Website terribly slow

[fedox]

https://angelipress.com/

This is the website URL. It takes 15-20seconds to load.

GT Matrix results: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/angelipress.com/oHrl1VOc

Please help me where I'm going wrong.

[bruno28]

https://angelipress.com/

This is the website URL. It takes 15-20seconds to load.

GT Matrix results: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/angelipress.com/oHrl1VOc

Please help me where I'm going wrong.

Hello fedox

First of all, compress your images

And you have a few issues detected : https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/ht ... ipress.com

Bruno

[Per Yngve Berg]

Mod. Note: Relocated the topic to the Performance Forum. Not related to Search Engines.

[fedox]

https://angelipress.com/

This is the website URL. It takes 15-20seconds to load.

GT Matrix results: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/angelipress.com/oHrl1VOc

Please help me where I'm going wrong.

Hello fedox

First of all, compress your images

And you have a few issues detected : https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/ht ... ipress.com

Bruno

I did compress my images as you suggested.

Can you help me with how to fix this problem: The following images are resized in HTML or CSS. Serving scaled images.

I see that it says to resize the images. But I'm not finding the logic here. It says resize a 1170 x 702 to 30 x 30.

Any help would be great.

Thank you

[AMurray]

Looking at the GTMextrix report, its suggestions of "serving a scaled image could save....."

It just means use an image editor to resize the images. The suggestion you mention to rescale the image to 30x30 seems a bit off (that is not a viewable size - smaller than a postage stamp....), but regardless, scale them to the sizes you need rather than doing it with CSS/HTML.

The logic being, an image of 1170x302 is say 250KB. Rescaling the image proportionally with CSS/HTML is still going to leave you with an image that is still around 250KB. Rescaling the image in your image editor and re-saving/uploading will have the new image, with the reduced dimensions will save disk space and therefore reduce loading time as indicated by GTMetrix (of course it won't likely be exactly what GTMetrix says but I would say a significant saving would be achieved

[bruno28]

+1

[shoulders]

it is clearly the HTML page generation by joomla that is an issue, not the images.

you need to find out what extension is taking so long. joomla debug should help.