Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive

Re:Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive by toast0 on Thursday July 02, 2020 @12:50AM (#23710109)

It's pretty darn hard to hit their page delivery targets unless you're serving from something close to their testing site. https doesn't help, because it adds round trips (www.spacejam.com doesn't support tls 1.3, and I wouldn't want pagespeed to be using a resume handshake for initial load anyway).

An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive by seanwilson on Thursday July 02, 2020 @08:19AM (#23712326)

> It's pretty darn hard to hit their page delivery targets unless you're serving from something close to their testing site.

Are you sure? Have you tried using a CDN?

> An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though

Here's an example site I run that gets a close to perfect score that has a fairly complex landing page:

https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...

(it should load close to instant once it connects in your browser: https://www.checkbot.io/)

The main tips I can give for a high page speed that most websites don't do are avoid large header images, make sure text is visible before custom fonts load, use minimal CSS (and/or inline the CSS for the header into the top of the HTML), don't use blocking JavaScript and especially avoid huge JavaScript triggered cookie popups (the blocking JavaScript + big delay for the Largest Contentful Paint will kill your score).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive by weare138 on Friday July 03, 2020 @10:37AM (#23724409)

Google can't even meet their own metrics. The Gmail landing page gets a PageSpeed score of 24.

https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...

[ Parent | on HN ]