What is Digg?85 Comments
- PatrickA, on 10/11/2007, -2/+155Wait until it gets dugg and then click this link:
http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com - frieddonuts, on 10/11/2007, -3/+90No it isn't your Mac. It's that no one cares about how fast your internet is.
- CJChesterson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+85Oh yeah? Well my Sony® PSP™ loaded my website in 0.4s using my Comcast® internet connection with PowerBoost™ technology. Now I'm going to the fridge to get a Coke™.
- NuPagady, on 10/11/2007, -3/+81Cool. Let the Load Time race begin!
google.com 0.2 seconds
yahoo.com 0.4 seconds
msn.com 1.8 seconds - trippinlikegod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+76Your operating system also has nothing to do with how fast data reaches your computer. You had to throw the iMac thing it just to be a fanboy.
- daleeburg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+42www.pingdom.com - 40.4 seconds
- SgtBlue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28@Patricka
"Reached maximum number of simultaneous requests."
At least he's got a good failsafe built in. - hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25FTA
"...It mimics the way a page is loaded in a web browser."
you can test sites - not your computer (..i think)
wikipedia 1 sec.
bbc.co.uk 2.8 s
dailymotion 7 s
digg paris hilton story with 1000+ comments 9.7 s
youtube 12.1 s - hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23so.. do i send this link to every annoyingly slow website i meet?
- Wartz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24talking like your mac has an effect on your download speed is like a n00b windows user talking about "internet explorer provides me my internet"
- NuPagady, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23"Wait until it gets dugg and then click this link:
http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com"
After 53 diggs:
Waiting 30 seconds and then: "Processing was stopped because timeout exceeded." - kelchm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23its not loading.... irony anyone?
- crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -16/+37I like how he abused the first comment and then made his own thread about it. And then replied to his own thread.
- milodeescorpion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/
took it 9.6 seconds to load - CasaMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13@NuPagady - As a web developer you should definitely try out Firebug. The "net" function is very similar to this Pingdom tool.
http://www.getfirebug.com/net.html - NuPagady, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12@trippinlikegod
Well the way you design your website and what you put on it (i.e. external scripts) actually has influence on how fast your page will load. I tested my website using this tool and I found bottlenecks in just a few seconds. So this tool helped me a little already. - arcooke, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17
- iDiggIt42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Those pipes must have been digitally manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® softwre. I can tell by the pi--wait, nevermind.
- clwasser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10www.digg.com doesn't exist
- Daniel591992, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"Reached maximum number of simultaneous requests."
Just keep clicking Test Now and you'll get it eventually. - tshawkins, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5meaningless results.
1) Does not say where the test is run from, so sites that further away on the network are penalised.
2) Does not do the max 2 simulatanious connections per domain rule, that all browsers adhere to, so the figures are badley distorted, and dont reflect actual browser download times. - Iolite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No. Rule of thumb a few years ago was that users will wait no longer than 10 seconds for a page to load before leaving it. I've seen recent studies where they've dropped that number down to 8 seconds. Speed matters.
- CeeJayDK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Did you remeber to clear your cache ?
Fasterfox says 7.780 seconds on mine.
Before you ask - I have a 6mbit connection. - digglets, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=www.google.com etc.etc.
- MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4This is great. Nice find.
This may also be useful: http://www.browsersize.com/ - allywilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4hehe I like the idea, but a more comprehensive one would be tests from multiple servers around the world and provide the results :-)
- Betcour, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The Firebug extension displays page load times and how related files are loaded (order, speed).
- joshfraz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"This version doesn't load objects included in JavaScripts."
This means that any site that uses AJAX will be given a higher rating than it deserves. - Xiretsa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Firebug is much better. It looks like Pingdom don't do incremental loading which I think all browsers do. It also looks like they load all images at the same time which a browser wouldn't do.
- spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Grinds real slow for me if I load up a comments page with loads of comments on, or several comments pages all at once. Not my connection, it's processing power it sucks up, I haven't exactly got a top of a range processor, but it should be more than sufficient (Sempron 3400+)
- ArmchairAthlete, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Wonder if it takes time for how a browser must parse the html and construct a DOM, etc.
- HigherLogic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Actually, your computer has a lot to do with how fast a page loads for YOU.
On an older computer, trying to load a Digg story (with all of it's JS) is going to be pretty resource-intensive, especially on different browsers. If your connection was the only factor, then why do we have speed tests for browsers?
Same goes for pages loaded with Flash, or really any client-side application. It's going to be really slow if you have an older computer, and much faster for people with newer computers. So yes, your computer has a big impact on how fast a page actually loads for you.
