Thanks for the offer. I could be wrong but I think our page is fairly optimized at this point--I think any delay may be DNS-related since the majority of it seems to occur while the domain is resolving. Not sure what's up with that...
I took a quick look via Firebug/Networking on your site:
31 sub requests, of which 5 form a chain so they can't load in parallel. The server at www.facecash.com waits 2.5 seconds before it sends back the content (this is not DNS waiting time!). On s.facecash.com which you use for the other page components, those are just 0.2 seconds.
The page has 409 KB in total, of which 97 KB are JavaScript code and 135 KB are the main picture (home1.jpg). This big picture changes on each request, smashing the browser caching and ensuring subsequent page reloads will be slow, too.
WTF?!
You should really overcome your ego and to make use of the offer given to you.
> I think any delay may be DNS-related
Here in Germany, your domain resolves within a few milliseconds. However, your whole site takes 12-13 seconds to load. (FWIW, I have a 16 MBit internet connection)
You'll have to learn a lot about basic things like: how to compress images properly, how to decrease web server latency, how to get JS code out of the critical path, how to ensure proper cache use on client side, etc.
Don't get me wrong: It is perfectly okay if a young company's system isn't fully optimized. That's fine, nobody expects this. But if you claim to be "quick like a fox" and to be "fairly optimized at this point", you're saying that you think you are fast enough, so customers can't hope you'll be willing to improve your speed much in the future. And that is a problem, unless you were really optimized, which you aren't.
Also, 400K isn't all that much; one of our competitors sends over 4.2MB on their home page alone and it's a very professionally-done site. Aside from all of that, if our server configuration needs more looking at, we'll look at it.
It's great to have constructive criticism like the points contained in your comment, but had it been written without the sarcasm and small insults I would have found it that much more compelling.
It's great to have constructive criticism like the points contained in your comment, but had it been written without the sarcasm and small insults I would have found it that much more compelling.
Sounds like ego to me. There was no sarcasm in his host, and its critical tone is probably warranted when your site takes that long to load.
Its a nice site, which could be even nicer with some extra speed, and it won't take you any time.
I don't think so. See my other comment. In short:
The main picture changes on each request so it can't be cached properly.
The cache parameters of the assets force the browser to reload them on each request, although the server then just responds with a "304 Not Modified". This can still be improved by making the browser not reloading them in the first place.
Finally, a first time visitor doesn't have anything in the cache, so the assets should be small and well-compressed, which they aren't.
To clarify, I really appreciate everyone's feedback here, I just don't think it's a page problem, I think it's a DNS or server configuration problem.