81–90 of 115 posts
Several people in this thread state "It's cached, so why does it matter?" So, even ignoring the issue with cold caches, how about the two megabytes of code that the browser may need to go through to render the page? What on earth is twitter doing on a given page that needs two megabytes of code?* * As of March 2012, for I'm sure this will look silly when there are 2 gigabyte pages, 20 years from now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine Twitter's serving `Cache-Control: public` where appropriate.
You would think but sadly, no. They serve the actual tweet as "Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, pre-check=0, post-check=0" https://pastee.org/bzeb5 EDIT: Just to check, I also looked at one of their css resources. https://si0.twimg.com/a/1330626450/t1/css/t1_core_logged_out... Cache-Control: private, max-age=31449600 So I'm not confident Twitter actually understands how to set things. PS: Hey Twitt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would think but sadly, no. They serve the actual tweet as "Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, pre-check=0, post-check=0" https://pastee.org/bzeb5 EDIT: Just to check, I also looked at one of their css resources. https://si0.twimg.com/a/1330626450/t1/css/t1_core_logged_out... Cache-Control: private, max-age=31449600 So I'm not confident Twitter actually understands how to set things. PS: Hey Twitt…
Maybe it's just that they don't want that one page cached as they may update their scripts, images and stylesheets. And for that css-file, I think that whenever they change the css, they'll just give the resource a new address so cache is only invalidated when there are actual changes.
For the CSS file, some browsers are buggy so it really should be set to "Cache-Control: public".
See http://www.acunote.com/blog/2008/07/why-you-should-use-cache...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
File this under "annoying to developers and no-one else". I never follow Twitter links because of exactly this (well and the fact that they trap you with forwards). It is a terribly negative experience. Even if I had all of those files cached the parsing and execution of all of that JavaScript is far from instantaneous. Same deal with TechCrunch -- stopped visiting because it is such a script-laden monstrosity that i…
Say- are you a developer?
His rant doesn't seem too informed: "aggressive anti-performance and apparent contempt for the web by Twitter’s designers" According to his charts most of Twitter's page is JS/CSS and presumably set to heavily cache. Very little is data. Once you've done the first page load Twitter's pages will load quite fast and efficiently. While quite a lot of JS, this is good design, not bad.
The author has responded[1] to some comments made when this was posted to MetaFilter[2]. He knows about caching, and he has some reasons why caching doesn't help as much as you'd think. [1] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign#42233... [2] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign Google and Yahoo have been preaching for years that even fractions of a second of page load time have a big…
Well of course they worry about it. I can ditch Google and go to Yahoo, DDG, Bing, hell Lycos might still be around, if the Google homepage takes too long to load. Obviously same for Yahoo. Neither of them produce or host the content (search, news) that you're going there for.
That's not quite the same situation as Twitter, GMail, Facebook and whatnot. Where else are you going to go? Your mail is in GMail, or your friends tweet is on Twiter, their wall is on Facebook and they are only there. The "instant load or I'm out of here" doesn't apply so much to them. It really only affects new users who have no other attachment to the service.
I doubt it's much of a problem for Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's interesting about Twitter's model is that no data actually comes down to the user when they first request a tweet. Twitter builds the page, loads the layout, and initializes the client-side script, which makes a JSON request to pull an individual tweet after everything has loaded. This means that to get the requested information on first load, the user has to wait for a 2MB download, followed by another roundt…
That is not entirely true. If you are authenticated your home_timeline is embedded in the page for instant rendering. Once Twitter moves away from #!'s individual tweets will be embedded as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author has responded[1] to some comments made when this was posted to MetaFilter[2]. He knows about caching, and he has some reasons why caching doesn't help as much as you'd think. [1] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign#42233... [2] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign Google and Yahoo have been preaching for years that even fractions of a second of page load time have a big…
> Google and Yahoo have been preaching for years that even fractions of a second of page load time have a big impact on how likely users are to give up and go somewhere else Well of course they worry about it. I can ditch Google and go to Yahoo, DDG, Bing, hell Lycos might still be around, if the Google homepage takes too long to load. Obviously same for Yahoo. Neither of them produce or host the content (search, new…
You could also access it via a third-party app, this reducing their monetization options and network visibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
File this under "annoying to developers and no-one else". I never follow Twitter links because of exactly this (well and the fact that they trap you with forwards). It is a terribly negative experience. Even if I had all of those files cached the parsing and execution of all of that JavaScript is far from instantaneous. Same deal with TechCrunch -- stopped visiting because it is such a script-laden monstrosity that i…
Say- are you a developer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author has responded[1] to some comments made when this was posted to MetaFilter[2]. He knows about caching, and he has some reasons why caching doesn't help as much as you'd think. [1] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign#42233... [2] http://www.metafilter.com/113541/The-Magic-Dollar-Sign Google and Yahoo have been preaching for years that even fractions of a second of page load time have a big…
> Google and Yahoo have been preaching for years that even fractions of a second of page load time have a big impact on how likely users are to give up and go somewhere else Well of course they worry about it. I can ditch Google and go to Yahoo, DDG, Bing, hell Lycos might still be around, if the Google homepage takes too long to load. Obviously same for Yahoo. Neither of them produce or host the content (search, new…
Especially consider for something like Gmail the incumbent for comparison is MS Outlook. (grab your coffee cup and head for the kitchen...)
2MB ain't what it use to be either.. Folks if you want lightweight sites go mobile: https://mobile.twitter.com/