Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: page speed

  1. #1
    chaumi is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    503
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 196 Times in 161 Posts

    Default page speed

    This might be better as a poll, and maybe has already been covered as one and I missed it, but even if it was I guess we might get some other viewpoints.....

    Managed to get desktop to 98 in Google Page Speed

    But mobile (2 weeks after new hosting, CriticalCSS, autooptimize, CDN, head scratching and other miserable attempts - technically I have no real idea what I'm doing and trying to learn on the fly) best managed is around 50

    Which is clearly rubbish (or is it??)

    So I'm curious.

    Is anyone else bothered yet about mobile speed?

    Have you already cracked it and it's no longer a problem? (in which case are you prepared to share how you did it?)

    Did you never have a problem anyway?

    Or do you know it's an issue, and have a plan to tackle it?

    And any views on whether 50 is reasonable or completely disastrous?

  2. #2
    Michael Martinez is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    62
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 36 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    "Mobile speed" and "desktop speed" are misrepresentative.

    The speed of a Website is affected by many things including server load, the device trying to load the site, the Internet connection, and more.

    Google's page speed estimating tools have been harmful, in my opinion, because they create the illusion that if you fix the problems for the tools you've fixed the problems for everyone.

    Some of the tool recommendations are ridiculous, such as advising you to fix resources hosted on Google's own services and compressing already compressed images that are less than 25Kb in size.

    When Core Web Vitals is integrated into the ranking system in a few months, it will only be 1 of many signals - and most likely all sites will be weighed against each other. Until I see otherwise (and 2 screen captures from someone who claims they've found "proof" isn't sufficient), I'm assuming these page speed estimates won't be much of a problem for most people.

    Some sites really do need to speed things up, both for search and for users.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Michael Martinez For This Useful Post:

    chaumi (11 January 2021)

  4. #3
    chaumi is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    503
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 196 Times in 161 Posts

    Default

    Thx Michael

    Do you consider it a possibility this is really all just semi-scaremongering tactics by G? In other words 'trickery' to get everyone taking (more) notice of their mobile speed (which clearly will be a good thing for many sites and hence good for Google/searchers) and/or trying to drive AMP?

    Clearly they have intent, and we all know the intent (or at least the base concept of it and the likely result) is a valuable one.

    I know you'd be guessing (or at least guess you'd be guessing)...but a highly educated guess is normally as good as it gets where Google is concerned (other than very specific/clever testing in some circumstances of course)
    Last edited by chaumi; 11 January 2021 at 2:55 pm. Reason: addition

  5. #4
    Michael Martinez is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    62
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 36 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    I don't really have an opinion either way.

    Google occasionally tries to frighten everyone into doing what they want. The push to get all sites onto HTTPS is a clear example.

    I have no idea of what possible benefit their engineers think this push on Core Web Vitals will provide. Websites only control 1 side of the equation so it doesn't guarantee a better user experience.

    Their page speed tools strike me as reflecting an Ivory Tower syndrome. But they might be thinking about users in Africa, India, Pakistan, and other emerging Internet economies. Maybe in order to monetize all that traffic they need to put ads on superfast sites that compensate (as much as possible) for really poor user connections. Most people in those countries access the Internet over cellular networks.

    That's the best guess I can offer.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Michael Martinez For This Useful Post:

    chaumi (11 January 2021)

  7. #5
    chaumi is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2013
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    503
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 196 Times in 161 Posts

    Default

    ''they might be thinking about users in Africa, India, Pakistan, and other emerging Internet economies. Maybe in order to monetize all that traffic they need to put ads on superfast sites that compensate (as much as possible) for really poor user connections. Most people in those countries access the Internet over cellular networks''

    Suspect you may be spot on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •