It was interesting to test many of the sites posted here in this forum and see what the actual download speeds were and compatibilily issues. Does anyone know if this site's claims are accurate?

http://www.netmechanic.com/toolbox/power_user.htm

Of the several sites that I tested (56K modem) using the link above (using the 1 page option), it looks like Jerry Green's simple, uncluttered site ( http://www.slohomesrus.com ) loaded the fastest with 6.6 seconds; Calcagni.com came in 2nd with 8.7 sec; and Ravenswood.net came in 3rd with 9.6 sec. Note: I did not test all the sites in MCA's list:

>>>
http://www.colliers.com/Markets/TampaBay/Services/ServiceGroups/CommercialManagement/
http://www.cawhite.com/professional.html
http://www.fxrealty.net/
http://www.pamgolding.co.za/default.aspx
http://www.savills.co.uk/
http://www.realtor.com/Default.asp?poe=realtor
http://www.century21.com/home.aspx
http://www.greyflame.com/ -Great looking Real Estate Forums
http://recenter.tamu.edu/
http://www.realestateabc.com/
https://www.ccim.com/
http://www.luxuryrealestate.com/
http://www.irem.org/home.cfm
http://www.ravenswoodhomes.net/
http://www.calcagni.com/
http://www.leadingrealestate.com/
<<<

Anyone find any sites that load faster than 6.6 seconds?

Well I cleared my internet cache and loaded mine, took about 1.5 to 2 seconds. Basically, it loads so fast it's really hard to count.

http://www.joshuaturmel.com/

Really the main thing is to keep your physical page size down, page size includes all images/flash/movies within the page as well. I like to keep mine under 50k if at all possible. That would allow it to load in under 7 to 8 seconds on even dialup.

-J

So long as the page isn't so huge as to be an annoyance as it loads ... what's the big deal? This isn't a race.

Many of my sites load quickly but one of my listings pages is kind of slow because it has thumbnails of lots of buildings. I compressed the pictures down to right before they started looking bad, maybe 15K each on average.

No one's making it a race... it is about people not going to your site if it takes too long to load. I guess it is a race if you look at it that way, a race to keep your customer from not hitting the back button and clicking on the next search result.

I don't know, it just seems like a very simple thing and so long as the page isn't really slow it's a non-issue. Keep the page small enough to where it loads reasonably fast. There are a lot more important things to focus on than shaving a tenth of a second off.

It's the people with 2Mb pictures on their pages that are losing dialup visitors, not the person with a 5 second page losing visitors to the guy with a 4 second page.

There's no effective difference between a 5 second page and a 6 second page. Are y

No one was saying that, how in the world did you read that into what we were posting? We were simply seeing what everyone was out there doing as far as download times for their pages. It wasn't meant to be "darn, his loads in 5 seconds, I need to beat that."

Do not read into what the goal of this post was, he is trying to help everyone here to take a look at their websites, do not be ignorant. Web pages need to download within a reasonable time, in my opinion no more than 7 to 8 seconds otherwise people are going to turn around.

And it sometimes is not a very simple thing, especially when you are dealing with many graphics, large amounts of client-side code, etc.

But to reitterate, this wasn't a dispute between 4 and 5 second web pages, merely a "what is everyone elses web pages like?"

Go find another post to pick apart...

-J

Where was I ignorant about the web here?

Anyway I said a reasonable time is important but not to split hairs over a second or two. Which is precisely what you and the original poster are doing - splitting hairs and cpounting down to the fraction of a second.

By "simple" I meant the goal of having a reasonably quick page, noit the actual execution. Settle down.

If you look at the download times of a few of those "exemplary" sites that were originally in MCA's post, you'll see that many take over 10 seconds to download via a 56k modem. I guess what my original post was emphasizing is that it's good to use some tools to investigate whether other site visitors (prospects) who don't use a cable modem (like I have) experience long download times.

As a visitor to a website, 5 years ago I wouldn't mind a 10 second download time and would stay with the site. Today, I get impatient and leave before loading completes if the site takes longer than that.

Check out this one:
www.mdheadhunter.net

193 seconds