-
Posts
-
Hi,
You can try and since most of these you are not using on your site you can disable them at Enfold Theme Options ▸ Performance ▸ Disable Template Builder Elements
Blue means that it is disabled, you should see text next to the button unused or in use to help you so you don’t disable elements in use:
Best regards,
MikeI tried this, and it broke my videos. I put it back to Only Load Used Elements (recommended), cleared cache, cleared browser cache/history etc., and the videos are still broken. I’m trying to figure this out, but any help would be appreciated. I’d rather have a bit slower site than not have my videos working.
Thanks!
JonUPDATE: Looks like it was the Jetpack Boost’s Concatenate CSS setting.
I also have that thing where some pages are all white with only hyperlinks and a logo. I’ll leave them for now, but will need to fix them soon:
https://gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx/parenting-family-counseling/
https://gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx/work-life-balance/
https://gatehealing.com/counseling-austin-tx/stress-management/
https://gatehealing.com/blog/There may be random blog posts like this as well, but I did not go check all 100 of them.
Thanks for your help on this.
JonHi,
I’m not sure what you mean, I checked the pages above and they look ok and their mobile PageSpeed was in the 80s, see below.Best regards,
MikeYeah, I mistakenly put the update at the top of that reply (I came back and edited it vs posting new comment).
I found the issue…It’s jet pack boost’s concatenate css feature.
I don’t know why I have to use different plugins to accomplish related tasks like minification/concatenation/compression/merging when many apps do all of them, but if I use one app, elements start breaking,
Hi,
Ok, thanks for explaining. I personally don’t like JetPack or Autoptimize. I note that when someone has multiple plugins that minifys it starts causing issues because minify tries to remove spaces & semicolons from the code, but then when the next plugin tries to do this it can brake the code.
When is your web hosting plan up for renewal, the test page that I made doesn’t use any plugins or CDN and only the theme minify option and it seems to do ok in the test.
Sometimes web hosts put too many customers on a shared server, or a bad actor will be on a server doing spammy things using up the resources, perhaps it would be worth checking out, most hosts offer a 30 day money back trial. Just a thought.Best regards,
MikeI have completely gotten rid of Jetpack and Jetpack Boost. That seems to help on the homepage mobile numbers…but…
I am noticing that on subpages, however, there are still issues with images being too big. I am still trying to figure out how I am supposed to know what size image any particular slider or image box is looking for…apparently this is only on mobile devices though. All of my images seem to work fine for the desktop performance numbers with respect LCP etc. . . but for mobile, I am not understanding why those elements are not picking the correct thumbnails to use when served up to mobile devices?
I can see that I can hide them in the Responsive tab, but I don’t want to hide every image, slider and video.
Am I missing a checkbox that tells the elements to choose the proper thumbnail image for mobile devices?
Hi,
Glad to hear that removing Jetpack and Jetpack Boost has helped. Typically each image has a srcset in the page to tell the browser which image to use depending on the device, and this is how it is on the copy I made of your site, but not on your site, you had this custom code in the functions.php which disabled this:function av_remove_featured_image_link($image) { if (is_single()) { $image = get_the_post_thumbnail( $current_post['the_id'], 'featured' ); } echo $image; } add_filter('avf_post_featured_image_link','av_remove_featured_image_link', 10, 1);I disabled this for you.
Best regards,
MikeThank 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?
JonIt 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
Hi,
The srcset for the featured image of blog posts is now added:
and this looks like it has increased the score on mobile:
and desktop:
I’m not sure how your ewww plugin works but I doubt the disabled function is related to this.Best regards,
MikeThe 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
Found 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
Hi,
I noticed that many js & font files are served from a CDN “exactdn.com” which is from the ewww plugin and I disabled by unchecking the option at Essential ▸ Include All Resources
Then I use the Fast Velocity Minify ▸ JS Settings ▸ Render Blocking JS files option adding this:/wp-includes/js/ /wp-content/uploads/dynamic_avia/
and achieved a huge gain with a score of 94 on mobile from 78
I ran the test a second time and got a score of 89, which is still much better, so I expect that you will see high 80s to low 90s as an average score:
Best regards,
MikeThat 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.
JonOh, 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.
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.
Hi,
I don’t know why the pagespeed scores are so different, but when I first tested your homepage this morning it was 78 and after my adjustments is was 89-94, I think that is pretty good.
So on your /counseling-austin-tx/ page with the video when I first tested it was 62, then I disabled your EWWW Image Optimizer plugin and it jumped to 82.
Please see the links below.Best regards,
Mikethis 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
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.
Hi,
I tried looking into why PageSpeed Insights are not consent, and I found many articles like this one: Why Google PageSpeed Insights don’t reflect realityPageSpeed Insights uses a slow 3G connection for its mobile testing, rather than 4G or 5G or a regular broadband connection. This means that the large majority of your visitors will see faster page loads and have a much better experience browsing your website by default than PageSpeed Insights suggests.
On GTMetrix the desktop version of your /counseling-austin-tx/ page is 99
but you need a paid plan to test as mobile.
The Pingdom Website Speed Test rates your /counseling-austin-tx/ mobile version as 85
DebugBear rates your /counseling-austin-tx/ mobile version as 94
This site claims to be More accurate data than Page Speed Insights:
Best regards,
MikeYeah, 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
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.
Hi,
The article said that they use 3g only for mobile, they probably use lan for the desktop and that is why the score is much higher. You should research this more I saw many articles that said that it is not a good tool.Best regards,
Mike@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.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
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
Hi,
It can cause a conflict, sometimes this is seen, if you notice an error try disabling it.Best regards,
MikeI 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.
- The topic ‘Video fallback image causing enormous performance issues on mobile devices.’ is closed to new replies.