Forum Feedback & Announcements forum

General discussion

Script, script, script, script, script, script, script . . .

by Coryphaeus / October 13, 2011 4:54 AM PDT

Has anyone noticed, or counted the instances of "script" running on these pages. It's ridiculous!! The pages load slow, when I scroll up the pages jerk, I get messages that xxx.xxxx is waiting! I run FF and installed "No Script". I was amazed at the total number of scripts running. I got 17. When I turned them off, some things wouldn't work, naturally. If I turn them back on one at a time things are better. But geez! Is all this crap needed? And every web site has between 10 and 20 or more scripts running.

Has anyone tried to run the internet on an older machine? I had a little ThinkPad running W98SE. I had to put it away!! It would not surf because of all the crap embedded in pages. Why can't someone write a page that is bare of crap and loads fast? Seriously, why not? Can someone give me an answer? For real!

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Script, script, script, script, script, script, script . . .
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Script, script, script, script, script, script, script . . .
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
A common occurance nowadays
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / October 13, 2011 10:39 PM PDT

Sadly I see this all the time now, on nearly all professionally created web sites.

I'm fortunate in that I have a fast internet connection and so they whiz through, but for those with dial-up or slow broadband it can be a real problem.

You mention older machines. I remember the first car I brought over 40 years ago had drum brakes and cross-ply tires. Remember those? Things move on and such vehicles wouldn't be allowed on the roads here in the UK nowadays.

No such restriction on the internet of course, but 'things move on'. That's my 'real' answer, for what it is worth.


Collapse -
Speed isn't an issue . . .
by Coryphaeus / October 14, 2011 9:10 AM PDT

I have a 30 Meg cable, Pentium dual core, 3 Gig of RAM, and XP pro.Pages load fast. But the added "crap" makes them slow.

I know, I just ranting.

Collapse -
Thanks for the feedback, Wayne.
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) CNET staff/forum admin / October 14, 2011 9:17 AM PDT

They will be working on speeding up the pages... but these days as Mark pointed pages are loaded with scripts--they are no longer just the flat HTML pages as they once were.


Collapse -
Thanks . . .
by Coryphaeus / October 15, 2011 12:32 AM PDT

I noticed a degrade in speed/stuttering on scroll with the new pages. Thus prompting my rant.

Collapse -
No recent changes here, but...
by John.Wilkinson / October 16, 2011 9:35 PM PDT
In reply to: Thanks . . .

I disabled the Facebook, Twitter, etc scripts as soon as CNET started rolling them out some time ago. CNET is pretty fast when all those other hands aren't in the cookie jar.


Collapse -
(NT) Disabled? How?
by Coryphaeus / October 16, 2011 10:15 PM PDT
Collapse -
I managed to disable those
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / October 16, 2011 10:34 PM PDT
In reply to: Disabled? How?

via AdBlockPlus.

Trial and error with me adding and removing filters for various components until I got it right.

But I suspect John used a custom CSS file.


Collapse -
CSS wouldn't cut it...
by John.Wilkinson / October 16, 2011 11:43 PM PDT

I used my HOSTS file along with AdBlock Plus, much the same as you did. Basically, I blocked nearly all third-party scripts, along with those I've deduced are used solely for advertising. They generally aren't that obtrusive, especially compared to many other sites I frequent, but now and then they just slow page loads to a crawl - especially Facebook and those surveys lately.


Collapse -
I HATE that facebook thing
by James Denison / October 21, 2011 12:55 AM PDT
In reply to: CSS wouldn't cut it...

For months I couldn't come to CNET already signed in. Finally got some advice on how to defeat it and not have to sign in again each time.

I don't understand what so many like about Facebook anyway. It seems to me a way to end up reading a lot of stuff on each person's "Wall" you'd rather not anyway.

Collapse -
I've never had a problem being remembered.
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) CNET staff/forum admin / October 21, 2011 2:12 AM PDT

I'm not connected to Facebook on CNET and the system always remembers me.

I don't understand why Facebook is an issue for you when it shouldn't bother you if you don't use it or connect to it when logging in.

Facebook is there for people to use, if and when they want to. If not, just simply ignore it, no one is forcing anyone to use it.


Collapse -
You're young
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / October 21, 2011 5:13 AM PDT

well, relatively so anyway, Happy

We're old. We don't understand this need to plaster ourselves all over the internet with photos and comments and "Like".

Someone recently said, Facebook is Mordor! I couldn't have described it better myself. Devil


Collapse -
I solved it
by James Denison / October 26, 2011 1:08 PM PDT

I had to enable third party cookies, do the sign in, then I could disable third party cookies again and CNET continued to sign in each day I returned to site. For some reason FF sees CNET sign-in as a third party cookie I guess.

Collapse -
Re: disabling
by Kees_B Forum moderator / October 23, 2011 5:51 AM PDT
In reply to: Disabled? How?

I had great success with using the hosts file to disable

and to lesser extent

No magic involved. Just looking at the "waiting for ..." and "ready with ..." messages on the status line in Firefox suffices to find the timeconsuming links. An occasional look in the html source helps also.


Collapse -
CBS did it
by QMT / November 1, 2011 5:06 AM PDT

As of right now, it's impossible to remain logged in to CNET, and comments to articles will not appear, without running a script hosted on

Collapse -
Minimum scripts needed:
by QMT / November 1, 2011 3:42 PM PDT
In reply to: CBS did it

It seems, today at least, these are four sites that need to be allowed for basic functionality in CNET. (login seems to be dependent on it, at least since Tuesday afternoon) ('reply' links do not function without it), (comments to articles will not appear without both of these allowed)

Collapse -
Also needed;
by TheReaperD / November 23, 2011 6:42 PM PST

You also need allowed in order to login to CNet, even if you are not using a 3rd party login.

Collapse -
by QMT / February 9, 2012 8:01 AM PST
In reply to: Also needed;

Gigya can be blocked again after the cookie gets set (usually after navigating to an article or something).
As far as I can guess, only needs to be allowed long enough for purs_1 to appear in the cookies.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Free trip to the Grand Prix

Don't miss your chance to win a trip to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco for you and a plus-one.