6.6 sec in total
1.9 sec
4.2 sec
577 ms
Welcome to datingrequest.com homepage info - get ready to check Datingrequest best content right away, or after learning these important things about datingrequest.com
Visit datingrequest.comWe analyzed Datingrequest.com page load time and found that the first response time was 1.9 sec and then it took 4.8 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is a poor result, as 70% of websites can load faster.
datingrequest.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value2.6 s
65/100
10%
Value4.8 s
30/100
25%
Value4.6 s
70/100
10%
Value2,380 ms
5/100
30%
Value0.008
100/100
15%
Value10.1 s
26/100
10%
1858 ms
25 ms
107 ms
135 ms
179 ms
Our browser made a total of 131 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 40% of them (53 requests) were addressed to the original Datingrequest.com, 8% (11 requests) were made to Apis.google.com and 5% (7 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (1.9 sec) belongs to the original domain Datingrequest.com.
Page size can be reduced by 706.3 kB (70%)
1.0 MB
306.1 kB
In fact, the total size of Datingrequest.com main page is 1.0 MB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 75% of websites need less resources to load and that’s why Accessify’s recommendations for optimization and resource minification can be helpful for this project. Javascripts take 619.7 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 225.6 kB
HTML content can be minified and compressed by a website’s server. The most efficient way is to compress content using GZIP which reduces data amount travelling through the network between server and browser. HTML code on this page is well minified. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 225.6 kB or 89% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 8.8 kB
Image size optimization can help to speed up a website loading time. The chart above shows the difference between the size before and after optimization. Datingrequest images are well optimized though.
Potential reduce by 472.0 kB
It’s better to minify JavaScript in order to improve website performance. The diagram shows the current total size of all JavaScript files against the prospective JavaScript size after its minification and compression. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 472.0 kB or 76% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 65 (58%)
113
48
The browser has sent 113 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Datingrequest. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 32 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 10 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.
datingrequest.com
1858 ms
shareaholic.js
25 ms
wp-emoji-release.min.js
107 ms
styles.css
135 ms
public.css
179 ms
tipsy.css
132 ms
wp-shortcode.css
121 ms
style.css
234 ms
css
41 ms
css
58 ms
responsive.css
182 ms
jquery.js
372 ms
jquery-migrate.min.js
198 ms
public.js
197 ms
jquery.tipsy.js
238 ms
wp-shortcode.js
240 ms
platform.js
90 ms
wp-tab-widget.css
269 ms
jquery.form.min.js
296 ms
scripts.js
288 ms
customscript.js
298 ms
wp-embed.min.js
309 ms
wp-tab-widget.js
327 ms
798176250ff449da33c9ea9dd4aab659.json
63 ms
analytics.js
57 ms
webcamwiz_big_tits_300_250.gif
291 ms
184236-300x250.jpg
281 ms
Untitled-11-300x179.jpg
281 ms
dating.png
101 ms
serious-relatio-300x315.jpg
280 ms
811-300x200.jpg
281 ms
good-mama-2-140x100.jpg
278 ms
uganda-140x100.jpg
105 ms
wp-1457805725760-220x162.jpeg
278 ms
wp-1457805445479-220x162.jpeg
277 ms
wp-1457805048475-220x162.jpeg
285 ms
wp-1457768825088-220x162.jpeg
517 ms
wp-1457656199523-212x162.jpeg
515 ms
wp-1457636185731.png
284 ms
wp-1457636082011-220x162.png
517 ms
wp-1457486371389.png
281 ms
wp-1457486213026-220x162.jpeg
517 ms
wp-1457486090081-220x162.jpeg
