Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No prob. . . was a long-shot. Might be a cool feature to have a title/caption overlay available for fallback images, but the Text Box or Spcl Heading will work.
Thanks! We can close this thread.
JonYeah, I’ve gotten rid of AO on my main site (gatehealing). I’m going to be doing the same here shortly. Thank you for helping me find that!.
Jon@Mike
If you login to my dashboard, you’ll need to open a completely different browser to see the issue . . .I’m not sure why, but the GDPR banner doesn’t show when I’m logged into dashboard on the browser I goto my site on.I’m not seeing how to get you a screenshot?
Oh, no…I was more updating that I think we have it as good as it’ll get and that I’ll tweak the ttfb. Just removing the video element is what really sped things up. I tried everything I could think of to be able to leave that element on those pages, but it looks like it just does not play well with performance, specifically the fallback image seems to bypass a lot of the performance improvement tools. I don’t understand it, but I can just put all videos on the video library page then nofollow/no-index it so it’s less likely to be factored into my overall domain score/performance.
Thanks for all of the help!
JI made it site-wide by removing “.page-id-16789” . . . this worked, but let me know if that’s not the best way to accomplish it. Otherwise, we can close the thread.
Thanks!
JonThanks! The button is gone, but the Title is still completely covering the image on those smaller screens. I think I didn’t use the correct terms in my original post since the button IS the caption . . . I should have said Title and CaptionButton (both are in the same dropdown of the Easy Slider element).
Apologies for my confusion on terminology.
I still get the same Is It Usable warning of “needs improvement” after removing the video element, but PSI improves a lot and debugbear stays good, just ttfb needs some tweaking.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/240530_AiDc9W_EJJ/2/experiments/#UsableI’m just going to get rid of all video elements on my website entirely. When I just put a slider up there, I get a 94. I don’t know what it is about the video element and the fallback image, but it screws things up.
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/240530_BiDcNR_88R/
On the test you ran above, on the results, it’s under Performance Summary, which is in the white section (right after the darker header). It’s the middle result “Is It Usable”…when you click those words, it’ll take you to the results that triggered this@Mike
The warning is under the Is It Usable tab (“needs improvement” is the comment associated with it…vs the others ‘not bad’). . . I know that user experience is a part of ranking so am hoping to improve whatever I canShould the theme minify/compress/etc. performance tools take care of these blocking links (this is from webpagetest.net checking gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx )?
The main thread was blocked for 1074 ms
When files block the main thread, users are unable to interact with the page content. Typically, parsing and executing large JavaScript files, as well as running long JavaScript tasks can block the main thread and should be avoided. These files had high thread blocking times:
92 ms: https://gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx/
487 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.min.js?ver=3.7.1
89 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-includes/js/mediaelement/mediaelement-and-player.min.js?ver=4.2.17
147 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-content/uploads/dynamic_avia/avia-footer-scripts-4934294d32706be40b07cbd8f21642e1—664f95ba05137.jsThe other 2 were the ewww plugin and gtag.
Jonam trying just deactivating the fvm one since it seems to be designed for developers etc. Author talks about how things will probably need to be set different for each website, and I could not get a response from him on questions.
Leaving the theme minification/compressions in place though.
I get these warnings with or without Enfold stuff on, so I’m leaving it on for now. webpagetest.org:
“The main thread was blocked for 803 ms
When files block the main thread, users are unable to interact with the page content. Typically, parsing and executing large JavaScript files, as well as running long JavaScript tasks can block the main thread and should be avoided. These files had high thread blocking times:
433 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-content/cache/fvm/min/1716491784-js1db7bfbb70f04a04198b11ece1c41cb248cf037b911e614d23f81401289950.js
51 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-content/plugins/ewww-image-optimizer/includes/lazysizes.min.js?ver=760
61 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-content/cache/fvm/min/1716491784-jsedbcf6951571e6485545760cccb8f49295c49965809acbc639d566a524df9a.js
105 ms: https://gatehealing.com/wp-content/cache/fvm/min/1716491784-js6884522fa218dfb9c77ef1c2691017bc8c2e165d203911a70bad4cfa4386f9.js
687 ms: https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-C340SLHPCH”I’m not sure how DeBugBear gets higher numbers–is it just not seeing the render-blocking stuff? Not bothering with PSI.
I just noticed that the enfold Performance options for Merge and Compress Css/Js is back on. I think I had it off since I’m using FVM plugin. Do those not create a duplication conflict?
