This Website and Forum are SLOW. AS. HELL!

#1 is NOT like this. is NOT like this.
DeviantART is NOT like this (though they used to be and fixed it).

Advertising, video links, the way pages navigate, the way text cannot space itself or be pasted in normally from Clipboard…the way it takes MORE than 3 minutes just to load any one link or free up my mouse because of the stupid “complex media ad bar selling Red Bull”

Are you guys even trying to make a proper web forum?

SRK used to be accessable years ago, I was a member back then too…it wasn’t nearly as bad as it is now…

This website is slow on my PS3 which is faster than my PC, which only has 1 Gig of RAM and crashes the browser at anything that remotely links to this site.

Please, I beg you…fix this website. It has vital combos and data I wish to learn, I don’t wanna go elsewhere for advice.

#2 Results:


Biggest culprit on the results seems to be advertisements.


That’s most likely your problem. I don’t think the PS3’s browser can handle Xenforo.

Speaking of which, 88/100 seems decent for a site on Xenforo (running a test on 8WR from the same loc. got me 77/100).

Also, on the same site, Dustloop scores lower at 63/100.


“Page Speed” really isn’t a valid metric for anything. There are things you can do to raise your website’s page speed score, but don’t actually make it load any faster… Also, when you ran the test on 8WR, did you run it on or Thats a significant difference as the SRK test was run on The test also doesn’t properly read our CDNs, or SRKs. 8WR is also HEAVILY cached; but the test gives us an D for caching.

We also have facebook/twitter widgets on the 8WR forum index, which pretty much gives an instant -10 to page speed; even though it doesn’t affect anything since the widgets load up AFTER the page has fully loaded (“page speed” is calculated based on the time it takes to load everything, even the widgets, which is why it instantly lowers the score). If you look at the waterfall images in those results, you can see that more than half the latter load time goes to twitter and facebook.

But it really doesn’t matter, as you can see on the waterfall that there is a full second of gap time before facebook/twitter start loading; this is to ensure that they don’t hold loading hostage. If you look at the waterfall images for SRK results, you will see that the complex media bar loads DURING the page load (rather than AFTER, like twitter/facebook); its one of the reasons why the website “locks down” until the complex media bar is completely loaded.

Of course, it also matters WHEN you run the test. If you run the test on at around 1-4am; you’re going to get a lower page speed because thats when our server runs a lot of daily calculations and cronjobs. I’m sure the same thing goes for here on SRK. I run a test on right now and I get a score of 90/100. As I said though, page speed really doesn’t matter; its snake oil from Yahoo in order to keep themselves relevant.

The most important thing to take from all this is that what really matters is the SRK waterfallthat shows that much of the ads load up parallel to the actual page; instead of being placed in afterwards. Since the ads and the website are run at the same time; instead of loading the page really quick and loading the ads slowly after that, the page load has to take a backseat and wait while the ads finish loading.


Just tested. The site does stutter on the PS3 (at least on my connection). Does so as well on 8WR and FSD (though not as much as SRK), but then again, I figure that says more about how bad the PS3s browser is.

As for how the ads are loaded, that’s something you should take up with Wiz or inkblot or whoever’s maintaining the code these days.


Hmm. That makes me want to take off the

So basically if the facebook widget and the sharing widget were gone, plus no advertisements on the first page, that would drastically increase the load time.



what’s FSD?



webpagetest’s results are not very obvious, mostly the tool is useless
Better try
It just points out the problems. For example let’s test

  • no proper caching headers
  • too many js files
  • two 404 errors
    And comment: "Some sites have helpful 404 error pages, which may seem great for user experience but also causes a dramatic performance impact if configured for non-HTML resources too, such as scripts, images, CSS files, etc."
    This is exactly the case, “pretty” 404 handler for images. When you load that page a browser also loads 2 more dynamic (php?) pages.