520 ms
sprite.png
517 ms
social-mail.png
518 ms
social-facebook.png
522 ms
social-googleplus.png
519 ms
social-rss.png
518 ms
social-twitter.png
519 ms
serious-relatio-140x130.jpg
520 ms
811-140x130.jpg
526 ms
good-mama-2-140x130.jpg
528 ms
uganda-140x130.jpg
527 ms
FB_IMG_1435153433630-140x130.jpg
526 ms
11009153_1572796702973420_4175909559827654310_n-140x130.jpg
528 ms
shrMain.min.js
70 ms
s-BiyweUPV0v-yRb-cjciC3USBnSvpkopQaUR-2r7iU.ttf
65 ms
EFpQQyG9GqCrobXxL-KRMfEr6Hm6RMS0v1dtXsGir4g.ttf
67 ms
collect
90 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_0
105 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_1
187 ms
page
434 ms
collect
97 ms
k3k702ZOKiLJc3WVjuplzInF5uFdDttMLvmWuJdhhgs.ttf
105 ms
cJZKeOuBrn4kERxqtaUH3aCWcynf_cDxXwCLxiixG1c.ttf
105 ms
jquery.min.js
81 ms
all.js
508 ms
admin-ajax.php
1239 ms
rs=AGLTcCN535c_Pm7E98TMX1EdOFE9-2anyw
202 ms
rs=AGLTcCP9IczaT7Rf-UGgqDPBu0TrwouL5A
218 ms
rs=AGLTcCOFj8J56TAcea0tDz388X0QgBENFw
251 ms
postmessageRelay
407 ms
photo.jpg
355 ms
wow.jpg
377 ms
rs=AGLTcCOFj8J56TAcea0tDz388X0QgBENFw
120 ms
pageview.gif
162 ms
rs=AGLTcCOFj8J56TAcea0tDz388X0QgBENFw
78 ms
1077434459-postmessagerelay.js
147 ms
rpc:shindig_random.js
112 ms
W5F8_SL0XFawnjxHGsZjJA.ttf
175 ms
dtpHsbgPEm2lVWciJZ0P-A.ttf
197 ms
bdHGHleUa-ndQCOrdpfxfw.ttf
232 ms
partners.js
114 ms
165 ms
xd_arbiter.php
289 ms
xd_arbiter.php
545 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_0
7 ms
sholic.js
163 ms
usermatch
75 ms
beacon.js
42 ms
cms-sh2c.html
79 ms
usermatch
17 ms
ping_match.gif
26 ms
GenericUserSync.ashx
136 ms
i.gif
176 ms
blank.html
135 ms
2964
106 ms
eexelate.js
67 ms
96 ms
casale
47 ms
cfcm.ashx
13 ms
rum
67 ms
crum
70 ms
rum
72 ms
pixelssl.htm
116 ms
ep
81 ms
pixel
26 ms
crum
46 ms
ep
121 ms
rs
14 ms
rum
22 ms
match-result
51 ms
187 ms
ddcssl.htm
237 ms
pixel
15 ms
cm
128 ms
net.php
11 ms
pixel
13 ms
generic
6 ms
xrefid.xgi
15 ms
pixel.gif
49 ms
crum
26 ms
crum
19 ms
811-65x65.jpg
61 ms
get1-65x65.jpg
65 ms
sugar-mom-65x65.jpg
63 ms
sugar-mummy-online-65x65.jpg
61 ms
deb-65x65.jpg
70 ms
ermcm
119 ms
xrefid.xgi
8 ms
pixel.gif
9 ms
datingrequest.com accessibility score
Navigation
These are opportunities to improve keyboard navigation in your application.
Impact
Issue
Heading elements are not in a sequentially-descending order
datingrequest.com best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
Missing source maps for large first-party JavaScript
datingrequest.com SEO score
Crawling and Indexing
To appear in search results, crawlers need access to your app.
Impact
Issue
Page is blocked from indexing
Mobile Friendly
Make sure your pages are mobile friendly so users don’t have to pinch or zoom in order to read the content pages. [Learn more](https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/).
Impact
Issue
Document uses legible font sizes
EN
EN
UTF-8
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Datingrequest.com can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that English is used on the page, and it matches the claimed language. Our system also found out that Datingrequest.com main page’s claimed encoding is utf-8. Use of this encoding format is the best practice as the main page visitors from all over the world won’t have any issues with symbol transcription.
datingrequest.com
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Datingrequest. Lack of Open Graph description can be counter-productive for their social media presence, as such a description allows converting a website homepage (or other pages) into good-looking, rich and well-structured posts, when it is being shared on Facebook and other social media. For example, adding the following code snippet into HTML <head> tag will help to represent this web page correctly in social networks: