Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Things that make you go huh?

Expand Messages
  • Locol Man
    No CDN. We do have an F5 in-front of the site but that s stayed the same. Sorry, no other analytics that I can access. Here s what I did. Clean up the html,
    Message 1 of 10 , May 4, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      No CDN. We do have an F5 in-front of the site but that's stayed the same.

      Sorry, no other analytics that I can access.

      Here's what I did. Clean up the html, css, javascript. Consolidate CSS and .js. Minify CSS and .js. Made sure Gzip was working on all the machines in the pool. Nothing that would change caching or the number of dynamic files.

      Thanks,

      j



      --- In exceptional-performance@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Klein <jonathan.n.klein@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks. Back to Marcel's point about caching - is there a CDN involved at
      > all here that could be caching HTML as well as static content? Or any other
      > HTML output caching mechanism like varnish or something similar?
      >
      > Marcel's other questions are also important - it would be nice if there was
      > another analytics package that you could compare the awstats data with, and
      > it would help if we knew what kind of changes you made.
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
      > Jonathan
      >
      >
      > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Didn't remove any ajax calls or iframes.
      > >
      > > Here is what AW Stats defines a page as.
      > > Pages: The number of "pages" viewed by visitors. Pages are usually HTML,
      > > PHP or ASP files, not images or other files requested as a result of loading
      > > a "Page" (like js,css... files). Files listed in the NotPageList config
      > > parameter (and match an entry of OnlyFiles config parameter if used) are not
      > > counted as "Pages".
      > >
      > > No empty src attributes or anything like that that I knew of that would
      > > double page counts either.
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > j
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In exceptional-performance@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Klein
      > > <jonathan.n.klein@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hmm, did you remove any Ajax calls as part of your optimization that were
      > > > classified as pages? Or maybe get rid of some iframes? I'm not 100% sure
      > > > what is classified as a page by awstats, but I would guess that it's
      > > either
      > > > a problem with the measurement or that some page views were being double
      > > > counted previously because of a secondary request on the page.
      > > >
      > > > -Jonathan
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > I have a big customer that I did some optimization work on and
      > > somethings
      > > > > turned out just as I expected but one thing has me scratching my head.
      > > > >
      > > > > I'm looking at the awstats for this and have compared the before and
      > > after
      > > > > month where they have the roughly the same number of unique visitors
      > > (1.5
      > > > > Million).
      > > > >
      > > > > Before and After.
      > > > > Number of visits: 2.5 Mil to 2.5 Mil.
      > > > >
      > > > > Pages: 35,857,528 to 22,321,408.
      > > > >
      > > > > Hits: 219,265,615 to 108,757,559.
      > > > >
      > > > > Bandwidth 2,979 GB to 2,169 GB.
      > > > >
      > > > > The before and after on the hits and bandwidth I see are good, roughly
      > > a
      > > > > 50% reduction in hits and 27% reduction in bandwidth.
      > > > >
      > > > > What I can't explain is the number of page requests have gone down by
      > > about
      > > > > 38%. In most the information I've read on Google, Yahoo, etc. they
      > > expect
      > > > > page requests to go up as people are more apt to request an additional
      > > page.
      > > > >
      > > > > This is an ecommerce site so there are a limited number of pages to go
      > > > > through to sell a product so it's not like they go through more pages
      > > to buy
      > > > > the product. Without giving too much away I can say sales have
      > > increased
      > > > > month over month since the optimization, so that's all positive. I just
      > > > > can't explain the large reduction in number of page requests (even
      > > though
      > > > > sales have increased)?
      > > > >
      > > > > Thoughts?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Locol Man
      I don t have access to any other analytics. The main things I did was to optimize, consolidate, minify .js, .css and images. Not a lot that would change the
      Message 2 of 10 , May 4, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't have access to any other analytics. The main things I did was to optimize, consolidate, minify .js, .css and images. Not a lot that would change the number of dynamic/static pages.

