Outside library v local library - Outside analytics v internal

Just a general question.  Google hosts several libraries such as jquery etc (http://code.google.com/apis/libraries/devguide.html)  and the google fonts library. I have read that a benefit of this approach is that the library may be cached in the browser from a previous site. Webvanta also hosts some libraries or I can upload them on my site, I assume Webvanta has a form of internal caching since the site loads pretty fast so I figure that using a Webvanta or else a local library would give me the best performance. 

Has anyone tested this or have any thoughts?

Same with Analytics. I removed google after Webvanta started theirs. Is there a reason  to have both - Does Google give me an SEO cookie for using theirs? Do they provide different information?

 

Tom

Have more questions? Submit a request

1 Comments

  • 0
    Avatar
    Michael Slater

    The Google-hosted library files have been somewhat controversial. If the library is cached from another site, then that user gets it "for free", but the stats I've seen suggest that it is a single-digit percentage of users who see the benefit. And every user pays the price of an additional DNS lookup, which adds a small delay. So I believe the conventional wisdom is trending away from using the Google-hosted libraries.

    We provide the shared files on the Webvanta server to avoid every site needing to have its own copies, if they choose not to use the Google-hosted versions.

    In the case of analytics, there are functional differences. Our built-in analytics is easy to use, and it is real-time, whereas Google's has a several-hour delay. But Google Analytics has a much richer feature set for doing more complex analytics. Many of our customers use both.

    Both services use a JavaScript snippet, and both leave a cookie on the visitor's computer. They don't conflict with each other.

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk