6 minutes ago, James Hargreaves said:

Ads still seem to be struggling to load for me.

I've got the ad supplier (I use a Header Bidding agency) to look into it their end too and to check the fill rates.

Same here! I appreciate @Matt Finger checking it out, but it seemed to coincide exactly with the latest update.

What was the previous version you had used? The code Matt has found was from way back in February.

Oh and, Beta 4 is out around now.

This has just one fix for the forum listing's last topic/author info for when you're using the classic table view. I wasn't brave enough to roll it right into final, so we'll do the final release tomorrow if nothing explodes.

16 minutes ago, Matt said:

What was the previous version you had used? The code Matt has found was from way back in February.

Beta 2 was fine, issue seems since beta 3.

Just now, LemonGrenade said:

Beta 2 was fine, issue seems since beta 3.

I'll review the changes but nothing springs to mind.

So it seems from 5.0.6 Beta 2 to 5.0.7 Beta 2 was fine.

3 minutes ago, LemonGrenade said:

So it seems from 5.0.6 Beta 2 to 5.0.7 Beta 2 was fine.

I've just moved it to a ticket, can you check your FTP/admin credentials in the client area and I'll take a look.

Sure, I'll update that now.

Beta 1 had the same performance as 5.0.6, i.e. very good. From Beta 2, including Beta 4 - again a big drop in performance - too long for LCP.

If you manually run most of the tasks that are executable every hour or so, good tests also appear - but for a short time... There is some persistent bug somewhere...

2 hours ago, Adlago said:

Beta 1 had the same performance as 5.0.6, i.e. very good. From Beta 2, including Beta 4 - again a big drop in performance - too long for LCP.

I think this could be the reason for the ad load issue, as it was posted elsewhere a little while back, and when it improved, so did the ad load/quality.

7 hours ago, LemonGrenade said:

I think this could be the reason for the ad load issue, as it was posted elsewhere a little while back, and when it improved, so did the ad load/quality.

That’s a good shout — core web vitals plays a huge part in ad performance nowadays.

11 hours ago, Adlago said:

Beta 1 had the same performance as 5.0.6, i.e. very good. From Beta 2, including Beta 4 - again a big drop in performance - too long for LCP.

If you manually run most of the tasks that are executable every hour or so, good tests also appear - but for a short time... There is some persistent bug somewhere...

Nothing significant changed, I've been through the PRs that were committed. I find running Pagespeed on different days gets different results.

@Matt When will we receive the stable version?

2 minutes ago, PanSevence said:

@Matt When will we receive the stable version?

12 hours ago, Adlago said:

Beta 1 had the same performance as 5.0.6, i.e. very good. From Beta 2, including Beta 4 - again a big drop in performance - too long for LCP.

If you manually run most of the tasks that are executable every hour or so, good tests also appear - but for a short time... There is some persistent bug somewhere...

Which method are you using for tasks?

47 minutes ago, Matt said:

I find running Pagespeed on different days gets different results.

Not on different days, but at different times of the day. That's why I wrote - in some strange way for me, these tests are dependent on the execution of tasks that are automatically executed for 1 hour or more. I have done tests - when several consecutive tests in 10 minutes with PSI have a large LCP over 5 s, I manually execute 5-6 tasks from the above (my last attempts are only with system tasks) - then I wait 2 minutes and then test with PSI. Usually the test has perfect results 93-99/100 mobile (this with version 5.0.6, and also with 5.0.7.beta1) - With beta 2,3 and 4, this exercise of mine is not always with a positive result - i.e. there is some change in these betas that seems insignificant, but actually interferes for an unclear reason. And while in 5.0.6 longer periods of successful good tests were achieved, in 5.0.7 this is broken.

7 minutes ago, Daniel F said:

Which method are you using for tasks?

Cron jobs

PS. With version 5.0.5 I did an experiment on a test site - I enable tasks to traffic. For a whole day - the same results with tests, even worse. Therefore, I again restored the cron job for the test site.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by Adlago

I have noticed another paradox - when the LCP is high, i.e. over 5 s, the PSI test does not show any server delay.

And another paradox - when the PSI reports a server delay, for example 1.2 s - the test result is perfect - over 97/100, often 99/100 mobile with LCP 2s.

And one more test I do - from the source code of a page I create an html page. I upload it to the root directory and do a PSI test - 100% of my tests are with a fixed mobile speed of 64-65/100, regardless of the time in which I do this test - and it is always with a high LCP - over 5 s.

That is why some time ago in one of the topics here I wrote - I have a doubt that version 5.0 sends a cache page for guests during a PSI test. That is, only when the PSI test is the first "guest" when creating this cache page - then the result is excellent. But apparently in most tests the PSI tests a previously created cache page for guests...

You could always move to cloud and have proper guest page caching and a very fast CDN which will help. 😇

11 minutes ago, Matt said:

You could always move to cloud and have proper guest page caching and a very fast CDN which will help. 😇

In my hosting plan, I have an nginx cache server. Back in version 4.x a few years ago, I stopped using this feature - for the same reasons.

I prefer to use Apache directly.

@Matt

As for your cloud - it makes no sense, I'll get the same results...

15 hours ago, Matt said:

This has just one fix for the forum listing's last topic/author info for when you're using the classic table view. I wasn't brave enough to roll it right into final, so we'll do the final release tomorrow if nothing explodes.

Whats this? I'm guessing its not putting it back where it used to be on mobile which I really want back. Staying on IPS4 until forum home and topic listings look better on mobile and less cluttered on mobile

Edited April 30Apr 30 by marklcfc

55 minutes ago, Adlago said:

In my hosting plan, I have an nginx cache server. Back in version 4.x a few years ago, I stopped using this feature - for the same reasons.

I prefer to use Apache directly.

Do you realize that Apache, is the slowest for serving static content nowadays right?

Better you suppose let nginx serve static content, and serve dynamic content over apache (php) and nginx (proxy to apache + static content served directly over nginx)

Eventually consider switching to LiteSpeed + Redis Cache for serving entire page.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by Danloona

4 minutes ago, Danloona said:

Do you realize that Apache, is the slowest for serving static content nowadays right?

Better you suppose let nginx serve static content, and serve dynamic content over apache (php) and nginx (proxy to apache + static content served directly over nginx)

Eventually switch to LiteSpeed + Redis Cache for serving entire page.

And why would I do that when I can easily achieve excellent results for Core Web Vitals?

When using cache server, cloud, cloudflare, etc. accelerators it is very difficult to study the real behavior of the platform on a site. And when directly using the "slow" Apache I get excellent results for mobile, what is the point of loading traffic with additional servers?

20 minutes ago, Adlago said:

And why would I do that when I can easily achieve excellent results for Core Web Vitals?

When using cache server, cloud, cloudflare, etc. accelerators it is very difficult to study the real behavior of the platform on a site. And when directly using the "slow" Apache I get excellent results for mobile, what is the point of loading traffic with additional servers?

I really would like see that Excellent results of Core Web Vitals on Apache, because for me its really tough to believe that you can achieve excellent results on apache, and i say it as admin, with at least 10+ years of administration experience. It might be possible at literally low users count on your site, but if you have busy site it would be really tough challenge to achieve it.

The whole industry implement CDNs, Fast static content serving methods to minimize TTFB and LCP.

The idea of doing apache+nginx thing is to lower load on Apache with serving static content when, your site is busy and apache handling lot of requests, i assume you have hosting account so might be worth to consider.

I believe you when you use Cache Servers like Varnish or Service Cache like CloudFlare might be complicated to debug such thing. REDIS is object cache actually it's more backend thing rather front one like Varnish or Cloudflare, as well you can use it with Apache, its separate server/service, because it serves as layer between database and webserver, by literally minimizing queries to database when serve static content, it also often lowers LCP.

It might be worth to try, i not tell you that you should do it, but you can consider it, at least won't hurt to try.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by Danloona

14 minutes ago, Danloona said:

I really would like see that Excellent results of Core Web Vitals on Apache,

See test