Check your website for flaws

(07-06-2018, 05:58 AM)ProfessorChill Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(07-06-2018, 05:41 AM)mothered Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

The site's accuracy with It's analysis, remains questionable.

I've just tested Microsoft and It appears (according to the scan), they have some work to do.

Hidden Content

You must

[To see links please register here]

or

[To see links please register here]

to view this content.

Alright, I ran it as well.

This is for IE7 support (or IE6, can't remember) so it's backwards compatability, however microsoft does not use this because they create based on their newest browser.
This error pops up ALOT
'content-type' header should have media type 'text/javascript' (not 'application/javascript')

This is suggestive, however it's not wrong. Zopfli is better than Gzip. The issue is that it's slower (22 counts of this)
Should be served compressed with Zopfli when gzip compression is requested.

It's not needed, pretty much every website does it though.
Only specific files need that.
'x-xss-protection' header is not needed (this is on a <img> tag)

They probably use a different type of caching, common error even with people who have made websites FOREVER.
That's more of a general guide.
Static resources should have a long cache value (31536000) and use the immutable directive: public, max-age=17516844

It's Microsoft, they probably don't support Apple that well :/
No 'apple-touch-icon' was specified

The list goes on and on, it's general guidelines you should follow, it's like saying you should DOCstring everything, well.... Yes... If you're explaining your code to a retard (that thinks formatting improves performance).

Judging by all the above, the site should certainly be used as a general guidance, rather than a conclusive platform for analysis.

I've always been a firm believer In "Some Information, no matter how Irrelevant It may seem at the time, Is better than none". My security site Is In an offline state at the moment (90% complete after 4+ months of work). I may put It online for a few minutes, test, and see the results.

(07-06-2018, 06:36 AM)ProfessorChill Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(07-06-2018, 06:22 AM)mothered Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(07-06-2018, 05:58 AM)ProfessorChill Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Alright, I ran it as well.

This is for IE7 support (or IE6, can't remember) so it's backwards compatability, however microsoft does not use this because they create based on their newest browser.
This error pops up ALOT
'content-type' header should have media type 'text/javascript' (not 'application/javascript')

This is suggestive, however it's not wrong. Zopfli is better than Gzip. The issue is that it's slower (22 counts of this)
Should be served compressed with Zopfli when gzip compression is requested.

It's not needed, pretty much every website does it though.
Only specific files need that.
'x-xss-protection' header is not needed (this is on a <img> tag)

They probably use a different type of caching, common error even with people who have made websites FOREVER.
That's more of a general guide.
Static resources should have a long cache value (31536000) and use the immutable directive: public, max-age=17516844

It's Microsoft, they probably don't support Apple that well :/
No 'apple-touch-icon' was specified

The list goes on and on, it's general guidelines you should follow, it's like saying you should DOCstring everything, well.... Yes... If you're explaining your code to a retard (that thinks formatting improves performance).

Judging by all the above, the site should certainly be used as a general guidance, rather than a conclusive platform for analysis.

I've always been a firm believer In "Some Information, no matter how Irrelevant It may seem at the time, Is better than none". My security site Is In an offline state at the moment (90% complete after 4+ months of work). I may put It online for a few minutes, test, and see the results.

With the NPM version you can test offline websites.

I had no Idea, very good to know.

As per usual, I'll be working on my site shortly for quite a few hours and see how It performs via the test. I appreciate your feedback and all Information provided.
Good work.

Before this, (especially for pagespeed) I just used Google's pagespeed, but it seems like this is way more advanced. This will definitly come in handy in the future. Thank you for sharing this site.