• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

My Site: Micromuseum.co.uk

Thanks for dropping by Tez, and thanks for leaving a comment too :)

Getting the PSU board out of the metal PSU housing on the BBC is a nightmare! Despite having done it several times before it still takes ages!

Just wondered if your restoration part had any kind of index? I might have missed it?

Thanks for reminding me! It is something I intended to add and forgot all about! I will try to add it in the next few days.

Whilst I'm at it, unless you object I'll add a link to your excellent site too :)
 
Changed the design again to make it work better on different kind of devices. Various bits of news now being added.

Just wondered if your restoration part had any kind of index? I might have missed it?

Added indexes for the Restoration Blog and Acquisition Blog thus:

http://www.micromuseum.co.uk/index.php/blogs/restoration-blog/restoration-blog-index

http://www.micromuseum.co.uk/index.php/blogs/acquisition-blog/acquisition-blog-index

Hopefully this is what you were looking for Tezza? (Sorry about the delay!)
 
I've no idea why but your site takes an age to download for me, If i can get it to load, Most times i have to click the stop button and restart several times, I remember i never had this problem with the original site, I'm not having any problems with other sites, I've tried it on FF / IE and chrome and it's the same on all, Any ideas what it could be ?.
 
I've no idea why but your site takes an age to download for me, If i can get it to load, Most times i have to click the stop button and restart several times, I remember i never had this problem with the original site, I'm not having any problems with other sites, I've tried it on FF / IE and chrome and it's the same on all, Any ideas what it could be ?.

I've completely changed the DNS arrangement on the website today. Has it helped at all? Or even made it worse? This is hard for me to help with because I cannot reproduce the problem :(
 
It is painful to watch load here too -- and I can see why; a ridiculous 2.5 megabyte homepage built from 55 files; for what? To deliver 5k of plaintext and maybe a half dozen actual content images? :/

The lack of image optimization or proper thumbnails, basically having the browser scale ridiculously oversized 1600px wide images down to the 256 or less width they're actually being used is just the tip of the iceberg. The endless scripttardery for Christmas only knows what (667k in 25 files), Holy mother of Christmas 493k of CSS in 15 files (when there's no excuse for an entire site's CSS to break 48k in 2 files per media target), and 56k of markup (anywhere from eight to ten times what's needed) means OF COURSE IT'S SLOW... and dicking around with server settings isn't gonna fix that.

Though it's ENTIRELY what I expect when I see turdpress -- much less when mated to bootcrap; on the former turning a blogging system for re-re's into an actual website is a guaranteed road to failure, and on the latter half of the problem you really should go find a stick to scrape that off with; by itself bootstrap is three times the size your entire CSS for a site should be, so you were already long down the road to failure before you tacked another 400k of garbage CSS on it for who knows what.

It REALLY looks like you just took a bunch of off the shelf tech and slapped it together any old way; and that's not a good thing.

Even the markup is the typical train wreck of "I can haz intarnets" garbage one expects from turdpress; from the pointlessly overstuffed keywords meta that has ZERO relevance to the page, to the stupid opengraph nonsense redundant to existing tags, to static scripting and static style inlined in the markup (so much for caching), endless pointless DIV and classes for NOTHING, clearing DIV like it's still 2001, gibberish use of numbered headings, and so forth...

Worst of all, not only is it a bloated mess, NONE of it is being served compressed; so that bloated CSS, bloated scripting and bloated markup is taking anywhere from five to eight times as much bandwidth as necessary. I don't know what you are hosted on, but you really should look into "mod_deflate", aka realtime gzip compression to at least TRY and make that painfully oversized load a little more manageable.

Though like I would tell you on a web development forum, my real advice would be to pitch that whole mess in the trash and to start over with progressive enhancement, semantic markup,

I mean seriously, if you don't know what's wrong with this:

Code:
<body  class="logo-type-custom demostyle-type-preset2 mainbody-overlay-light font-family-plethora font-size-is-default menu-type-dropdownmenu layout-mode-responsive col12 option-com-k2 menu-home ">
	<div id="rt-page-surround">
				<header id="rt-header-surround">
			<div class="rt-container">
								<div id="rt-top">
					<div class="rt-flex-container">
						<div class="rt-grid-6 rt-alpha">
     			            <div class="rt-block  fp-breadcrumbs">
           	<div class="module-surround">
	           		                	<div class="module-content">
	                		
<ul class="breadcrumb fp-breadcrumbs">
	<li class="active"><span class="divider icon-location"></span></li><li class="active"><span>Home</span></li></ul>
	                	</div>
                	</div>
           </div>
	
</div>
<div class="rt-grid-4">
     			            <div class="rt-block  rt-horizmenu fp-topmenu">
           	<div class="module-surround">
	           		                	<div class="module-content">
	                		<ul class="nav menu">
<li class="item-292"><a href="/index.php/about-us-2" >About Us</a></li><li class="item-293"><a href="/index.php/trading-loans" >Trading & Loans</a></li></ul>
	                	</div>
                	</div>
           </div>
	
</div>
<div class="rt-grid-2 rt-omega">
    		<div class="rt-social-buttons rt-block">
			
			
			
			
			
			
			<div class="clear"></div>
		</div>
		
</div>
						<div class="clear"></div>
					</div>
				</div>
												<div id="rt-header">
					<div class="rt-flex-container">
						<div class="rt-grid-4 rt-alpha">
            <div class="rt-logo-block">
            <a href="/" id="rt-logo"></a>
        </div>
        
</div>

Do the world a favor, back the **** away from the keyboard, and don't come back until you do. Here's a hint:

Code:
<body>

<div id="top" class="widthWrapper">

	<ul id="topMenu">
		<li class="home">Home</li>
		<li class="about">
			<a href="/index.php/about-us-2">
				About Us
			</a>
		</li>
		<li class="trading">
			<a href="/index.php/trading-loans">
				Trading & Loans
			</a>
		</li>
	</ul>
	
	<h1>
		Micro Museum
		<span><!-- image sandbag --></span>
	</h1>

That's what probably SHOULD be there... though try convincing the halfwits who write skins for turdpress of that.

It's also completely broken here in both REAL Opera (as opposed to the pathetic crippleware that is ChrOpera) and IE11 -- mostly the stupid "gee ain't it neat" scripted tab nonsense seems to be conflicting with bootcraps pathetic attempts at being responsive.

Sadly, the technologies you've used to build a site exist just for the purpose of deluding people into thinking they can have a website. Reality doesn't work that way. Sorry if all this seems harsh, but the truth often is.

For fixing it, a quick fix for now would be to get server compression working and to stop using massive bloated images for what are being shown at thumbnail sizes. The REAL fix would be to start over from scratch with a "just say no" attitude towards the sleazy shortcuts and pointless code bloat like Wordpress, bootstrap and jQuery.
 
I've completely changed the DNS arrangement on the website today. Has it helped at all? Or even made it worse? This is hard for me to help with because I cannot reproduce the problem :(

No noticeable difference on my end, I usually hit the stop button and move on when i hit a site that's slow in loading but thought i'd mention it in case other people are doing the same. What i know about building website's ain't worth knowing, I tried it once when Geocities was around but that was a very long time ago and it bored me to tears.
 
No that would be a silly thing to do, You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into the site and i think Deathshadow could have been less harsh, I've played with wordpress and i don't like it one bit but saying that i've seen some superb sites that seem to be using it, Maybe try and slim it down a bit before adding more to the site ?, Wasn't the original site done in HTML ?.
 
The site was created using Joomla and a template from Rocket Themes. I am more than capable of writing HTML and CSS myself - I can write PHP, C, Basic etc just fine too. In this case I don't have as much time as I would like for my old computers and hence to document what I've been doing I went for the quickest, easiest solution available meaning what little time I had available could be used to create content.

I appreciate your support Malc but at the moment I cannot help but feel that Deathshadow has given me the perfect excuse not to bother.

Too many people think a site with pretty HTML and CSS is the be all and end all and forget that the sole reason for a website is its content not its design.
 
Although Deathshadow sounded quite harsh his meaning was the opposite of what you're currently saying on the website - Deatshadow really said that the content is important, the stuff around is not. Not the other way around. Thus, the Wordpress stuff (and yes that can be real bloat) got totally in the way of the actual content, and that is why the site became problematic to load. Please please don't shut off the site - I have visited it several times in the past and would like to do so again in the future.

