Google "Page Speed" Results for IPB

[RidinHighSpeeds]

maybe adding a mini profile thumbnail to the setup could help ?

there must be about 50 100x100 profile thumbnails rescaled to 30x30 on each of the various forum indexes

Good suggestion!

[bfarber]

The main problem there is that the profile thumbnail can be shown at 16x16, 20x20, 30x30, 50x50, or 90x90. It's not realistic to keep a copy of the same image at each of these dimensions, just to speed up an artificial page speed score. Furthermore, I would argue you get MORE bandwidth savings by serving the one image with width/height specified, because the browser can cache that one image, regardless of which of the above dimensions it needs to display in, where-as serving the same image at each of those sizes above requires the server to send each of those separate images.

[RidinHighSpeeds]

The main problem there is that the profile thumbnail can be shown at 16x16, 20x20, 30x30, 50x50, or 90x90. It's not realistic to keep a copy of the same image at each of these dimensions, just to speed up an artificial page speed score. Furthermore, I would argue you get MORE bandwidth savings by serving the one image with width/height specified, because the browser can cache that one image, regardless of which of the above dimensions it needs to display in, where-as serving the same image at each of those sizes above requires the server to send each of those separate images.

That's very true.. however which profile thumbnail dimension are served most? If the home-page is comprised of mostly 16x16 images and threads 100x100, then why not serve images in those dimensions whereas other pages (less visited) will be resized? Thus saving speed on pages with higher hits.