        Thanks,

        j

        --- In exceptional-performance@yahoogroups.com, Marcel Duran <contact@...> wrote:
        >
        > Besides awstats, does this site happen to use Google Analytics or any other
        > analytics solution? If so, are they also returning similar numbers for
        > pages?
        > If this is not the case, can you share what were the performance changes you
        > made so we could help you guess the numbers?
        >
        > Marcel
        >
        > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Marcel,
        > >
        > > Thanks, but I know that rule and I don't think that's it. Never came across
        > > it in my testing.
        > >
        > > All the pages are .aspx pages so no caching or expires headers set on them.
        > > Good thoughts though.
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > >
        > > j
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In exceptional-performance@yahoogroups.com, Marcel Duran <contact@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Was there any <IMG>, <LINK> or <IFRAME> with empty SRC or HREF before?
        > > > This might have been the cause of double counting before optimization.
        > > > YSlow has a rule for that:
        > > > http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#emptysrc
        > > > Read more about it:
        > > >
        > > http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2009/11/30/empty-image-src-can-destroy-your-site/
        > > >
        > > > Another reason might be any HTML (considered as page by awstats) been
        > > cached
        > > > (expires headers), make sure none of your documents (HTML pages) are been
        > > > cached on client by mistake.
        > > >
        > > > Just my 2 cents.
        > > >
        > > > Best,
        > > >
        > > > Marcel
        > > >
        > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jonathan Klein
        > > > <jonathan.n.klein@>wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > > > Hmm, did you remove any Ajax calls as part of your optimization that
        > > were
        > > > > classified as pages? Or maybe get rid of some iframes? I'm not 100%
        > > sure
        > > > > what is classified as a page by awstats, but I would guess that it's
        > > either
        > > > > a problem with the measurement or that some page views were being
        > > double
        > > > > counted previously because of a secondary request on the page.
        > > > >
        > > > > -Jonathan
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I have a big customer that I did some optimization work on and
        > > somethings
        > > > > > turned out just as I expected but one thing has me scratching my
        > > head.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I'm looking at the awstats for this and have compared the before and
        > > > > after
        > > > > > month where they have the roughly the same number of unique visitors
        > > (1.5
        > > > > > Million).
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Before and After.
        > > > > > Number of visits: 2.5 Mil to 2.5 Mil.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Pages: 35,857,528 to 22,321,408.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hits: 219,265,615 to 108,757,559.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Bandwidth 2,979 GB to 2,169 GB.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > The before and after on the hits and bandwidth I see are good,
        > > roughly a
        > > > > > 50% reduction in hits and 27% reduction in bandwidth.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > What I can't explain is the number of page requests have gone down by
        > > > > about
        > > > > > 38%. In most the information I've read on Google, Yahoo, etc. they
        > > expect
        > > > > > page requests to go up as people are more apt to request an
        > > additional
        > > > > page.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > This is an ecommerce site so there are a limited number of pages to
        > > go
        > > > > > through to sell a product so it's not like they go through more pages
        > > to
        > > > > buy
        > > > > > the product. Without giving too much away I can say sales have
        > > increased
        > > > > > month over month since the optimization, so that's all positive. I
        > > just
        > > > > > can't explain the large reduction in number of page requests (even
        > > though
        > > > > > sales have increased)?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Thoughts?
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > >
        > > > > --
        > > > > http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/
        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Marcel Duran
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        > Marcel Duran
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Jonathan Klein
        At this point I think you need some other monitoring so you can make sure the numbers you are getting from awstats are reliable. Could you add Google
        Message 3 of 10 , May 10, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          At this point I think you need some other monitoring so you can make sure
          the numbers you are getting from awstats are reliable. Could you add Google
          Analytics if only briefly? Or analyze HTTP logs manually? Without more
          data I think you are going to have a tough time finding an answer.

