4 ms·
I thought you were exaggerating, but holy cow... maybe those who disagree can find me a site from http://www.wix.com/explore/websites http://www.wix.com/explore
by yestoallthat 10y ago
I thought you were exaggerating, but holy cow... maybe those who disagree can find me a site from http://www.wix.com/explore/websites http://www.wix.com/explore/websites for which that doesn't hold true, because I gave up after a few which were all incredibly abysmal. Yeah, those sites are "stunning" alright. Aesthetically very bland and samey, but technically utterly stunning. I wouldn't even know how to make something that slow without using a combination of bmp images and sleeping here and there for a few seconds.
- mcbits 10y agoTo be fair, I just tried a few of those sites and they're not as slow as the one I had in mind. But I wasn't exaggerating about that particular site. Each page view was taking at least 10 seconds to show the first pixel of content for what is effectively a static blog.
- yestoallthat 10y agoSounds like all 3 I clicked on.. they all loaded 150+ tiny files, and started out with several seconds of a white screen.
- vinay427 10y agoIt doesn't help that they apparently couldn't bother to proofread the subtitle on that page. > With 1000s of stunning options, no two website are the same. "two website" => "two websites"
- true_religion 10y agoWorse, it happened with that page itself. It took 10 seconds before it loaded any content beyond the header and base template.
- cpeterso 10y agoIt looks like Wix only tested that Explore page in Chrome and Edge. Clicking any of the "View Site" links opens two new tabs in Firefox and Safari, opens nothing in IE11, but works as expected in Chrome and Edge.