Analytics questions about the new Page Speed

[pontifex]

Hi folks,

on thursday I switched on the "Measure Page Speed" with my analytics code and do see values now in the "New Version" of it.

Yet I have a few pages, which load REALLY fast for me (<2 Seconds) with around 100k in in size. I would understand if these page load slow for some, but Analytics shows me: 50 seconds for a few pages.

I guess this is a flaw?

P!

[pontifex]

Anyone else having these huge times for loading speed?

[pageoneresults]

No anomalies as of yet.

I guess this is a flaw?

Maybe, or, maybe not. While that page may load quickly for you, it may not for others. There are all sorts of variables at play here. 50 seconds is troublesome. Is it possible that page is making third party calls that are hanging?

[pontifex]

Hmmm...
Facebook like
Google AdSense
Analytics

Maybe an adblocker on the users side!

[pageoneresults]

Facebook like.

I've seen plenty of discussions in regards to Facebook Like buttons. ALL of them are centered around the performance hit after installation. There are some things you can do to optimize that call. You'll notice WebmasterWorld removed their FB buttons.

[pontifex]

Well, now I see one result, that does not care the like button:

3,616.73 seconds...

bull!

P!

[pageoneresults]

Possibly related?

AdSense and the Facebook Like Button
[WebmasterWorld.com...]

[pageoneresults]

Also related...

[Facebook.com...]

^ That Facebook Like Button makes 22 HTTP Requests totaling 93,740 bytes. I'm reviewing a website now that has 20 of these little buggers on their home page. While the home page is loading, I can sit here and watch the external calls to Facebook and see the degradation of site performance right before my very eyes!

The site home page I'm reviewing weighs in at 629 HTTP Requests totaling 2,797,414 bytes. Of those 2,797,414 bytes, the Facebook Like Button accounts for 440 HTTP Requests totaling 1,874,800 bytes.

I'd say that presents an issue for many, not to mention the load that the Like Widget is under. Maybe that's the norm these days? I surely wouldn't do that to any documents I manage.