          -Jonathan



          On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > I don't have access to any other analytics. The main things I did was to
          > optimize, consolidate, minify .js, .css and images. Not a lot that would
          > change the number of dynamic/static pages.
          >
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > j
          >
          > --- In exceptional-performance@yahoogroups.com, Marcel Duran <contact@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > Besides awstats, does this site happen to use Google Analytics or any
          > other
          > > analytics solution? If so, are they also returning similar numbers for
          > > pages?
          > > If this is not the case, can you share what were the performance changes
          > you
          > > made so we could help you guess the numbers?
          > >
          > > Marcel
          > >
          > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Marcel,
          > > >
          > > > Thanks, but I know that rule and I don't think that's it. Never came
          > across
          > > > it in my testing.
          > > >
          > > > All the pages are .aspx pages so no caching or expires headers set on
          > them.
          > > > Good thoughts though.
          > > >
          > > > Thanks,
          > > >
          > > > j
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- In exceptional-performance@yahoogroups.com, Marcel Duran <contact@
          > >
          > > > wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Was there any <IMG>, <LINK> or <IFRAME> with empty SRC or HREF
          > before?
          > > > > This might have been the cause of double counting before
          > optimization.
          > > > > YSlow has a rule for that:
          > > > > http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#emptysrc
          > > > > Read more about it:
          > > > >
          > > >
          > http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2009/11/30/empty-image-src-can-destroy-your-site/
          > > > >
          > > > > Another reason might be any HTML (considered as page by awstats) been
          > > > cached
          > > > > (expires headers), make sure none of your documents (HTML pages) are
          > been
          > > > > cached on client by mistake.
          > > > >
          > > > > Just my 2 cents.
          > > > >
          > > > > Best,
          > > > >
          > > > > Marcel
          > > > >
          > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jonathan Klein
          > > > > <jonathan.n.klein@>wrote:
          > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > > Hmm, did you remove any Ajax calls as part of your optimization
          > that
          > > > were
          > > > > > classified as pages? Or maybe get rid of some iframes? I'm not 100%
          > > > sure
          > > > > > what is classified as a page by awstats, but I would guess that
          > it's
          > > > either
          > > > > > a problem with the measurement or that some page views were being
          > > > double
          > > > > > counted previously because of a secondary request on the page.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > -Jonathan
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Locol Man <amiwebguy@> wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I have a big customer that I did some optimization work on and
          > > > somethings
          > > > > > > turned out just as I expected but one thing has me scratching my
          > > > head.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > I'm looking at the awstats for this and have compared the before
          > and
          > > > > > after
          > > > > > > month where they have the roughly the same number of unique
          > visitors
          > > > (1.5
          > > > > > > Million).
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Before and After.
          > > > > > > Number of visits: 2.5 Mil to 2.5 Mil.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Pages: 35,857,528 to 22,321,408.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Hits: 219,265,615 to 108,757,559.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Bandwidth 2,979 GB to 2,169 GB.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > The before and after on the hits and bandwidth I see are good,
          > > > roughly a
          > > > > > > 50% reduction in hits and 27% reduction in bandwidth.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > What I can't explain is the number of page requests have gone
          > down by
          > > > > > about
          > > > > > > 38%. In most the information I've read on Google, Yahoo, etc.
          > they
          > > > expect
          > > > > > > page requests to go up as people are more apt to request an
          > > > additional
          > > > > > page.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > This is an ecommerce site so there are a limited number of pages
          > to
          > > > go
          > > > > > > through to sell a product so it's not like they go through more
          > pages
          > > > to
          > > > > > buy
          > > > > > > the product. Without giving too much away I can say sales have
          > > > increased
          > > > > > > month over month since the optimization, so that's all positive.
          > I
          > > > just
          > > > > > > can't explain the large reduction in number of page requests
          > (even
          > > > though
          > > > > > > sales have increased)?
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Thoughts?
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > ------------------------------------
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --
          > > > > > http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/
          > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > --
          > > > > Marcel Duran
          > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --
          > > Marcel Duran
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.