4 ms·
And they took it down. Usability didn't look great. But at least they made the page load faster. Techcrunch is horrible because it takes ages to load. They re
by fuzionmonkey 15y ago
And they took it down.
Usability didn't look great.
But at least they made the page load faster. Techcrunch is horrible because it takes ages to load. They really need to optimize it.
- ChrisNorstrom 15y agoThey NEED to get rid of all the little facebook and twitter widgets. I have the widget block plugin on Chrome and TechCrunch is finally fast because I block all those share buttons. About a year ago I think, we techcrunch commenters checked the actual size of the site and the front page was 9 MB !!! We complained and complained and months later it went down to 4 MB. Today it's at 2 MB. How they managed to stuff 7MB of worthless javascript and code and button images, I don't know. But the good news it's MUCH faster than before. Unfortunately, I lost interest and moved on. My reason was this: What's the point of absorbing all that information everyday from sites when I'm not investing what I know into doing something. If you want to seriously get your startup off the ground, for me at least, the right thing to do was to quit TechCrunch, quit Mashable, quit Reddit, and severely limit HN, and actually start getting something done. I'm a much happier peaceful and productive person without the "latest news and opinions" being beamed into my head every few minutes. Mark Zuckerberg is wrong, information overload is real, information addiction is even worse, and once you are free of it, you don't ever want to go back. edit: On one hand the widgets do bring in traffic but the sluggishness of the site might cancel that out.