[MrMullen]

You should really consider moving this webpage and report to something like AWS S3 when you first release it. Then move back to your usual servers when traffic has fallen off. Your poor servers must melt down when this shows up on Hacker News and Slashdot.

[atYevP]

Internally we're blaming our SEO people for putting to much crap on the blog itself ;) But yea, it's worth exploring - though we have our own servers that should be able to handle the load. We haven't had blog loading trouble in a while, so it'll be neat to debug this later :D

[PuffinBlue]

From the outside it looks like your running a fairly intensive Wordpress install on an Apache webserver with no page caching.

Also seems there's no minification or combining of stylesheets/js and there are query strings on those static assets which is going to discourage caching.

No wonder you need a datacenter to handle that kind of resource punishment!

There are plenty of reasons to stick with Wordpress in a decent sized corporation but if not switching to a static site at least stick W3TC on there so you're minimising your server load and serving out static html and minified/combined resources.

You could then consider using Varnish in front of Apache or maybe nginx with a FastCGI cache.

I"m sure you've got some folks in the team who could whip up a W3TC install in 10 minutes.

[NicoJuicy]

EasyEngine for nginx with redit cache and php7 Will set your wordpress blog blazing.

Yoast is a culprit of performance though.

Don't forget the plugin query monitor and http2 doesn't need bundling resources ( I suppose)

[atom_enger]

I'd suggest switching to a static site in general. I have no idea what kind of traffic they're sustaining at the moment but NGINX serving up static html (or s3) is a lot more efficient than Wordpress or another blog engine consuming cpu cycles.

[theandrewbailey]

At the very least, use a reverse proxy with lots of caching.