If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have
only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:42:59 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? What do you mean? I don't see anything annoying. But I do have my adblocker turned on by default, so may be that's the reason. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
Martin Edwards wrote:
I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? "the Guardian" isn't a URL. A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. "Infuriating". Yep, that was sure specific, uh huh. When you take your car into the shop, do you tell them "it makes a noise" and that's it? All cars make noise. Just WHAT were *we* supposed to be looking for that infuriates you? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On 07/19/2017 01:42 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? In what way is it infuriating? Annoying popups wanting you to subscribe to something (when you're in the middle of READING)? I didn't see any. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On 7/19/2017 11:26 AM, JJ wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:42:59 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? What do you mean? I don't see anything annoying. But I do have my adblocker turned on by default, so may be that's the reason. Good point, it may be the ads that are slowing it down. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On 7/19/2017 7:08 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote: I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? "the Guardian" isn't a URL. A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. "Infuriating". Yep, that was sure specific, uh huh. When you take your car into the shop, do you tell them "it makes a noise" and that's it? All cars make noise. Just WHAT were *we* supposed to be looking for that infuriates you? It is just incredibly slow. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:36:25 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote: On 7/19/2017 7:08 PM, VanguardLH wrote: A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. It is just incredibly slow. A quick and dirty assessment of page design is to compare the textual content visible to the user to the coding of the page. You can do this by selecting all the page as displayed in your browser, copying and pasting into notepad, and saving the result as a text file. Then view the page source in a your browser, and do the same. Then divide the size of the former by that of the latter. Although it's rather a limited means of assessment, because it doesn't take pictures into account, it's relatively quick and easy to do, whereas to take account of pictures and other visible content would be far more complicated and necessitate use of your browser's developer tools, which the average bod may find challenging. By this rough and ready yardstick, the MOST COMPLICATED page on my site, and therefore the one with the most coding, manages to achieve around 15%, but The Guardian's home page only manages about 2%. That's crap page design, but unfortunately is nothing unusual, for example the SIMPLEST page in the iPlayer section of the BBC, the A-Z index, is about the same. On average, page weight increases about 10%-15% every year, and nearly all of it is bloat - tracking, adverts, etc - hardly any of it offers anything genuinely new or useful to the viewer. It's an increasing problem, particularly in areas with low download speeds such as rural areas, where downloading a single page from the BBC grinds everything else to a halt until it has finished loading. Going back to The Guardian's home page, over 200 validation errors probably doesn't help either: https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=htt...rdian.com%2Fus -- ================================================== ====== Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's header does not exist. Or use a contact address at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 7/19/2017 7:08 PM, VanguardLH wrote: Martin Edwards wrote: I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? "the Guardian" isn't a URL. A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. "Infuriating". Yep, that was sure specific, uh huh. When you take your car into the shop, do you tell them "it makes a noise" and that's it? All cars make noise. Just WHAT were *we* supposed to be looking for that infuriates you? It is just incredibly slow. It's easy enough to figure out from Task Manager. When I run this here, the page appears instantly. Shockingly fast. https://www.theguardian.com/international Now, I scroll down. The page has an active script running on it. It has at least two Adchoice panes, and a script is managing them. I was seeing at least 30% CPU on my dual core here at one point. The web browser "busy cursor" shows a level of busy, even though the page is loaded and I can read the content. One of the adchoices right now, is using an animated GIF to show me a "shoe advert", because the script detects I'm using Flash Block. It doesn't take much for a dynamic webpage of this nature, to become "unbalanced". For example, a majority of sites will make a reference to "Google Syndicate" website, which records that you've seen an advert. The script used to do that, is typically set up to block, leading to all manner of web page malfunctions. Some web designers have "tamed" the file, using various back-off mechanisms, where the script stops sucking cycles... if you wait about two minutes or so. Great. It's not the basic content on the page which sucks in this case. It's the continuing advert presentation and management which uses machine resources. If any one of the advertising websites addresses doesn't resolve, a "looping" behavior may exist on your machine, which we don't see on our machines. Now, my browser which lacks modern advertising tracking capabilities (it has cookies, but not the right "flavor" of cookies), when I run your site in that, not only does it render quickly (but incorrectly), the advertising script stops running too. So unlike many sites, they choose not to "loop my machine to death", when the tracking capabilities of the browser don't meet their needs. Sites which should continue to give you trouble, no matter what, would be things like Yahoo News. That's a site that used to implement an "infinitely long" web page. If