And for those of you with Opera, to really see how fast a page loads, use the little timers that show up when you load a page ( http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/502/operagt0.png ).
I did a comparison of Pingdom's results for a page and then the timer built-in to Opera and here is what I got:
Digg (Opera) - 6 seconds
Digg (Pingdom) - 1 second
Digg Story [6347 diggs, 423 comments] (Opera) - 33 seconds
Digg Story [6347 diggs, 423 comments] (Pingdom) - 6.5 seconds
After doing the tests, I realized I had Opera's built-in Fraud Protection enabled (checks PhishTank and TrustWatch). So I disabled it and checked the above two again (less Pingdom's results since it doesn't use this feature):
Digg (Opera) - 8 seconds
Digg (Pingdom) - 1 second
Digg Story (Opera) - 43 seconds
Digg Story (Pingdom) - 6.5 seconds
I had two three tabs open (this story, Pingdom, and the test Digg story). It doesn't appear the Fraud Protection deceases the load time (strangely, with it disabled pages take _longer_ to load). However, after doing all this (sheesh) I realized I had uTorrent open and it was downloading a file, so that definitely has a strain on the connection.
Regardless, Pingdom's results are cool and it's an interesting little test that doesn't factor in the speed of your computer (I'm on Windows XP SP2, 1 GHz AMD Athalon, 512MB RAM), but it's sad that Digg takes ~8-10 seconds to load and a popular story ~30-45 seconds.
They should really come up with a lightweight version of their site, or remove some of these "flashy" features. - stalefries, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I would like some irony please, good sir.
- ernietomac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Looks like Pingdom noticed this thread (how could they not? :-) ) and added some explanations in their blog. Apparently they were getting 10 000+ test requests per hour.
http://royal.pingdom.com/?p=146
Digg is a good stress test, ey? - ShuttleDisaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If anyone has the Fasterfox extension for Firefox, it will display the time it takes for your page to load in the bottom right corner of the screen. For example, it says this particular Digg page took .716s to load.
- HigherLogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And if you're using Opera, this is (surprise, surprise) built-in.
- riverguardian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Love it.
URL doesn't exist: www.digg.com - ideefix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Starting... interrupted. interrupted.
but which browser? my browser or the browser host on the server? - HigherLogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1On a sidenote, on Pingdom's page it says: This version doesn't load objects included in JavaScripts. Their page also says that they modeled this after OctaGate SiteTimer. OctaGate's version is more accurate, almost matching up with the actual load times:
http://www.octagate.com/service/SiteTimer/
Digg (Pingdom) - 1.5 second seconds
Digg (OctaGate) 4.5 seconds
Digg (Opera) - 6 seconds - HonoredMule, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This tell the true story about digg performance:
http://www.pingdom.com/tools/fpt/?url=http://digg.com/apple/Apple_embeds_user_data_in_iTunes_So_What
And no, it doesn't matter that it's a big page, because I still have to wait for it to load. If the page is too big to serve with reasonable performance, fix the page. - nick34, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is a rip of another site:
http://www.octagate.com/service/SiteTimer/ - HigherLogic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've actually found that when using Digg, it's better to open links in new windows, and not new tabs. It's still going to be slow, but nowhere near as slow as when you use tabs. IE6 also handles Digg the best when it comes to opening up a bunch of Digg articles for this very reason.
- rowlodge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1that was funny it saying how fast this loads when it went down....
- theworldiown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1lol i got "connection with the test server was lost"
- PSPDS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1For a page full of different little things I thought it would have been slower but it aint.
- sumasshu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1My problem with Digg is not how long it takes to load, but how long it takes to switch to a digg tab in Firefox. When scrolling through tabs, when I hit a tab with Digg on it there is a noticable .5 - 3 second hickup before the tab switches. I've noticed the same problem at my computer at work, but it's not as bad there (probably because my work computer is better than my home computer).
- farmie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"Reached maximum number of simultaneous requests" - Digg-style!
- musicphreke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know why you're being dug down. I was thinking the same thing. I like seeing how long it really takes me personally w/ that plugin sometimes. For example, this page took 13.156 seconds to load but according to pingdom.com it should've taken 1.6 seconds. So it's fairly inaccurate if they're claiming that's how fast it "should load" in your browser. Should do and doing are completely different. There are way too many variables.
- anitab83, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hehe, nice. I'd love to see the difference between today and tomorrow. Digg (and the net) is always WAY faster on weekends.
- MalDON, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think the tester itself is slowing down the results a bit. My site is very small, and it takes 800 ms from them. Should be even faster.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 