J
Regarding preloading: Do y’all know of a plugin that preloads all images as a default (or lets me select to preload sliders and fallback images?)? The code and the plugin seem to only work for each individual image, or only 1 page at a time . . . which when we multiply the preload code times the hundreds of pages/posts/sliders/vids, would present a giant amount of additional code.
I’m looking too, but so far no luck.
J
@Mike
I must’ve missed that part of 3g only for mobile. . . regardless, at this point I am only using PSI as a final check to see if it sees something the others don’t see.With pagespeed using 3g, seems like that would also impact my desktop scores at 3g speed? Those are consistently in the mid to high 90’s (sometimes 100) even at that 3g speed.
Yeah, my GTmetrix desktop is always really high . . . same on pagespeed insights, webpagetest.net etc. Just that mobile score. I’m looking at DebugBear now. Thanks!
I have no idea how you get such amazing scores whereas I get this: https://www.debugbear.com/test/website-speed/JK9HGUlN/overview#
Still better than 30’s, but still lower than 94Jon
Tell me if I need to put this under a different ticket: How does the theme manage mobile site delivery? Since it is only my mobile scores that are suffering, and my host is saying that their server doesn’t differentiate between desktop and mobile device data (it just serves up what is called), they are saying that it’s probably something with the theme that is causing these speed issues…that my desktop results are near perfect shows their server is working fine.
I explained that y’all get 90’s on your shared server when you cloned my site to it though. . . I almost want to get the 2 of you talking directly so we can find out once and for all where the problem lives.
this is crazy. I test it and it’s 65. I’m not sure the plugins have anything to do with it . . . they erratic scores seem independent of how those are set up (except the exlude js stuff you did in FVM . . that seemed to help).
J
the changes seem to hit the webpagetest tool: https://www.webpagetest.org/result/240518_AiDcAH_BSH/
When you click Is It Fast, it’ll pull up details of that part of test . . . looks like the TTFB is hit. Looking at the waterfall graph, that top light blue line is definitely longer than it was before.
Oh, I see that you were running the test only on the homepage. That one seems ok. . . I have been testing using gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx/ since that page has a video at the top as well as images in the body.
That looks much better! Oddly, I got a 66 when I ran it. I could get it as high as a 72 https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-gatehealing-com-counseling-austin-Tx/j4x50jzy4v?form_factor=mobile
I’m not sure what makes the scores vary so wildly. I just ran it again and got an 82. At least it’s not in the 50’s.
On the 72 score report, I see that https://gatehealing.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.min.js?ver=3.7.1 is shown as render blocking, but I don’t know is safe to put in that FVM Render Blocking box.
This is all over my head. I appreciate y’all’s help in getting me this far.
JonFound the issue with Sizing and Next Gen stuff. There is a place in Ewww where I have to activate the Easy IO feature (the cdn that sizes and serves webp and avif) . . . I had been activated, then spontaneously deactivated..
I’m still only in 70’s for pages with sliders/videos, but at least the image types/sizes thing seems to be fixed for the moment, but I shouldn’t be in the 70’s on any of my mobile pages
The ewww plugin sizing thing serves images up from a CDN and automatically sizes from there, but I don’t know the mechanics of it.
Now this is a new twist I had not expected…you tested/effective-conflict-management (a blog Post) and got a 92 and did not get the Properly Size Images etc. warning . . . but when I test /counseling-austin-tx/ (a regular Page), I get in the 70’s and I do consistently get the Properly Size Images etc warnings: https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-gatehealing-com-counseling-austin-tx/6ohqww1pha?form_factor=mobile
It looks like it’s also not serving next generation images (webp) . . . but the ewww plugin is supposed to do that, and was doing that before. Did the change remove that ability and the serving the appropriate size images?
PS the desktop version of images is working fine–these issues are only for mobile devices
Thank you…my mobile performance didn’t change with disabling that code–I’m not sure why the code you disabled was in there…If I got it from y’all, there’s probably a reason (the code looks vaguely familiar–I’ll go look through older threads to see if I can find what it was for.
The pagespeed warning I get now that I was not getting before is titled “Properly Size Images.” https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-gatehealing-com-counseling-austin-tx/io32u3866t?form_factor=mobile
Did the srcset stuff get back in there wherever it’s supposed to be? If that is what properly sizes the images, it may not be in there still given the above warning. I’ll see if I can find where that now disabled code came from.
Do I need to re-add some kind for srcset stuff?
Jon