you attempt to scroll to the bottom, it simply barfs up older content and tacks it to the bottom of the web page. And that's guaranteed to drive the browser nuts (RAM usage 1GB for a single page). If you noticed a performance problem there, it wouldn't really matter how "big" a machine you were running, the "user experience" is guaranteed to suck. Now, who do you think needs to fix that ? The web developer. This would be a case where "design concept (the infinite page)", overrules common sense about computers. ******* You're using Adblock, FlashBlock, Ghostery, or some other thing which is interfering with page design. When you "accept" all the advertising crap and abuse they're willing to hand out, the page will load and operate "a tiny bit faster". Which doesn't give much incentive to "bend over" for them. I wish the browser had visual indicators for background activity, so you could know "how many scripts", level of looping and so on. To take some of the mystery out of this stuff. Some browsers have "developer tools" and a waterfall display, but that's not really all that useful an info display for end users. Nobody cares about end users. Paul |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
Martin Edwards wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Martin Edwards wrote: I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? "the Guardian" isn't a URL. A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. "Infuriating". Yep, that was sure specific, uh huh. When you take your car into the shop, do you tell them "it makes a noise" and that's it? All cars make noise. Just WHAT were *we* supposed to be looking for that infuriates you? It is just incredibly slow. Edge is in Windows 10, not Windows 7 where you posted. No mention of what other web browser(s) you used and then found Edge to be equally slow. I tried Google Chrome 59.0.3701.115 on theguardian.com (just their home page since no pages were mentioned) and the site loaded okay. However, I use both uMatrix (configured to allow everything except off-domain scripts which I prefer to NoScript) and uBlock Origin (using the Fanboy Ultimate blacklist and malware domains blacklists). The home page loaded fast and I could scroll without hesitation. I even temporarily allowed the guim.co.uk off-domain scripts since these appear to be for and from that site. The page was still very responsive. I tried Firefox 54.0 also with uMatrix and uBlock Origin configured the same way. Both guim.co.uk and guardianapp.co.uk script sources were temporarily allowed. Their home page was responsive. I didn't click on anything in their home page because you didn't mention actually using their page, just slowness in viewing it. I then exited both web browsers (which are configured to purge EVERYTHING on their exit), used CCleaner just to be sure, loaded the web site, and disabled uMatrix and uBlock Origin, and refreshed their home page. In Chrome, the web page seemed the same as before regarding responsiveness. In Firefox, there was a lag as I continued to see a status bar appear showing "loading" or "transferring" messages. That page has a lot of external resources. So, in Firefox, the page was a little bit slower to scroll until all the resources had been retrieved but thereafter the page was just as responsive as before. Do you employ any adblocker or script blocker extensions in whatever web browsers you use? You can't use them in Edge but you can in other web browsers. All that external material takes time to retrieve. Not only does it add to the bandwidth to display a web page but if any of those external sources are slow then it makes the site appear slow. You rarely get a direct connection to a web site. There are hops (nodes or hosts) in the path between you and the target site. If any of those nodes are slow then so is getting anything from the target site. Do a traceroute to see if any nodes look really slow to respond. tracert www.theguardian.com If the target site is across the ocean from you, there will be a jump (increased slowness) in response when the traffic has to traverse over the oceanic cable or jump across a satellite. That added delay will appear in every node thereafter because of having that jump but it should remain consistent. Other than that type of jump, you're looking for a node in the route that you get that is slow by itself. You could also try rebooting Windows into its safe mode. That will eliminate any startup programs from possibly interferring with retrieving the web page. For example, maybe your anti-virus is interrogating the HTTPS traffic and causing a slowdown. I use Avast Free and it has an HTTPS scanner so it can inspect secured web pages looking for malicious or suspicious content. It can do that with HTTP but HTTPS requires a MITM (man-in-the-middle) scheme to intercept the encrypted web traffic so the anti-virus can inspect it. When Avast first came out with their HTTPS scanner, it slowed down HTTPS traffic. They've gotten better so now I leave it enabled. Safe mode for Windows should not load the anti-virus program. Or you could see if disabling the HTTPS scanner in your anti-virus software removes the slowdown. It's been a day and a half since you reported the problem. Is the site still slow for you? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On 7/20/2017 11:25 AM, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:36:25 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: On 7/19/2017 7:08 PM, VanguardLH wrote: A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. It is just incredibly slow. A quick and dirty assessment of page design is to compare the textual content visible to the user to the coding of the page. You can do this by selecting all the page as displayed in your browser, copying and pasting into notepad, and saving the result as a text file. Then view the page source in a your browser, and do the same. Then divide the size of the former by that of the latter. Although it's rather a limited means of assessment, because it doesn't take pictures into account, it's relatively quick and easy to do, whereas to take account of pictures and other visible content would be far more complicated and necessitate use of your browser's developer tools, which the average bod may find challenging. By this rough and ready yardstick, the MOST COMPLICATED page on my site, and therefore the one with the most coding, manages to achieve around 15%, but The Guardian's home page only manages about 2%. That's crap page design, but unfortunately is nothing unusual, for example the SIMPLEST page in the iPlayer section of the BBC, the A-Z index, is about the same. On average, page weight increases about 10%-15% every year, and nearly all of it is bloat - tracking, adverts, etc - hardly any of it offers anything genuinely new or useful to the viewer. It's an increasing problem, particularly in areas with low download speeds such as rural areas, where downloading a single page from the BBC grinds everything else to a halt until it has finished loading. Going back to The Guardian's home page, over 200 validation errors probably doesn't help either: https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=htt...rdian.com%2Fus Thanks for that. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
