Cool ... however, I just checked out your old site and your new site and my impression is that the 35% is a gross underestimation! Every link I click takes seconds to load with the old site, and loads in a fraction of a second with the new site. The difference feels more like 350% than like 35%.
No wonder if all pages are simply statically generated and don't need to be loaded from a database and then dynamically generated (although I wouldn't expect the improvement to be that large).
Glad you see the BIG IMPROVEMENT Leob. CDN cache may make it better but if you truly compare apples-to-apples, Static Site is WAY faster - no doubt! 👍🚀
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We measured based on Google PageSpeed Insights, Google LightHouse, GTMetrix, and various tools.
If you run Google PSI - you can see for yourself.
Run PSI few times on both. To get the median score. Also note that the new site has more images, more SVG, and more JS.
We still managed to get a lot better performance using 11ty 👍
Cool ... however, I just checked out your old site and your new site and my impression is that the 35% is a gross underestimation! Every link I click takes seconds to load with the old site, and loads in a fraction of a second with the new site. The difference feels more like 350% than like 35%.
No wonder if all pages are simply statically generated and don't need to be loaded from a database and then dynamically generated (although I wouldn't expect the improvement to be that large).
Glad you see the BIG IMPROVEMENT Leob. CDN cache may make it better but if you truly compare apples-to-apples, Static Site is WAY faster - no doubt! 👍🚀