From what I understand, it's not Shopify per se: it's their CDN that gets a whole lot of requests. I have no idea what Shopify hosts: a quick search of shopify cdn didn't yield any useful...
From what I understand, it's not Shopify per se: it's their CDN that gets a whole lot of requests.
I have no idea what Shopify hosts: a quick search of shopify cdn didn't yield any useful information. I've seen mentions of images and PDFs, though.
To put this into perspective: Google Fonts have been viewed a total of 34 trillion times during their whole existence, according to the Fonts' analytics page. According to the article's stats,...
To put this into perspective:
Google Fonts have been viewed a total of 34 trillion times during their whole existence, according to the Fonts' analytics page. According to the article's stats, that's 2.53% of requests. Shopify CDN is said to have been a part of about a third of that, and I do not believe for a second it matches the Fonts' level of views.
Shopify is incredibly bloated though. I just visited a site I know uses it, and with three products visible, their front page is 4.5MB in size and takes 16 seconds to fully load on a 400mbit...
Shopify is incredibly bloated though. I just visited a site I know uses it, and with three products visible, their front page is 4.5MB in size and takes 16 seconds to fully load on a 400mbit connection. I'm seeing over two dozen requests to cdn.shopify.com, half a dozen calls to fonts.googleapis.com, half a dozen to fonts.gstatic.com, and two dozen maps.googleapis.com, but those are image tiles.
It looks like scripts from shopify are calling other third party scripts. Changing my DNS for shopify.com to localhost reduces the number of requests from 120 down to 41, and that includes 23x 404 errors from shopify.
Shopify pages are larger than most software from 15 years ago. It's incredibly inefficient, and makes a ton of requests. I can't say if that data is accurate, but it really wouldn't surprise me if it was. Most other third party resources seem to make some effort to be efficient and not call too many other resources, while shopify's scripts aren't even minified.
I could rant about the bloating all day. What's weird about this is that – I would forgive that kind of bloat on smaller websites that want to be finished so that their contents could be seen...
I could rant about the bloating all day.
What's weird about this is that – I would forgive that kind of bloat on smaller websites that want to be finished so that their contents could be seen sooner. "20% of the effort does 80% of the work" sort of a thing. That would be alright.
But then, you see major websites be slow as fuck, even over good connection, because of the tons of unnecessary shit they load. Wasn't it Amazon's study that prompted the notion of losins 1% of the revenue for every 100ms taken to load the website? You'd think big companies would care about that a whole lot, even tasking their large crews of web engineers to make it work quicker.
I always think that you can't really fight this from a consumer POV. Like, yea, you can have an extension that loads the original page for you but that isn't really the problem. The problem is...
I always think that you can't really fight this from a consumer POV. Like, yea, you can have an extension that loads the original page for you but that isn't really the problem. The problem is Google dictating a pseudo web standard for the average user. Making your website faster without AMP is a good start since at least that changes things for everyone who visits. But it's still just one website.
IMO this is at least as bad as what the EU accused Microsoft of with Internet Explorer back in the day. This should be fought on a regulation level. No idealistic hacker people will fix this with extensions.
Oh, totally. I was just pointing it out as an option. Its an "I dont like amp so im not going to use it out of principle even though I know I wont have a great impact" sorta thing.
Oh, totally. I was just pointing it out as an option. Its an "I dont like amp so im not going to use it out of principle even though I know I wont have a great impact" sorta thing.
Recently, I have issues getting AMP links to even work in safari on iOS. If I open them in a new tab, it works, but overall it leaves a stink in my noses. The experience is broken with no reason...
Recently, I have issues getting AMP links to even work in safari on iOS. If I open them in a new tab, it works, but overall it leaves a stink in my noses. The experience is broken with no reason why. I don't have any content blockers running on mobile safari, so not even sure how it works.
To emphasize @nothis's point, content blockers are wonderful. I'm really fond of 1blocker, partly because it blocks everything I want (including comments sections on most sites!), partly because...
To emphasize @nothis's point, content blockers are wonderful. I'm really fond of 1blocker, partly because it blocks everything I want (including comments sections on most sites!), partly because the architecture respects my privacy, partly because I can customize it (e.g. hiding YouTube's recommended videos for a wholly self-directed watching experience), partly because all those customizations sync between iOS, iPadOS, and macOS.
