going to get is guesses. My guesses include: Reduce image count Reduce image size Don't load any files not absolutely needed Don't use jquery because of useless code bloat Don't load more than one javascript file Get rid of Google Garbage Get rid of Twitter Trash Get rid of Facebook Feces Reduce the number of ads Don't use Flash Validate your page Don't use Turdpress Doing all of the above should make a noticeable difference in speed.
Hi, Optimization your website: reduce image size and loading (you can use lazy images loading), zip and make mini CSS file, JS, clear you code.
@mmerlinn is on the right track -- both in terms of "we don't know what you have" and the advice that follows. Right now there's a lot of CRAP being advocated as good practice -- topping the list being frameworks and what I call "JS for nothing" JS for nothing and your scripts for free. That ain't working, that's not how you do it; lemme tell ya these guys ARE dumb. jQuery for example -- 99% of what people do with jQuery falls into three clear categories: 1) Things that could be done with less code without the framework (NOT counting the size of the framework itself against that!) 2) Things that are actually CSS' job or could be handled in far less code if you let CSS do the heavy lifting. 3) Things that have NO BLASTED BUSINESS ON A WEBSITE IN THE FIRST PLACE. CSS frameworks are even worse, by their very nature they are bloated nonsense that result in websites that are laundry lists of how NOT to write HTML or use CSS. You want a fast loading website? Do NOT use Bootstrap, YUI, Blueprint, etc, etc... One of the best ways to make websites feel peppy is to leverage caching models -- the best way to do that is to make sure that anything the user might request more than once; like JavaScript, CSS and template images -- are NOT IN YOUR HTML! If it's a presentational image, part of the template and NOT part of the content, it has ZERO business in a <img> tag. Even if you have CSS unique to a page, put it in the external stylesheet instead of the page so it's cached if the user requests the same page more than once! . That plays to a concept that should be core to every website that a lot of ignorant fools are turning their nose up at of late -- separation of presentation from content. As a rule of thumb if you have ANYTHING in your HTML that says what things look like, you're doing it wrong. Your HTML is there to say what things are for three reasons: 1) so that non-visual or non CSS user-agents know how to process/handle the content 2) so that you can have multiple appearances off of a single set of markup 3) so that appearance can be cached. This is why if you use the style="" attribute there's a VERY good chance you are doing something wrong (there are only one or two corner cases where that has any business being used), and if you use the <style> tag, YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG! I still say that <style> should be removed from the HTML specification entirely, and the use/role of style="" should be strictly defined in the specification. That's also why I say if you choose your HTML tags based on their default appearance, you are choosing all the wrong tags for all the wrong reasons! Finally, you should TRY to practice "size targets" - set an ideal size and a maximum limit for your HTML, CSS and Scripting, and if you can't bring the page in under those limits, you probably need to rethink what you are doing. The limits I use is that an entire template page without content should not exceed 8k of HTML, 16k of CSS and 16k of JS. A fully populated normal "blog" or "news" type page not counting content images should ideally be around 72k, and should not exceed 128k. Laughably garbage like bootcrap or jquery exceeds the ideal for an entire page without content images by themselves. People pull a lot of stupid stunts to try and make poorly written crap sites faster -- CDN's, dicking with cache-control headers, trying to server-side cache markup output by things like PHP -- and ALL of it is a waste of technology, money and time if the blasted pages were just written properly in the first damned place by people who had any ****ing clue what they were doing. But today people just sleaze together off the shelf frameworks and CMS -- said codebases themselves sleazed together by people who have zero business telling others how to code a website -- blindly hoping the result will be of use out of ignorance or willful negligence. Then they come here asking "why is my site slow?" ... and in most cases, the proper response is "well duh" and the only practical advice is "Go learn how to use HTML and CSS properly, throw that entire mess in the trash, and start over from scratch with semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, leveraging caching models properly, staying away from unnecessary scripting, and paying attention to accessibility guidelines and recommendations." The particularly sad part of this mess being that ignorant nubes -- and even some people who should know better -- make these wild nonsensical halfwit claims that garbage like bootstrap and jQuery is somehow "easier"... When it's more code to start with, that makes you write more HTML, more CSS, and spend more time and effort trying to maintain much less deploy the blasted thing, how in the **** is that any "easier"?!? Again, most people making such claims not knowing enough about HTML, CSS or JavaScript to know if what they are doing is easier or not, making them utterly unqualified to even flap their gums on the subject!