On 7/20/2017 3:43 PM, Paul wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote: On 7/19/2017 7:08 PM, VanguardLH wrote: Martin Edwards wrote: I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this experience? "the Guardian" isn't a URL. A guess: "the Guardian" = https://www.theguardian.com/. "Infuriating". Yep, that was sure specific, uh huh. When you take your car into the shop, do you tell them "it makes a noise" and that's it? All cars make noise. Just WHAT were *we* supposed to be looking for that infuriates you? It is just incredibly slow. It's easy enough to figure out from Task Manager. When I run this here, the page appears instantly. Shockingly fast. https://www.theguardian.com/international Now, I scroll down. The page has an active script running on it. It has at least two Adchoice panes, and a script is managing them. I was seeing at least 30% CPU on my dual core here at one point. The web browser "busy cursor" shows a level of busy, even though the page is loaded and I can read the content. One of the adchoices right now, is using an animated GIF to show me a "shoe advert", because the script detects I'm using Flash Block. It doesn't take much for a dynamic webpage of this nature, to become "unbalanced". For example, a majority of sites will make a reference to "Google Syndicate" website, which records that you've seen an advert. The script used to do that, is typically set up to block, leading to all manner of web page malfunctions. Some web designers have "tamed" the file, using various back-off mechanisms, where the script stops sucking cycles... if you wait about two minutes or so. Great. It's not the basic content on the page which sucks in this case. It's the continuing advert presentation and management which uses machine resources. If any one of the advertising websites addresses doesn't resolve, a "looping" behavior may exist on your machine, which we don't see on our machines. Now, my browser which lacks modern advertising tracking capabilities (it has cookies, but not the right "flavor" of cookies), when I run your site in that, not only does it render quickly (but incorrectly), the advertising script stops running too. So unlike many sites, they choose not to "loop my machine to death", when the tracking capabilities of the browser don't meet their needs. Sites which should continue to give you trouble, no matter what, would be things like Yahoo News. That's a site that used to implement an "infinitely long" web page. If you attempt to scroll to the bottom, it simply barfs up older content and tacks it to the bottom of the web page. And that's guaranteed to drive the browser nuts (RAM usage 1GB for a single page). If you noticed a performance problem there, it wouldn't really matter how "big" a machine you were running, the "user experience" is guaranteed to suck. Now, who do you think needs to fix that ? The web developer. This would be a case where "design concept (the infinite page)", overrules common sense about computers. ******* You're using Adblock, FlashBlock, Ghostery, or some other thing which is interfering with page design. When you "accept" all the advertising crap and abuse they're willing to hand out, the page will load and operate "a tiny bit faster". Which doesn't give much incentive to "bend over" for them. I wish the browser had visual indicators for background activity, so you could know "how many scripts", level of looping and so on. To take some of the mystery out of this stuff. Some browsers have "developer tools" and a waterfall display, but that's not really all that useful an info display for end users. Nobody cares about end users. Paul I did find that it wasn't quite as bad yesterday as the day before. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
En el artículo , Martin Edwards
escribió: It is just incredibly slow. Not for me, and I look at it several times a day. Pages appear instantaneously. But then I use an ad-blocking DNS server, an ad-blocker in the browser and NoScript. -- (\_/) (='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick (")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sites
"Martin Edwards" wrote
|I find the Guardian site just as infuriating with Edge, which I have | only just started using, as with Firefox. Does anyone else have this | experience? An experiment you could try: Go to about:config in Firefox, find media.autoplay.enabled and set it to False. The site is instant for me, but I block just about everything other than the text. If you don't want to block script and can't be bothered to block ads, then blocking videos might help. I downloaded the page and got 235 MB of files!! 15 videos were most of that. On the other hand, if you can't be bothered to even set up a good HOSTS file to block the majority of junk then you can't expect other than what you're seeing. It's not a browser problem. The major browser makers have been working for years to improve script parsing speed and have made great strides. Javascript is processed far faster than it used to be. But pages keep getting more bloated. Not long ago, a page of 100 KB was just too slow to wait for. Now a page the size of an office suite is downloaded just to see the day's headlines. There's only so much a browser can do to handle that. And that's not even getting into your connection speed. Can you download 235 MB in a couple of seconds? If not then the sheer size of the site might be bogging things down. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|