Need some help on htaccess and admincp

[pityocamptes]

Was able to get in now.

Had the SSL, and decided to use it. Still good for another year (two years at the time of update)...

Chatbox works, just loads collapsed.

--------------- Added [DATE]1393214271[/DATE] at [TIME]1393214271[/TIME] ---------------

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

If you're trying to use htaccess to cache static content, it's not working.

WebPageTest

I see you're also ineptly trying to use cloudflare as a CDN, this overrides any caching you try to do via htaccess.

Max, for some reason when I run that test in any other browser but IE 10 [IE 11shows a huge jump] it does not show such crappy numbers... in fact down to 8.6 sec and 688 bytes... [IE 11]...

--------------- Added [DATE]1393219033[/DATE] at [TIME]1393219033[/TIME] ---------------

Without getting too much off topic, before I download this, is it worth it?

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=266696

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by pityocamptes

Max, for some reason when I run that test in any other browser but IE 10 [IE 11shows a huge jump] it does not show such crappy numbers... in fact down to 8.6 sec and 688 bytes... [IE 11]...

Other browsers such as FF ignore a good many page elements if they have errors or otherwise won't load. That's why they are faster browsers than IE. It is NOT a true test to test with those other browsers, you're not getting the real picture.

I use the IE 10 test at WebPageTest because IE 10 and 11 are the standard to test to, for supporting the new browsers. If you get those tests good, all the rest of the tests are that much better.

You want to "test shop" you don't really want to fix your problems. To operate scientifically, you stick with ONE baseline test and not a scattershot of other tests, muddying the waters.

It's nonsensical to change the parameters of the test to show better results when those better results simply do not exist. It's the same as if I ran your site test with DSL or Dialup connection then tried to claim it was worse. See?

Here's your current test with the correct parameters, IE 10 and a fast cable connection out of Dulles Va.: WebPageTest

Here's your site tested with a DSL connection, for "test shopping" reference: DSLWebPageTest.

And you're STILL not testing worth a crap even on Firefox browser with fast cable connection. See all those F grades?

Can you use htaccess to cache static content? Am I doing it wrong?

That's the ONLY reason the code you posted would exist, to try to cache static content. You copied it directly off my article about it on OzzModz. Did you not also read the article?

On your htaccess - did you finally realize you needed to put a dot before the filename? It is .htaccess not, just htaccess. It won't have any effect without the dot.

The effort you are putting in is fruitless because you are not approaching this with a scientific mindset, and you are not using the resources the WebPageTest site provides. Again, see all the F grades? Click on those and read up, the site TELLS you what you need to do to fix the issues. It's not like it's any mystery or a guessing game, they lay it out for you specifically.

[RichieBoy67]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

Other browsers such as FF ignore a good many page elements if they have errors or otherwise won't load. That's why they are faster browsers than IE. It is NOT a true test to test with those other browsers, you're not getting the real picture.

I use the IE 10 test at WebPageTest because IE 10 and 11 are the standard to test to, for supporting the new browsers. If you get those tests good, all the rest of the tests are that much better.

You want to "test shop" you don't really want to fix your problems. To operate scientifically, you stick with ONE baseline test and not a scattershot of other tests, muddying the waters.

It's nonsensical to change the parameters of the test to show better results when those better results simply do not exist. It's the same as if I ran your site test with DSL or Dialup connection then tried to claim it was worse. See?

Here's your current test with the correct parameters, IE 10 and a fast cable connection out of Dulles Va.: WebPageTest

Here's your site tested with a DSL connection, for "test shopping" reference: DSLWebPageTest.

And you're STILL not testing worth a crap even on Firefox browser with fast cable connection. See all those F grades?

That's the ONLY reason the code you posted would exist, to try to cache static content. You copied it directly off my article about it on OzzModz. Did you not also read the article?

On your htaccess - did you finally realize you needed to put a dot before the filename? It is .htaccess not, just htaccess. It won't have any effect without the dot.

The effort you are putting in is fruitless because you are not approaching this with a scientific mindset, and you are not using the resources the WebPageTest site provides. Again, see all the F grades? Click on those and read up, the site TELLS you what you need to do to fix the issues. It's not like it's any mystery or a guessing game, they lay it out for you specifically.

Hey Max, I would love to read that article. Could you post the link to it please?

I have been wanting to to better with static image loading. I figured I would be ok just using nginx but apparently I still need to set expiration times, etc. At any rate I would love to see your article and also I would be interested to see the portions of your htaccess that are relevant to caching, etc.

Thanks

[pityocamptes]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

Other browsers such as FF ignore a good many page elements if they have errors or otherwise won't load. That's why they are faster browsers than IE. It is NOT a true test to test with those other browsers, you're not getting the real picture.

I use the IE 10 test at WebPageTest because IE 10 and 11 are the standard to test to, for supporting the new browsers. If you get those tests good, all the rest of the tests are that much better.

You want to "test shop" you don't really want to fix your problems. To operate scientifically, you stick with ONE baseline test and not a scattershot of other tests, muddying the waters.

It's nonsensical to change the parameters of the test to show better results when those better results simply do not exist. It's the same as if I ran your site test with DSL or Dialup connection then tried to claim it was worse. See?

Here's your current test with the correct parameters, IE 10 and a fast cable connection out of Dulles Va.: WebPageTest

Here's your site tested with a DSL connection, for "test shopping" reference: DSLWebPageTest.

And you're STILL not testing worth a crap even on Firefox browser with fast cable connection. See all those F grades?

That's the ONLY reason the code you posted would exist, to try to cache static content. You copied it directly off my article about it on OzzModz. Did you not also read the article?

On your htaccess - did you finally realize you needed to put a dot before the filename? It is .htaccess not, just htaccess. It won't have any effect without the dot.

The effort you are putting in is fruitless because you are not approaching this with a scientific mindset, and you are not using the resources the WebPageTest site provides. Again, see all the F grades? Click on those and read up, the site TELLS you what you need to do to fix the issues. It's not like it's any mystery or a guessing game, they lay it out for you specifically.

I have been trying to do what it says, somethings are way over my head. It speaks of sprites and other stuff. I shrunk all the images as far as I could, as you recommend. I don't really know how to implement the other things. Trust me, I have been searching for hours on the web...