1

I've been trying to optimize my site as much as possible. One thing I can't figure out is reducing first byte time as WebPagetest gives me an "F". Does anyone have any tips for this? My site domain is registered through GoDaddy and hosted on GitHub pages.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150918_HC_17VB/

  • Try more than one page test over a period of time. I looked at the waterfall chart and I am a bit confused by your domain being listed twice. Not sure I understand why. – closetnoc Sep 19 '15 at 1:12
  • Are you using some sort of redirect through GoDaddy?? – closetnoc Sep 19 '15 at 1:13
1

After doing some research, turns out I am not the only person with this issue. The solution was to change my GitHub CNAME file from non-www to www., looks like sending someone without the www was causing the time to first byte to be extra long. I'm still looking into the reason why.

  • Who's hosting the site? GitHub or GoDaddy? – Simon Hayter Sep 28 '15 at 17:54
0

I have a pretty streamlined site, dude. I would say, the only thing to get done is not time to first byte, but specify an expiration date in the far future for

  • /css/main.css expires in only 10 minutes
  • /img/0-bg.svg expires in only 10 minutes
  • /analytics.js expires in only 2 hours

Regarding Google Analytics, try to host it locally to be able to specify expiration date.

The issue with the time to first byte is caused by your web host, the usual recommendation is to change the host. You could improve your other issues noted here: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.jessetrippe.com/LXD2azQA which will decrease page rendering time, but no the first byte.

  • Google advises not serving the analytics.js locally: Referencing the JavaScript file from Google's servers (i.e. http://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js or https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js) ensures that you get access to new features and product updates as they become available, giving you the most accurate data in your reports.. Setting the expire purely to satisfy these checkers as many do, is ultimately silly. – Simon Hayter Sep 28 '15 at 17:58
  • @SimonHayter correct. But to host it locally is the single possibility to influence the file's header parameter, cache etc. Who wants or needs to influence them, has no other possibility, as to host it locally. BTW. the main doubt against local hosting of analytics is, that it COULD happen, G updates it, and you don't get to know about the update on time. But i think, this isn't a big issue for admin, who really works on his site. – Evgeniy Sep 29 '15 at 7:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for?Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.