There is a more general problem with the site, aside from geographical factors playing a role sometimes, it's the design of the site itself:
a) The homepage's latest discussions and news columns now have to fetch the latest 20 items, whereas Huddler and the later version of vBulletin (before the 2011 transition to Huddler) only fetched 16 for each column. That's 8 more links that have to be fetched. We could perfectly go back to 16 as it's reasonable;
b) Related to the above: there is one more problem that most people don't get to see, but that gets loaded by the browser (I have tested it by disabling the Internet connection before zooming out the homepage and all the information had already been loaded). Each one of those lines in those columns is actually loading a bunch of extra information that only people with very large screens and resolutions or zoomed out will see. The page loading time will however be the same for everybody. Now, question to other members, how many of you have actually seen how the homepage actually loads (try zooming out on your browser or look here):
c) Still on the homepage: the sub-forum icons. They are sort of a good sounding idea, but they don't really accomplish much at the end of the day, except to add a bunch of icons to the loading. We didn't have them on Huddler nor on vBulletin before that. In their place it was flames, which I assume takes less time since it's always either the normal flame or the faded one that is loaded for each sub-forum. The same logic for the monitor icon on the currently active users and the graph icon on the statistics;
d) The usual vBulletin cruft at the bottom, complete with icons, none of which is necessary because they're all self-explanatory: Forum Contains New Posts / Forum Contains No New Posts / Forum is Closed for Posting. They weren't even there on the original vBulletin version of the site, pre-2011.
2. Member area, subscribed threads: get rid of the smileys column and while you're at it, get rid of the possibility to add them to post headers on the thread pages too.
3. Threads: people's avatars in threads are way too big in file size, the original files uploaded are being used as you can see PNG's and JPEGs in varying sizes in there and not a single file type converted to always the same image size. The big ones are all simply being scaled on the fly. You can see how big some of them are by zooming in the page and seeing them get bigger and bigger without loss of quality, but the pudding proof is if you save them or simply select "View Image Info" (in Firefox) or equivalent on your bowser's context menu to see their filesizes and see the magnitude of the problem.
Take the following thread as an example. Some of the avatars are quite small in size, but others aren't: https://www.overclock.net/forum/226-...ou-know-2.html
Majin SSJ Eric: a whopping 464kB
Mine is 176kB
That's 1313kB from loading 6 members' avatars on that page. This may have dire consequences in people's evaluation of page loading speed and worst of all, makes the feeling variable depending on the exact thread they are viewing, rendering geographical locations just a potentially misleading factor in the equation. Not to mention that this will hurt people's data caps.
Having that in mind I set out to look at other threads, looking for comparable or even worse cases. I didn't have to go far:
coupe: 1.2 MB, yes, megabyte
So, if before you were loading 1313 kB from 6 member's avatars alone, on this particular page you're practically loading 2 MB from only 5 members.
You thought it couldn't get any worse? It does and a lot. Next (and final) example:
Rayleyne (animated GIF): 609kB
Anateus (avatar of Gabe Newell dressed in Half-Life suit): 7.1 MB. No, seriously, seven point one megabytes and it's a static image.
Aemonn (animated GIF): 951kB
Exothermic1982 (animated GIF): another whopping 1.4 MB
So, now from these four members alone you're loading a whopping 10 Megabytes (11.6 MB for the whole of the page's images).
I think I've made the point that many areas of the site's infrastructure are simply not optimized at all.
4. There is also quite a bit of superfluous stuff in the advanced editor page, but since that editor is presumably on its way out (good riddance), it's not worth going over it right now.