Jump to content

Community

PageSpeed Insights -Going to Improve?


Recommended Posts

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=mobile

Google 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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 5 months later...

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?

Edited by maidos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Management
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.

562e588ac3c77_PageSpeedInsights2015-10-2

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:

562e594986cd6_PageSpeedInsights2015-10-2

Which is better than google.com itself :) 

562e59a9e6d51_PageSpeedInsights2015-10-2

 

So... yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

 

Screen Shot 2015-11-03 at 17.27.25.png

Screen Shot 2015-11-03 at 17.27.33.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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.

Edited by sadams101
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy