On 7 September 2013 10:49, Jeremy Baron <jer...@tuxmachine.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It
> > takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a
> fast
> > connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
>
> I don't know what that means. ("Original page"? does that mean it loads
> faster with a redirect than by hitting the canonical URL directly?)
>
> Please provide enough details (steps, recipe, instructions, whatever you
> want to call it) so that someone else could repeat your experiment to
> verify your results.
>
> Ideally we'd do that for both logged in and logged out users (and various
> combinations of prefs) but in the case of redirects for Shirley Temple
> Black and Chelsea Manning I think we mostly care about logged out users
> visiting the /wiki/${title} style URLs (so not people visiting &uselang= or
> &useskin= URLs) so let's focus on those. Which case were you testing?
>
>
Jeremy, this is not the "performance testing" list. The paragraph you've
written above is pretty well the definition of why women don't stick around
wikipedia - they say something that to anyone else is obvious, but not to
those who just cannot resist writing code into their responses. You know
why they call it code? Because *most* people don't understand it.
The fact that you're entirely missing the point of this discussion by
digressing into a proposal to test the speed of redirects vs canonical
pages should generally be a hint that you're moving into your own comfort
zone and leaving the rest of us behind.
Risker
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
