Hacker News Reader

Comment by DivineTraube | Hacker News Reader

And it not only hurts because of revenue. Slow sites also let users preceive quality and credibility as lower (Fogg et al. 2001; Bouch, Kuchinsky, and Bhatti 2000). The startup/brand will end up being seen as less interesting and attractive (Ramsay, Barbesi, and Preece 1998; Skadberg and Kimmel 2004). So being slow or offline can even have a long-lasting negative impact on the coolness of your startup.

View on HN

The site is taking 10+ seconds on the "createTransaction" call when trying to checkout right now.

Unfortunately on the server that method executes a synchronous API call to Paypal Plus, which has very flaky response times.

Do you have any references dating after mobile browsing became ubiquitous? People have definitely adjusted to shitty cellular connections. I have severe concerns whether these studies from pre-iphone eras are of any modern value.

Sure. There is an abundance of studies. My favourites are [1]:

-100ms of additional page load time cost 1% revenue (Amazon)

-400ms means -9% vistors (Yahoo)

-Showing 30 search results instead of 10 and therefore accepting 500ms of additional page load time means traffic goes back by 20% (Google)

-Every second of page load time reduces conversions by 7%

There are many more. There is a nice infographic summarizing a few more studies in a nice way [2].

In fact, I think the trend is quite the opposite: as devices and connections get better, people start to expect that websites are very responsive and load fast.

[1] http://www.baqend.com/product.html

[2] http://infographicjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/How...

The first and third are from 2006 and the second is from 2008 or earlier, so they don't seem to fit with stonogo's request for references after mobile browsing became ubiquitous (the iPhone only came out in 2007, and the first Android only in late 2008).

How about Googles Doubleclick (2016): 53% of mobile site visits are abandoned if pages take longer than 3 seconds to load [1].

Mobify (2016): For every 100ms decrease in homepage load speed, Mobify's customer base saw a 1.11% lift in session based conversion, amounting to an average annual revenue increase of $376,789. Similarly, for every 100ms decrease in checkout page load speed, Mobify's customers saw a 1.55% life in session based conversion, amounting to an average annual revenue increase of $526,147 [2].

Staples (2014): conversion increase per second [3].

Or the Obama campaign (2012): making the page 60% faster increased donations by 14% [4].

More new studies from recent years can be found at WPO stats [5].

[1] https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/articles/mobile-speed-ma...

[2] http://resources.mobify.com/2016-Q2-mobile-insights-benchmar...

[3] http://de.slideshare.net/cliffcrocker/velocity-ny-how-to-mea...

[4] http://kylerush.net/blog/meet-the-obama-campaigns-250-millio...

[5] https://wpostats.com/

> 53% of mobile site visits are abandoned if pages take longer than 3 seconds to load

Well. 100% of web page needs more than 3 seconds to load on my mobile connection.

We'll both agree that I ain't a statistically fair sample. I join @icebraining on that we need information that is relevant to the mobile web.

[2] is behind a paywall.

[3] is quoting all the common worthless old studies. There are some graphs and stuff but lacking test methodologies and information. Graphs are showing a few percent of gains, and latencies going from 1s to 10s, which is a lot less effect than other studies.

[4] is out of topic and gives no data. (x% of what? absolute latency? before? after? well, they didn't test for latency and impact on revenue)

I recalled that the google study was debunked.

Long story short: Google makes money on ads, only shown on the top of the page.

Showing 1 page with 30 results is only 1 batch of ads. Showing 3 pages with 10 results is 3 batch of ads (well, on the people who go past the first page).

Of course loading 30 results is slower than 30. Some articles quickly turned the study into "500ms more will destroy 20% of your revenue" but the Google study was never about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com