Just gotta point out that content blockers work really well on iOS now. You can set up a list in the system settings and multiple apps exist that maintain a large list of shit you probably don’t want.
Just gotta point out that content blockers work really well on iOS now. You can set up a list in the system settings and multiple apps exist that maintain a large list of shit you probably don’t want.
I started using chrome's password management for my sites that I don't really care about and it's really convenient. Does firefox have something similar? Like syncing passwords between browsers? I...
I started using chrome's password management for my sites that I don't really care about and it's really convenient. Does firefox have something similar? Like syncing passwords between browsers? I don't know how secure mozilla would be against breaches or whatever.
From what I understand, it's not Shopify per se: it's their CDN that gets a whole lot of requests.
I have no idea what Shopify hosts: a quick search of
shopify cdndidn't yield any useful information. I've seen mentions of images and PDFs, though.To put this into perspective:
Google Fonts have been viewed a total of 34 trillion times during their whole existence, according to the Fonts' analytics page. According to the article's stats, that's 2.53% of requests. Shopify CDN is said to have been a part of about a third of that, and I do not believe for a second it matches the Fonts' level of views.
Shopify is incredibly bloated though. I just visited a site I know uses it, and with three products visible, their front page is 4.5MB in size and takes 16 seconds to fully load on a 400mbit connection. I'm seeing over two dozen requests to cdn.shopify.com, half a dozen calls to fonts.googleapis.com, half a dozen to fonts.gstatic.com, and two dozen maps.googleapis.com, but those are image tiles.
It looks like scripts from shopify are calling other third party scripts. Changing my DNS for shopify.com to localhost reduces the number of requests from 120 down to 41, and that includes 23x 404 errors from shopify.
Shopify pages are larger than most software from 15 years ago. It's incredibly inefficient, and makes a ton of requests. I can't say if that data is accurate, but it really wouldn't surprise me if it was. Most other third party resources seem to make some effort to be efficient and not call too many other resources, while shopify's scripts aren't even minified.
I could rant about the bloating all day.
What's weird about this is that – I would forgive that kind of bloat on smaller websites that want to be finished so that their contents could be seen sooner. "20% of the effort does 80% of the work" sort of a thing. That would be alright.
But then, you see major websites be slow as fuck, even over good connection, because of the tons of unnecessary shit they load. Wasn't it Amazon's study that prompted the notion of losins 1% of the revenue for every 100ms taken to load the website? You'd think big companies would care about that a whole lot, even tasking their large crews of web engineers to make it work quicker.
You can also use a browser extension to automatically redirect links that you click on to their non amp counterparts.
I always think that you can't really fight this from a consumer POV. Like, yea, you can have an extension that loads the original page for you but that isn't really the problem. The problem is Google dictating a pseudo web standard for the average user. Making your website faster without AMP is a good start since at least that changes things for everyone who visits. But it's still just one website.
IMO this is at least as bad as what the EU accused Microsoft of with Internet Explorer back in the day. This should be fought on a regulation level. No idealistic hacker people will fix this with extensions.
Oh, totally. I was just pointing it out as an option. Its an "I dont like amp so im not going to use it out of principle even though I know I wont have a great impact" sorta thing.
Yea, I once had that extension as well but it became less of an issue since I switched to DuckDuckGo. Might want to reinstall it!
Recently, I have issues getting AMP links to even work in safari on iOS. If I open them in a new tab, it works, but overall it leaves a stink in my noses. The experience is broken with no reason why. I don't have any content blockers running on mobile safari, so not even sure how it works.
To emphasize @nothis's point, content blockers are wonderful. I'm really fond of 1blocker, partly because it blocks everything I want (including comments sections on most sites!), partly because the architecture respects my privacy, partly because I can customize it (e.g. hiding YouTube's recommended videos for a wholly self-directed watching experience), partly because all those customizations sync between iOS, iPadOS, and macOS.
Just gotta point out that content blockers work really well on iOS now. You can set up a list in the system settings and multiple apps exist that maintain a large list of shit you probably don’t want.
interesting, I’ll give them another shot. I hate comments on sites and they tend to draw me in
I started using chrome's password management for my sites that I don't really care about and it's really convenient. Does firefox have something similar? Like syncing passwords between browsers? I don't know how secure mozilla would be against breaches or whatever.