News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Cost of Poor Web Performance.

Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by rschmitty on Thursday January 16, 2014 @07:57AM (#7069078)
I don't get the presidential part. Lots of statements about response time being better, then the guy with nearly double the load time won the election? Not that I'm arguing against page speed, just found that odd in the info graphic..

Also, it wouldn't hurt to perfect your load times! http://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=h... 54/100 mobile & 77/100 desktop when I tested it

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by piqufoh on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:13AM (#7069159)
Guessing in the dark from someone who didn't follow the US election -

Maybe Romney's campaign was doing better than Obama's three weeks before the vote?

I do agree though, the presidential thing sounds confused.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Cost of Poor Web Performance by stefantalpalaru on Thursday January 16, 2014 @08:13AM (#7069166)
They are somewhat confused. In the Amazon section, they write "A 1-SECOND DECREASE IN AMAZON'S PAGE LOAD TIME WOULD ANNUALLY COST [...]" instead of "increase".
[ Parent | on HN ]