Hello All,

I recently received a report entitled 'Website testing and ranking of
Major Amateur Sports Bodies and Olympic related websites' from a company
called Business2ww/SiteMorse.
I had never heard of them previously, but I now understand that they do
publish various website league tables from time to time.

Anyway, our site came 24th in the tables, so obviously I wanted to find
out how we could improve this - as the published report did not have any
detailed technical information I went to the SiteMorse website and saw
that I could submit a site for a 'quick test', which I did.

Now, the report came back with the various issues, which included items
such as accessibility, HTML validation, transfer speed and response
time. Well I'm not arguing with the accessibility and validation issues
as the specs for these are published in the relevant standards
documentation, so I can see how our pages comply (or not!).
What I do think is incorrect however is the reported data transfer rate
and response times.

Heres an extract from the Sitemorse quick test:

Ten slowest URLs by speed
URL                                     Transfer speed (bytes/sec)
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/milano.jpg    2,727
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/gymnova.jpg    2,832
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/gymaid.jpg    3,164
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/awards1.jpg    4,088
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/venturelli.jpg    6,816
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/rover.jpg    10,366
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/sub_whatpapersay.gif    10,407
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/spring1.jpg    11,827
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/lottery1.jpg    16,928
http://www.british-gymnastics.org/uksport.jpg    18,067

Now, those speeds seem extremely slow considering the website is hosted
on a dedicated server with very little load, in an ISP hosting facility,
and I was a little concerned that there may be a problem.
So I did some of my own tests using wget on those files, as well as some
large files (7MB), and it shows very fast speeds of around 200 Kilobytes
per second. I also got a colleague to test it on his University
connection elsewhere and showed even faster speeds. So I can't see a
problem with our server or bandwidth. I did repeat the Sitemorse test to
ensure it wasn't just an anomaly. (You can repeat tests after clearing
your cookies!)

So, obviously I contacted Sitemorse to try and clarify why this may be
the case. Maybe it's due to their method of testing?
They replied and gave me some marketing blurb about testing overall
website performance and not individual files, and blamed the poor speed
of the site on poor HTML.

So I responded and pointed out that they do quote speeds for individual
files, and the content of the HTML documents on the site have no
relevance to the transfer rate of an HTTP GET request on a specific
file. I suggested that maybe they could give me some information as to
how they test the speed, e.g. does the system add any calculations for
'simulated' transfer speed, does it fetch the same object multiple times
simultaneously, or consecutively then average, what hardware does the
system run on, does it use standard transfer rate measurement tools or
custom code, what type and speed is the Internet connection serving the
testing hardware etc. etc.

Anyway, several emails went back and forth where I explained the tests I
had carried out, but with no useful information coming back from
Sitemorse except for marketing blurb, and to cut a long story short,I
eventually received this response:

----
The speed is only a small part of the overall score, if you are trying
to find a way to discredit our work I would suggest your time is far
better spent sorting out the very poor HTML on your site.
----

Not a very professional reply. I was simply trying to establish how they
arrive at the speed results!
Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to submit for a quick-test the
site that came top in their tables for transfer rate (note, I am NOT
critisicing any other site, just using this as a benchmark):
The test came back with 3 FAILs under transfer rate, and the following
detail against one of the files:

Sitemorse test: http://www.ihf.info/gfx/four_dots.gif    55bytes/sec
My test :  wget http://www.ihf.info/gfx/four_dots.gif (361.33 KB/s)

I repeated the tests, just to make sure. Results were very similar.
I sent this result to SiteMorse again asking to clarify this, and again
asking 'how do you measure the transfer rate?'

The response was:
----
How about, the speed that data is transmitted at.
----

OK so I gave up trying to get any sense out of them at this point. It
seems that they are unable to give any kind of reference to how their
speeds are calculated, and as they obviously are wildly different from
real-world tests it would appear that the results are meaningless, and
just plain wrong!

Is there another explanation that I may not have thought of?

Thanks,
Ben.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:26:30 GMT, Ben Willcox

We discussed it before...
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=40ca12be.83873193%40news.indi...

Well I get a few MB per sec from here at the Uni of Twente, so I don't
think you have any problems with your hosting.  

SiteMorse are just being highly misleading with this.

Do fix the other bits though yeah?

Jim.

Ben

As Jim has already pointed out, SiteMorse have no proper measuring
method in place, and as you've found out, they just get aggressive
when asked detail quesions.

