I agree with Marmaduke, earlier what I did was make peanut butter crackers and press the post button. Have a few, and then post. Now there's that solution, but then there's the one everyone would hate to do. Post less pages, photos, and view the website less. I'm sure that would bring down the site load. (I'm not actually advocating for this)

Has anyone else noticed that the performance decreases proportionally to the number of videos Larry posts...?

I wonder how many external sites link to sp photos?

Matt,

Several individuals have pointed out that SP runs faster if one is not logged in. This has been my experience as well and is easily duplicated. I have not seen a response from you regarding this particular observation. Has this discrepancy been investigated? For instance, just now it took about 11 seconds to access a picture if I was logged in and about 2 seconds if I was not. This specific anomaly has the appearance of inefficient software vs limited hardware resources.

ZeeJay wrote:Matt,

Several individuals have pointed out that SP runs faster if one is not logged in. This has been my experience as well and is easily duplicated. I have not seen a response from you regarding this particular observation. Has this discrepancy been investigated? For instance, just now it took about 11 seconds to access a picture if I was logged in and about 2 seconds if I was not. This specific anomaly has the appearance of inefficient software vs limited hardware resources.

Good point. I d like to see some answer too since I agree with this observation, and I also noticed the same thing. Just looking at the pages without login goes fairly okay, after the logged... hhhmmmmmm.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I feel like sleep.

Site Admin's will be cleaning up on the thanks in this thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaPHPQt91w8[/youtube]

Full version:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4[/youtube]

How about people stop mass posting 50+ pictures at a time,

I enjoy looking through the new images but having to scan through hundreds of them to find the gems. I scan through them via images sorted by creation date, I don't really care for their ratings.

Quality over quantity please, I understand a bunch of good pics for a TR or clear ones for route finding, but not a pic for every meter travelled.

Currently 8x faster than in previous measurements.

I've posted an average of 0.21 pictures per day. Admittedly, I have used the bulk uploader to post as many as 20 pictures in a few minutes, when I was producing a page. But I figured we should try to finish a page as soon as possible.

Sorry, no computer geek ...

But, just wondering WHY it takes so long just to log in ... took me 65 seconds.

I keep my computer turned off during the day. Did somebody say that Firefox works faster than Internet Explorer? Seems to be NO difference.

For crying out loud .... I wonder if "Slow Hand" has anything to do with this issue of superior slowness . . . .

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaMuBX4aMmw[/youtube]

OH DEAR GOD WHAT WOULD WE DO IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INTERNET TO FEED OUR BOREDOM???

You wait in line every day. You sit in traffic every day. This is the same thing.

Yeah, but the internet was supposed to be an escape from real life! (I'm kidding)

butitsadryheat wrote:+1

Faster today than in weeks. Whatever you did matt, thanks

Spoke way too soon. It's slower than death tonight. Looks like Matt is stil working on it...

Alpinist wrote: It's slower than death tonight.

We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Program To Bring You This Shorter Less Interesting Message ...

Matt, the site is really fast tonight, even when I am uploading pictures. If you or one of the other owners is responsible for this, many thanks. And if it's just luck, let's hope it holds!