Tag Info

Jakob Nielsen has an excellent article, Website Response Times (June 21, 2010) in which he explains why website response times still matter. 0.1 seconds gives the feeling of instantaneous response — that is, the outcome feels like it was caused by the user, not the computer. This level of responsiveness is essential to support the feeling of direct ...

I think the code validator is wrong. If part of a URL is missing then the other parts are filled in from the parent page. So for example, if an image is referred to from http://example.org/page1.html with src="pic.jpg" then the browser adds http://example.org/ before the src.jpg before it fetches the file. If the http: part of the url (the protocol) is ...

Practically zero. Because: The vast majority of users don't type in URLs anymore. They type the company name / domain name into a Google search box in the browser chrome, and go to the first result Google returns. If users expect to revisit your site often, they'll bookmark it. Update: I'll add a bit based on the good comments and answers given by others ...

Short answer: roughly 3 seconds for more than half of users. In Web Performance Today's Cheat Sheet: Everything you wanted to know about web performance but were afraid to ask, the first point addressed is the effect of page-loads. In 2006, the average online shopper expected a web page to load in 4 seconds. Today, that same shopper expects your page to ...

According to pingdom, there were 234 million websites online in 2009, so it would be fair to say that if each website gets hit at least once, you'd save close to a billion keystrokes. The more relevant point for webmasters, I think, is to support both variants (www. and not), but ensure that the website is set up to 301-redirect to one or the other to ...

It depends on the 'standard metrics' you hope to measure, but you might like to consider these options: Compare email campaign metrics with those in your industry using MailChimp's Benchmark feature. Compare approximate traffic with competitors using Google Trends. Metrics like conversion rate tend to be harder to compare because they're more closely ...

Earlier this year, a blog called ReadWriteWeb wrote a post about Facebook's login process. Because it's a popular blog, it soon appeared near the top for the search query, "Facebook login". Facebook users began to confuse ReadWriteWeb with Facebook and became angry when they weren't able to login. The ensuing comments are priceless and I really wouldn't do ...

Problem is in how GA counts Visits and how it counts Visitors. That's quite messy thing so better I'd redirect you to some of the detailed descriptions online: Google support - Visits vs. Visitors Unique visits and visitors GA Mystery of visitors :)

One reason could be that your tracking code has an error, and all transactions is registered in a new GA cookie. If your transactions is registered in a new cookie, then GA treats it as a new visitor. It's long shot, but on the top of my head, this is the only thing I think of. Use Firebug or Google Chromes developer tools to see which cookies get set. ...

Wow... can I just say you are looking at this all wrong? Their is no way someone could say make this change and you will get x result because the whole thing is a totality. Except speed. If you increase speed you get an increase. Having said that, you could work with someone like conversionvoodoo.com to work on the site and say you will get at least a ...