Myr Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I know we're still in beta here, but are you guys going to look at improving the god awful scores on PageSpeed Insights?https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?hl=en&utm_source=wmx&utm_campaign=wmx_otherlinks&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.invisionpower.com%2F&tab=mobileGoogle uses page load speed as part of its ranking criteria (though like all parts of ranking, we don't know what weight the page speed gets)Can we, for example, automatically compress images when when we store them on the site? Both GD library and ImageMagick offer compression abilities from what I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Front end optimization is something we will review before release. Note that many factors on a tool like this are controlled at the server level and not by the script. Additionally, it is not a flawless tool. For instance, it suggests minifying this URL, but it is already minified (because it is a combined js file though, we leave in comments which I assume is what the tool is seeing that makes it think it needs to be minified): http://community.invisionpower.com/uploads/javascript_global/root_library.js.8d7257279c8e1194193000c37077d2b0.js?v=f39aa127cfcb01a08856808e33eeda79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myr Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Cool.I know the tool isn't flawless, but it is what Google offers and we all must dance to Google's tune or pay the price in the rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersnGears Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 On a completely stock Beta 4 install, I get the message that there are 7 blocking script resources and 9 blocking CSS resources. Will this be addressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 On a completely fresh install of beta 5a we saw yesterday a score of 91/100 with the Pagespeed tool for Desktop, and 83/100. Note that this can depend upon your server configuration (for instance, whether or not you have gzip enabled for resources). We will not be addressing the "Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold content" items that the pagespeed tools refers to at this time, because it is extremely (near impossible) to handle this properly in dynamically generated software that users subsequently adjust and modify. For instance, the tool suggests putting all CSS necessary to show the "above the fold" content inline into the page, and then using javascript at the bottom of the page to import the rest of the CSS. Firstly, the amount of CSS that constitutes what is necessary "above the fold" would be astronomical, and you would take a hit elsewhere with respect to reducing the page size and caching. Secondly, it would be very error prone once you start factoring in addons, plugins, third party skins and template edits. Finally, because of the amount of CSS necessary, it would likely reduce your score in other areas. That said, with a fresh install showing a score of 91/100, we feel that is a pretty respectable score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myr Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 It sounds good to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Charles Posted January 15, 2015 Management Share Posted January 15, 2015 Speaking of page speed ... we made some changes here a few minutes ago. Do things seem faster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigf136 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Actually, the forum does appear to be faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Explosion Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSP Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Speaking of page speed ... we made some changes here a few minutes ago. Do things seem faster?Because of enabled caching or "core" improvements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Charles Posted January 15, 2015 Management Share Posted January 15, 2015 Both - we enabled memcache for first time on this site specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adlago Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Pretty good. If used cookie-free domains, ISlow will be improved in several points.http://gtmetrix.com/reports/community.invisionpower.com/3kzKX8DI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opentype Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Cool.I know the tool isn't flawless, but it is what Google offers and we all must dance to Google's tune or pay the price in the rankings.Keep in mind: These tools just show rather dumb, “machine-generated” tips about areas where the system thinks an optimization might be possible. It’s the web designers job to consider if those optimizations are really useful and feasible. Those tools don’t show you errors you NEED to fix to avoid ranking penalties. It’s just not meant that way. Those tools are just there to help you. So it is not true, that the speed rank has any direct effect on search ranking. Just because the system finds areas with supposedly possible optimizations doesn’t mean your site is even performing badly for the services it offers. And you can even have poor value with such speed ranks and still have tremendous google ranking. Speed is a factor for Google ranking, but one of many many factors and certainly not one of the most important ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Charles Posted January 15, 2015 Management Share Posted January 15, 2015 Yes and some factors are up to you. Like "use CDN" is something on our side. We plan on enabling AWS S3 support on our site here next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobrenome Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Is it possible to set a CDN on RC1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasiko Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 sorry for bumping a dead thread but i would like to know few stuff. so it appears using googles insight on this site it dont have any render blocking javascript but when i did check on my own forum it got 6 blocking javascript and 1 css. what prompt the difference? the theme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adlago Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 6 blocking javascript and 1 css. Customization - Themes - Edit your theme- CustomJavascript include location-> Just before </body> tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasiko Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Customization - Themes - Edit your theme- Custom Javascript include location-> Just before </body> tag oh its gone now thanks alot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadams101 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 While it may have been 91/100 in January--Google is now weighting this CSS problem of yours more heavily (I really don't care that you guys at IPB don't think it is a problem--you have never taken google or site ranking seriously--and shame on you for this because you affect so many sites with your short-nearsightedness in this matter). Check your score now...looks like this page gets 62/100. Good luck with that in google! Quote On a completely fresh install of beta 5a we saw yesterday a score of 91/100 with the Pagespeed tool for Desktop, and 83/100. Note that this can depend upon your server configuration (for instance, whether or not you have gzip enabled for resources). We will not be addressing the "Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold content" items that the pagespeed tools refers to at this time, because it is extremely (near impossible) to handle this properly in dynamically generated software that users subsequently adjust and modify. For instance, the tool suggests putting all CSS necessary to show the "above the fold" content inline into the page, and then using javascript at the bottom of the page to import the rest of the CSS. Firstly, the amount of CSS that constitutes what is necessary "above the fold" would be astronomical, and you would take a hit elsewhere with respect to reducing the page size and caching. Secondly, it would be very error prone once you start factoring in addons, plugins, third party skins and template edits. Finally, because of the amount of CSS necessary, it would likely reduce your score in other areas. That said, with a fresh install showing a score of 91/100, we feel that is a pretty respectable score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Charles Posted October 26, 2015 Management Share Posted October 26, 2015 41 minutes ago, sadams101 said: While it may have been 91/100 in January--Google is now weighting this CSS problem of yours more heavily (I really don't care that you guys at IPB don't think it is a problem--you have never taken google or site ranking seriously--and shame on you for this because you affect so many sites with your short-nearsightedness in this matter). Check your score now...looks like this page gets 62/100. Good luck with that in google! You're quite wrong actually. Our site here has 84/100. There are some items we cannot do anything about like user-generated content that is not optimized (like user images). If you test a "clean" page that has no user content, like a 404 page, it shows 97/100: Which is better than google.com itself So... yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadams101 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Try looking at the mobile...so you are a B- on desktop, and still totally unconcerned...nice to see that nothing has changed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IveLeft... Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 @Charles I get this for this particular page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Charles Posted November 2, 2015 Management Share Posted November 2, 2015 I explained the reasons for different page speed scores on pages with UGC in my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IveLeft... Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 On 2 November 2015 14:56:29, Charles said: I explained the reasons for different page speed scores on pages with UGC in my post above. Yes but you seem to be ignoring the mobile page speed when you say Quote You're quite wrong actually. Our site here has 84/100. Today its 65/100 on a mobile browser (attached) (so when sadams101 quoted 62/100 he was probably correct for the mobile score) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadams101 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Over time google has been ranking these things more and more, which is why the scores have gone lower. This trend will continue for all IPB users until the problem is fixed. It is clear by looking at the IPB site's ranking drop over the last year that you don't pay much attention to site ranking: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/invisionpower.com ...otherwise you'd focus on it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.