Yeah me to.
2 Likes
It’s nice also but I don’t think it runs as smooth as the Blocs version.
Casey
3 Likes
I think the scroll animations have slightly different timings which give the illusion of degrees of smoothness.
The load times don’t mean much because you are not comparing apples to apples. I did a bit of checking in Safari Inspector and they both loaded in just under 3 seconds for me. If anything I would expect the RW one to be faster because there is no Bootstrap to load but I can’t detect a difference.
It’s interesting to compare the output code too.
However, for me the real lesson learnt is the process and level of skill required and time taken to duplicate an interesting site. It is speed of Edit and WYSIWYG update and export times that are important. For many users, web creation involves a lot of try it and check it development which depends on speed of progress.
1 Like
I’d be interested to know the location of each server as this may also harm scores.
But it’s good to see Blocs delivering a site that gets a decent score.
Still so much room for improvement.
1 Like
@Eldar could tell us where his server is located and we could possibly find out the other via the who is database with a little detective work. I am hearing complaints from various RW users though about slow page loading and bloated code. I’ve yet to see a see a slow loading site in Blocs, unless the user added a 10mb header image or something.
1 Like
I use GoDaddy for hosting. The server is located in Arizona, US
The RW site is using CloudFlare according to the nameservers and they have a data centre in London. It should have been much faster than Eldar’s site.
1 Like
Wow that is poor. It’s load time should have done much better than the Blocs version.
It sounds like I need to think about alternatives to GoDaddy 
Although, I have never had any loading speed issues with my Blocs websites.
You were considerably faster than the RW despite being with GoDaddy!
2 Likes
Also if you enabled lazyload and minified it could actually be faster.
But it make make the page less smooth on first load/scroll
Depends on the design and your personal preference. If you care solely about page load time enable it. If you care about animation smoothness of initial page load and experience maybe avoid it.
It’s optional so it’s all good.
2 Likes
I rarely use Lazyload in my sites, mainly because of the reason you have stated. Im my experience, smooth animations are way more important than a split second I could earn by enabling the lazy load.
Like you said, it’s option, so all is great! 
Cheers,
Eldar
3 Likes
I really want to use lazyloading, but Google isn’t indexing any images when enabled and that hurts my search ranking. I believe there are other ways of doing it that are more Google friendly but this is something Norm would have to change.
1 Like
didn’t realise it was a competition.
hadn’t done anything with the images when that speed test was done - it should be quicker now as they have since been optimised.
anyway, it’s a great site @Eldar - nice work!!
1 Like
It’s not. It’s just the comparison of same websites built using two different tools. I was a RW users myself in one point, but now I am with Blocs, because I like how it feels better!
And, to be honest, if I needed to get the best possible speed and optimization, I could have done so much more, but then it will sound like a competition!
Anyway, nice to see you here!
3 Likes