In fact, it turns out that the directors of SiteMorse aka
Business2www.com (lawrence shaw and jon ribbens) have been previously
indicted for fraud, by the SEC in the USA, see:
    http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=sitemorse&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm...

And more strangely, although their web site claims Trade marks on
various of their brand names, (sitemorse, keymorse etc) none are
listed at the UK patent office, check for yourself at:
   http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/text

So methinks better to steer clear.

realised that I hadn't actually given you much useful input last time:

How to explain just how their results can be so wide of the mark?,
maybe some of the factors are likely to be:
+ they grab 5 pages at the same time - so it's like a mini stress test
+ they make no allowance for time of day - ie whether the site is
already busy due to it's normal peak usage, or if it's tested at 3am
+ there's no statistical analysis - just the time presented raw.

Still doesn't explain the wide gap with reality for your site - I
guess there may be other issues, like maybe their test server is
sometimes busy or bandwidth limited when grabbing other sites at the
same time, or just a bad engine full stop.

Or maybe your site has a couple of pages, hidden away, that are
painfully slow CPU killers, and thus pages grabbed in parrellel will
be slow too for the duration.

If you want some more meaningful measurements suppliers - back in June
when I looked at the web site test space, I came across 3 UK companies
who are web test specialists:
   Axzona    axzona.co.uk
   Scivisum  scivisum.co.uk
   Siteconfidence   siteconfidence.co.uk

Haven't used any of them to know what they're like in practise; but
did find the Axzona and SciVisum portals more indepth and flexible.

To monitor your site, you'll probably want to think about covering
users' experience in things like your Forum area, or your Calendar -
for example the 'Full Year' button might be slower than other choices,
depending on your database schema; so you'll need to cover a few
clicks in each area, not just single URls.

Lastly, it's topcial fo maybe people here would be interested to hear
the specifics of what accessibility changes you need to make -perhaps
post up the test findings - your site has a spread of presentation and
functionality that probably overlaps to many sites.

Did I read in the paper at the weekend that lottery funding had pumped
$Bs into sport?  - it didn't all get spent on web developers salaries
then :<)

On 27 Aug 2004 03:11:47 -0700, sk.wal...@virgin.net (skw) wrote:

Yeah, we know that, but unless the source site deliberately shapes
these sort of invalid requests, I think it's unlikely.

I doubt even this would cause a problem, the problem I believe is that
they have a really dodgy router/service - I would potentially even
suggest that the service is being run of a highly contented ADSL
line...

Yep!!

:-)

Jim.

Thanks guys for the feedback. It certainly does appear to be a rather
suspect organisation especially looking at the history behind the two
company directors. A little worrying then that they told me this:

"We have been selected as the performance testing company for the
official annual report into the state of all UK Local Government
websites, testing the 467 sites continually over weeks. We are the only
provider that reports the user experience across the site."

I wonder how much this report is costing? - I think anything would be
too much considering the accuracy of results that we've seen from them!

Heh, maybe, but not this sport! Big cuts in Lottery funding this year.
No, we don't have ANY web developers, we just try to get by, with our
gfx guy and me...

Cheers,
Ben.

In message <2xZYc.52$rC1.783...@news-text.cableinet.net>, Ben Willcox
<be...@british-gymnastics.org> writes

"selected" by whom? "Official" in what context?
--
Andy Mabbett

        Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>

I assume that SiteMorse are referring to the "Better Connected"
survey, which is run annually by the Society of IT Managers in local
government - www.socitm.gov.uk - a respected outfit.

SiteMorse ran some tests for the Better Connected 2004 report, which
came out in February; a bunch of people provide input, here at
SciVisum we contributed web site testing services in the arena of
testing the local councils' site search engines; the Socitm Press
release is at:
http://www.socitm.gov.uk/Public/press+releases/20040225.htm

As for the 2005 Better Connected project, I was in contact with Socitm
only this week about scope for us contributing again; but as far as I
know nothing is set in concrete yet, so no one can claim to be
certain of taking part. But I may be wrong.

Deri Jones
SciVisum.co.uk
Web site performance testing and effectiveness testing
to-email-me-remove-google

Sorry, I accidentally got unsubscribed from this group so I didn't see
this posting earlier.

Lawrence Shaw is not a director of any company associated with the
SiteMorse product.