-Tor
 
Tor got what I was saying -- and sorry if you found that a bit harsh, but I tend to give people the Gordon Ramsey / Charlie Fratelli / Simon Cowell treatment when it comes to websites. I figured it was better somebody said something instead of sugar coating it and letting you continue down the road to failure. Slapping the rose coloured glasses on your head and telling you everything is fine is NOT help; no matter how many tofu eating flip-flop wearing namby-pamby Starbucks clientèle tell you otherwise.

It's what I do.

Your CONTENT is what's important; your method of delivering that content is flawed and is what's making it slow. Your homepage has 1.3 megabytes of images in 16 files doing 130k in 8 files' job, 660k of scripting in 25 files for Christmas only knows what, and 493k in 13 files of CSS which just means something is disastrously and terrifyingly wrong. At the VERY least I would ditch that template for something leaner. 56k of markup doing 10k's job -- it's endemic across the entire site and that means overall I'm seeing 2.5 megs in 55 files doing the job of a tenth that in size and a quarter that in file counts. OF COURSE IT'S SLOW.

That's not about "pretty HTML and CSS" that's code bloat that's making it harder for users to get at what's important -- your CONTENT. That's just the truth of it -- if you can't be bothered to do things right it shouldn't be a surprise when people can't be bothered to wait for it to finish loading or start complaining about it's speed.

Though honestly just getting your server configured properly to send the scripttardery and endless pointless CSS for nothing gzipped would help a LOT... since that 56k of markup would likely be around 11k, the 660k of scripting likely dropping to ~100k, and the style hopefully seeing a reduction to 50k or less. It's more of a stopgap fix than an actual fix though.

Same goes for image optimization -- You've got 1330k of images doing the job of maybe 100k; it's not rocket science to resize an image down to the size you are actually using it at before uploading it to the server.

That the layout is broken here in two major browsers because of that scripted tabs nonsense on the home page is the real issue though. That would stop me in my tracks from bothering with your site.

Again, sorry if that seems harsh, but the truth often is.

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/katelynannyce/default/large-msg-13740855084.jpg

Funny that it's Joomla and not turdpress -- it has all the telltales of the latter but that could just be that off the shelf template screwing with things. A lot of the template pushing scam artists like those found in the whorehouses like TemplateMonster or ThemeForest shoe-horn their code into multiple CMS resulting in the lines blurring when all you can see is the code.

Off the shelf templates are most always rubbish, there's a reason it's called nube predation.

That's no reason for you to throw your hands up in the air and go "Wah, I don't want a site anymore". Take it one step at a time when you have the time to fix things -- again just optimizing your images and tackling the server issue shouldn't take more than 20 minutes and would pay off massive dividends. Swapping to a better less scripting-heavy template that doesn't waste hundreds of K of CSS on doing tens of K's job and didn't have endless pointless "JS for nothing" would be another step in the right direction. You don't have to tackle it all at once. Baby steps when time is an issue; even that first step (gzip and images) could mean a 50% or more (possibly as much as 80%!) reduction in bandwidth. Shame it wouldn't help with the ridiculous number of separate files and the handshaking overhead that introduces.

"JS for nothing and your scripts for free. That ain't workin... That's not how you do it, lemme tell ya these guys ARE dumb."

Who knows, you might even be able to get people to help you with that if you ask. I often help people for free with sites that have issues if I care about their content, hence this entire directory on my hosting filled with things I've helped people with ranging from small coding issues to entire site template rewrites.

NOT that I'd be all that enthusiastic about working with an off the shelf CMS like Joomla given what garbage their codebase is. Easy for you doesn't mean easy on your visitors; quite the opposite in fact.
 
Last edited:
The site was created using Joomla and a template from Rocket Themes. I am more than capable of writing HTML and CSS myself - I can write PHP, C, Basic etc just fine too. In this case I don't have as much time as I would like for my old computers and hence to document what I've been doing I went for the quickest, easiest solution available meaning what little time I had available could be used to create content.

I appreciate your support Malc but at the moment I cannot help but feel that Deathshadow has given me the perfect excuse not to bother.

Too many people think a site with pretty HTML and CSS is the be all and end all and forget that the sole reason for a website is its content not its design.

Would love to see the site. I was able to read a couple of the very interesting articles you had posted to your website via archive.org, but it's not quite the same! Please do consider bringing it back online.
 
Back
Top