Without specifics about the site, it is not possible to give anything like a definitive answer. There is one thing certain. The page is bloated. It is just a matter of identifying the bloat and getting rid of it. The is a pretty good outline of the sources of web page bloat
Taking a wild guess, wonder if the OP means this inaccessible bloated poorly coded ineptly developed train wreck: http://www.sprywebinfotech.com/ What's wrong with that you ask? How about 2.5 megabytes spanning 68 separate files for 1.8k of plaintext and a bunch of stock photos that have zero relevance to the page topic. That 34 of those files is scripttardery to the tune of 1.3 megabytes, basically 40% larger than the IMAGES on a page that from what I can tell shouldn't even HAVE JavaScript? Well there's your problem. "Gee ain't it neat" scripttard animations and goofy picture asshattery means nothing if the site is a slow loading inaccessible disaster. If that is your site and what you are referring to, learn to use HTML and CSS properly, read the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, spend some quality time with the articles over at NNGroup, then start over from scratch as there is NOTHING I'd try to salvage from that mess. Though it is VERY typical of what I've come to expect from "modern" developers, most of whom know **** about **** and just sleaze pages together by blindly copying together other people's code; hence why idiotic mouth-breathing dumbass bull like "frameworks" even came to exist. See the typical turdpress and framework bloat of: <body class="home page page-id-31 page-template-default siteorigin-panels siteorigin-panels-home tc-fade-hover-links tc-no-sidebar tc-regular-menu tc-sticky-header sticky-disabled tc-transparent-on-scroll skin-blue tc-sticky-footer" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> <div id="tc-page-wrap" class=""> <header class="tc-header clearfix row-fluid tc-second-menu-in-sn-before-when-mobile tc-tagline-on tc-title-logo-on tc-sticky-logo-on tc-shrink-on tc-menu-on logo-left" role="banner"> <div class="brand span3 pull-left"> <a class="site-logo" href="http://www.sprywebinfotech.com/" title="Spry Web Infotech | "><img src="http://www.sprywebinfotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Spry-Web-Infotech.jpg" alt="Back Home" width="910" height="797" style="max-width:250px;max-height:100px" data-no-retina class=" attachment-385"/></a> </div> <!-- brand span3 --> <div class="container outside"><h2 class="site-description"></h2></div> <div class="navbar-wrapper clearfix span9 tc-submenu-fade tc-submenu-move tc-open-on-hover pull-menu-left"> <div class="navbar resp"> <div class="navbar-inner" role="navigation"> <div class="row-fluid"> <div class="social-block span5" > Code (markup): Gee, I wonder why it's slow. If you don't know what's wrong with that, you probably shouldn't be making websites.
Well, on the positive side; I had time to go make a sandwich while it was loading. Plus with the really crappy approach to SEO, it is not likely it will get much traffic; so the trash will not inflicted on many people. I don't know how any intelligent developer would think they are going to sell anything from a load of junk like that.
Well, Time-Warner recently upgraded service across the board. I have 60Mb/s down and 6Mb/s up. Thank $deity, considering the number of bloated sites out there now. Back in the day (I haven't checked lately), a site lost half its visitors for every 10 seconds it took to load. I imagine folks are less tolerant now.
You are right about the tolerance level. The back button starts to get hit around 3 seconds and the 50% loss level is around 5 seconds if the user is coming from search and a little higher (around 7 or 8 seconds) from a link on another site. I think the lower tolerance from search is probably because the user knows they have a bunch of alternatives waiting back on the results page.
flash videos, images, banner ads, pop ups etc can slow down your site.. so try to avoid them... also dont forget to compress all your images. if its still loading slow you might have to optimize the code and/or upgrade to a better hosting provider.
@deathshadow Your posts are great always full of good info and they make me laugh because there's always a hint of nerd rage. Keep it up.
try to put only relevant staff on the site to ensure it is not overloaded.Maybe also you can reduce the size of any files, videos, and any pictures on the site and reduce any unnecessary pop ups. You are overloading your site too much. Thanks