I have never been "indicted for fraud", or indeed indicted for
anything at all, ever, in the US, the UK or anywhere else in the
world.

Yes, we claim trademarks on things like the SiteMorse name and logo.
It is not at all strange that they are not listed at the patent office
as there is no requirement for trademarks to be registered.

Methinks you need to work on doing your fact-checking better in
future before going off half-cocked.

You would of course suggest incorrectly.

On 17 Sep 2004 10:33:44 GMT, Jon Ribbens

Some evidence please, your timings have been repeatedly shown to be
highly bogus, you've not once responded with any substantive
information to back up your measurements, they have no disclosed
methodology, without any of this we can only suggest - of course you
could answer the perfectly reasonable questions, or you or could carry
on misleading people into what your service is.

Jim.

Thats interesting, because all my Email communication I mentioned was
from a 'Laurence Shaw' from Sitemorse... Look, here's his sig:

Laurence Shaw      Dir Tel:  0870 759 3340
ls...@sitemorse.com   www.sitemorse.com

SiteMorseT      -   Global Leaders in automated website testing
Function and Performance, Brand, HTML, Metadata,
Corporate & Company Compliance and Accessibility [WAI Priorities 1 & 2]
Testing.

So are you saying this is a totally different Jon Ribbens and Laurence
Shaw mentioned in the fraud case? Seems a strange co-incidence.....

Regards,
Ben

Indeed. What in that leads you to believe he is a director of
anything?

My name has not been mentioned in the context of any fraud cases as
far as I am aware.

Some evidence of what? That our audit service doesn't run over an ADSL
line? Do you need instructions for 'traceroute'? If you need help then
I'm happy to oblige.

All of the above would appear to be entirely false. Last time we had
this conversation I answered all your (and others') questions in
detail, and nobody managed to find anything "bogus". The conversation
ended when you stopped responding. You never did get back to me with a
reference as to why one "shouldn't use redirects".

On 17 Sep 2004 12:19:43 GMT, Jon Ribbens

Ah, so you were only contending that part of the email, so you're
conceding the dodgy router/service?

This thread, you've not once defended the accuracy of the results.
Can we have the methodology please?

Jim.

OK it doesn't say he's a director.

This post:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39dd9473.0405111018.23167fe7%40p...>

notes that there is a page with information about the company 'ISFB Inc'
(the subject of the fraud case) here:

http://216.235.225.2/isfb/isfb.htm

where your name is listed amongst others including Laurence Shaw.

Regards,
Ben.

So my name is mentioned, but not in the context of a fraud case. Thanks.

I was an employee of IS4B. I was not a director or significant
shareholder. I do not believe there was any fraud committed by anyone
in the company, but even if there was I was certainly not in a
position to have anything to do with it. The worst I did was get made
redundant by a company that went bust.

Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote

As somebody else said somewhere here abouts, Google is your friend...

Some time years back, you and Shaw claimed to be founders of the
company:
        http://www.tornadoinsider.com/radar/compShow.asp?compID=6231

In December 2003, Shaw describes himself as MD, on the website of one
of your resellers.
http://www.libertas-solutions.com/company/values/accessibility/endors...

If you go to:
   www.debtwarning.com
and search for Lawrence John Shaw

You'll find an entry under the postcode CV6...

Which shows as of today that Shaw has no current directorships, but
has resigned 9.  If you get out a credit card there, you can get the
full list of which companies.

But of course the ultimate source is Companies House:  look up
Business2www, and see the Annual Return that was submitted in
September 2003; it shows both Jon Ribbens and Lawrence Shaw as
directors.

Hope that helped your memory.

Roodie the Accountant

[large snip]

So he isn't a director of anything. Thanks for confirming what I'd
already said. Glad we've got that cleared up.

Rather than all this is he, isn't he stuff, maybe you'd like to
describe in your own words what it is that sitemorse actually offers
and also describe your past and current relationships with any other
directors?

--
Richard Watson
http://www.opencolo.com/
High Quality, Value for money colocation

SiteMorse is an automated web site testing product that evaluates
web sites with respect to public standards such as HTML, HTTP,
the W3C accessibility guidelines, etc. It also provides summary
performance figures observed during its spidering of the site.
Its purpose is to allow site owners and designers to easily identify
and fix problems with their site that would otherwise be difficult or
impossible to manually identify. You can read more and get a free demo
at http://www.sitemorse.com/ .