That is exactly my question as well. If we hide things, you may forget to re-enable them at a later date. Those recommendations are there to help you make things better.

Take a look around the web... most all sites have way, way more than 20 requests per page. It should be a balance between time to load and total requests. Currently my site averages 24 requests per page, if anything my site will grow. I see the need for this info, but I feel that 20 requests per page is very 2005 and not very current with websites of today, and not at all e-commerce friendly. If anything maybe it should be moved out of the urgent section.

If you can find some data, articles or other information to backup that, we are most certainly able to make those adjustments. Most of all recommendations are subjective in nature, so any recommendation is more less based on acceptable standards and what we also feel is appropriate.

Keep in mind also that many requests stem from multiple small images that are not in sprites. Using sprites will lower your requests and is suggested quite often for lowering the amount of requests a page takes to load. Anyone not familiar with sprites, what they are is a single image that has multiple images within it such as one image for all of the Social Networking sites and then uses CSS to position the image in the correct spot to fill in each of the boxes that stand for your Social Networking buttons. This makes 1 image be called up for multiple places on the page, but equals only 1 request and therefore speeds up loading time as well as keeping the requests within a standard amount.

Granted, I agree that 20 requests can many times be way too low of an amount to expect, but if you already realize that then it doesn't matter if it shows up in the recommendations for you or not, just ignore it for the most part. I say that because I also agree with Scott that hiding that type of information could result in ignorance of the web designer to know that there might be something wrong that they are not aware of such as a larger number of requests than they "think" there might actually be.

Requests are a very important part of your website as that plays an extremely large part in page loading speed and may help tip you off to some of those requests being extremely large such as an oversized image that needs to be resized etc. Just knowing the overage of requests are there can help narrow down many things about your site.

Just Sayin'... I guess I disagree that something should be marked for hidden on this. I personally would rather see the team put that work into more features than in hiding them

Could analyze things like "Title" and "Description" (number of current and how many characters are recommended, perhaps with a character counter tool to help until well). It could also include a tool SERP?

Love the app! Just a couple of things I'd like to see done.

In the Insight Breakdown panel:
Check external links to see if they are 'broken' (404 vrs 200, etc) and if so, list them in the Broken Links tab.

In general:
Would like to see more tool-tip explanations/definitions throughout the app, as was done on the Insight Page.

In the left hand column, would like to see a "Local Page Analysis" mode, where components, insight and keyword analysis are done on a single page (http://localhost/....) before it's uploaded to a live site.

I'll chime in with everyone else here, spider an entire site instead of just one page.

Keep up the good work CoffeeCup!

This is already in place if you have the latest version of the program. It is already doing external link checking for 400, 401, 403 and 404. I just tested this myself with a site I know has external link issues and it picks them all up as broken links in the program.


This was actually done by design to keep tooltips from being constantly displayed and getting in the way of the information. Right now the tooltips show basically any information that is needed in the program. There's a great Quick Start Guide for more information though if you hit F1 or check the Help menu to get there.


This is something that I don't believe will be added at all as local page analysis doesn't give you enough information. Do a search on the forums here in the Website Insight section for more information on this to explain why, but it's not something planned at all since it's pulling most of the information from the net and that was it's intent.


Agreed! We're all waiting on that feature

First I'd like to revise my "wishlist" just a bit. I wrote that I'd like to see the app spider an entire site instead of just one page. What I meant was I'd like to see the app spider an entire site as well as just one page. (Still haven't figured out how to edit a post after it's been posted )


Ahhh - ok... I'm running 1.0 Build 206. Seems as if it's not catching all of the broken external links though. Perhaps the 4xx check list should be expanded.

I've put together a quick test site:
http://webtechworks.com/~arena/WebsiteI … index.html

On the index page, there are 10 external links and 11 internal links. 5 of the external links are intentionally 'broken' and 5 of the internal links are intentionally 'broken'. I ran WSIS on the test site and then went to Insight->Broken Links. WSIS only reports 3 of the 5 intentionally broken external links. Perfect score with the broken internal links though .


Admittedly, I'm relatively new at this SEO thing. I find myself struggling with the words used in the application and their definitions in the quick start. For instance. On the test site I intentionally left the 'keywords' meta tag empty. Yet, WSIS (Page->Keywords) reports a list of 'keywords', and that they were not located in the keywords meta tag. On Page->Insight->Words, there is a list of "Words Found" and it appears to be different than the 'keywords'.

Regarding Local Page Analysis:

I would have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that a local page analysis "doesn't give you enough information". From my (limited) research on the subject, a big chunk of SEO work can be accomplished with just a local keyword density analysis. Of course, all bets are off if CC is using an online service for their keyword analysis.

Comparing your Website Insight to W3C, we are correct. Website Insight reports 8 broken links (using Build 206) and the W3C report 10. The difference are these 2 links:

This gives a 405 status code, not a 404:
http://www.amazon.com/

This gives a 301 status code:
http://www.drupal.org/

In version 1.1, we are renaming the Broken Link Tab to Link Issues and if any link does not return a 200 status code, we will list the link and the status code returned. This would then list all 300, 400 and 500 error codes.

Perfect! With this upgrade in place, WSIS would then bring attention to all 10 "broken" links on the test page.

Regarding adding a "Local Page Analysis" mode ... from an earlier post:

That would be perfect, again! Those are precisely the 3 tabs needed for those of us who develop sites locally and would like to do some analysis/SEO-tuning prior to uploading to a live site. Local keyword analysis (and perhaps link checking) would be very helpful.