5 ms·

Ironically, Google Pagespeed tells us this about zoompf.com: High priority Compressing the following resources with gzip could reduce their transfer size

• dbushell 14y ago
  That doesn't make their advice wrong.
  • rorrr 14y ago
    That however makes me skip their advice forever.
    • Retric 14y ago
      That's silly. Often when giving advice on complex issues your simply providing a heuristic. Start here, there might be some edge cases involved but 95% of the time this is the way to go.
      • jeaguilar 14y ago
        I am ignoring your advice due to your grammatical mistake.
        • Retric 14y ago
          I did not give advice.
    • wisty 14y ago
      There site may just not be worth optimizing, as i's not as popular as apple.com
      • singlow 14y ago
        Most of the advice they gave was mostly affecting performance for a single user, not performance of the site for scaling to many users. Only the number of requests for javascript files actually would affect the scaling of the site and not much since they are just static files.
        • rorrr 14y ago
          You're confusing performance and scalability. You can have a slow-loading site that will scale to hundreds of millions of users. You can have a very fast site that will die under a thousand users.
          • singlow 14y ago
            I didn't confuse them - I explicitly distinguished between them. Scalability is a category of performance - it is performance at scale. Most of these suggestions may help with individual browser loading - but will not make a significant difference in scalability. However, the pretense for the investigation was the high level of traffic that was imminent - a scalability challenge.
• StavrosK 14y ago
  Ah, the ole "tu quoque" fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
  • vacri 14y ago
    That's a subtle fallacy. It confused me at first, then I realised that 'pointing out hypocrisy' isn't the fallacy, it's 'claiming the argument is wrong because it's hypocritical' that's the fallacy. edit: on further examination, the examples given in the wikipedia article are really bad - because they're merely pointing out hypocrisy ("but you're -foo-") rather than claiming the argument is wrong. Person 2 in each example could quite happily be in full agreement with the argument and make the same comment.
    • StavrosK 14y ago
      Yes, exactly. Maybe I should edit the article to include this, it's an important aspect. Sure, the person might be hypocritical, but this doesn't invalidate the argument.
      • bduerst 14y ago
        It's like a chain smoker telling you that smoking is bad.
        • StavrosK 14y ago
          Yep, and it is bad.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      Not following one's own performance advice isn't hypocrisy. Performance might just not matter as much to Zoompf.
• thisisblurry 14y ago
  If you don't want to use Zoompf (even if they don't follow their own advice), you should take a look at Steve Souders' blog for web performance: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/ http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/ He literally wrote the book on it.
  • jaytaylor 14y ago
    Thanks for this, I hadn't seen it before and it is very informative!
• deelowe 14y ago
  Just a case of the cobbler's children having no shoes, no?