1.9 sec in total
162 ms
1.4 sec
293 ms
Visit wrinklereview.com now to see the best up-to-date Wrinklereview content for United States and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about wrinklereview.com
With so many skin care products available in the market, choosing the best anti-aging skin care products for your skin type can be hard. Visit us for reviews.
Visit wrinklereview.comWe analyzed Wrinklereview.com page load time and found that the first response time was 162 ms and then it took 1.7 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 35% of websites can load faster.
wrinklereview.com performance score
name
value
score
weighting
Value1.4 s
97/100
10%
Value3.9 s
54/100
25%
Value2.8 s
96/100
10%
Value440 ms
63/100
30%
Value0.018
100/100
15%
Value7.9 s
43/100
10%
162 ms
222 ms
76 ms
5 ms
95 ms
Our browser made a total of 62 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 24% of them (15 requests) were addressed to the original Wrinklereview.com, 16% (10 requests) were made to Ecx.images-amazon.com and 13% (8 requests) were made to Apis.google.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (305 ms) relates to the external source Static.xx.fbcdn.net.
Page size can be reduced by 155.2 kB (44%)
350.1 kB
194.9 kB
In fact, the total size of Wrinklereview.com main page is 350.1 kB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 45% of websites need less resources to load. HTML takes 148.7 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.
Potential reduce by 114.7 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 114.7 kB or 77% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 17.7 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. Obviously, Wrinklereview needs image optimization as it can save up to 17.7 kB or 13% of the original volume. The most popular and efficient tools for JPEG and PNG image optimization are Jpegoptim and PNG Crush.
Potential reduce by 13.4 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 13.4 kB or 28% of the original size.
Potential reduce by 9.4 kB
CSS files minification is very important to reduce a web page rendering time. The faster CSS files can load, the earlier a page can be rendered. Wrinklereview.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 9.4 kB or 79% of the original size.
Number of requests can be reduced by 26 (44%)
59
33
The browser has sent 59 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Wrinklereview. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 19 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.
wrinklereview.com
162 ms
www.wrinklereview.com
222 ms
wnk.css
76 ms
widgets.js
5 ms
plusone.js
95 ms
onejs
26 ms
Logo_25wht.gif
44 ms
comparisons.gif
115 ms
vanitywmn.jpg
162 ms
icon-rss.png
162 ms
headersm.gif
161 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_0
31 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_1
46 ms
fastbutton
109 ms
all.js
165 ms
getad
125 ms
ga.js
38 ms
bullet.gif
122 ms
revlink_bg.gif
180 ms
revlink_girl.jpg
180 ms
click_here.gif
193 ms
header_bg_l.jpg
192 ms
header_bg_r.jpg
192 ms
header3_girl.png
295 ms
link_comparisons.gif
243 ms
json
21 ms
postmessageRelay
69 ms
button.0308b81ff1714e446f674b5b9793f2cd.js
28 ms
__utm.gif
35 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_0
15 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_1
14 ms
W5F8_SL0XFawnjxHGsZjJA.ttf
91 ms
3193398744-postmessagerelay.js
80 ms
rpc:shindig_random.js
77 ms
tweet_button.b9740740e0bcf9b0657c5b11bd4388da.en.html
32 ms
amzn-widgets-sprite-2x.png
60 ms
resolve
114 ms
amznassocview.js
55 ms
157 ms
cb=gapi.loaded_0
10 ms
xd_arbiter.php
152 ms
xd_arbiter.php
258 ms
%7B%22adViewability%22:[%7B%22above_the_fold%22:%20false,%20%22topPos%22:%200.0019047619047619048,%20%22leftPos%22:%200.0011904761904761906%7D]%7D&cb=5165680
16 ms
511rMsfj7lL._AC_SL115_.jpg
52 ms
json
11 ms
ir
18 ms
18 ms
51EvHie0s1L._AC_SL115_.jpg
20 ms
51i-5He5QgL._AC_SL115_.jpg
17 ms
51ikV7xoUSL._AC_SL115_.jpg
19 ms
51hGt6RmyDL._AC_SL115_.jpg
20 ms
418eRYO5qcL._AC_SL115_.jpg
18 ms
41MAOixgRuL._AC_SL115_.jpg
144 ms
51%2BeEITJ1BL._AC_SL115_.jpg
20 ms
51M9H3c-eeL._AC_SL115_.jpg
22 ms
51PWWCJr-cL._AC_SL115_.jpg
20 ms
jot
87 ms
nr-768.min.js
18 ms
db7b94293c
53 ms
like.php
89 ms
qeKvIRsJabD.js
271 ms
LVx-xkvaJ0b.png
305 ms
wrinklereview.com accessibility score
Names and labels
These are opportunities to improve the semantics of the controls in your application. This may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.
Impact
Issue
<frame> or <iframe> elements do not have a title
Form elements do not have associated labels
Best practices
These items highlight common accessibility best practices.
Impact
Issue
[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.
wrinklereview.com best practices score
Trust and Safety
Impact
Issue
Does not use HTTPS
Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities
Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks
User Experience
Impact
Issue
Serves images with low resolution
General
Impact
Issue
Detected JavaScript libraries
Browser errors were logged to the console
Issues were logged in the Issues panel in Chrome Devtools
wrinklereview.com SEO score
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
ISO-8859-1
Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Wrinklereview.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 Wrinklereview.com main page’s claimed encoding is iso-8859-1. Changing it to UTF-8 can be a good choice, as this format is commonly used for encoding all over the web and thus their visitors won’t have any troubles with symbol transcription or reading.
wrinklereview.com
Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Wrinklereview. 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: