1. 

   wcamp
   

   offline

   Member

   I've received from Google Search Console (GSC) an emailed advisory telling me that one of 35 pages in a directory has an "LCP issue: longer than 4s (mobile)." Here's a screenshot of the GSC citing: https://www.warrencampdesign.com/images/LCPIssue-richFool.jpg

   I've run a Google PageSpeed test of my page and it received poor "48" score, as shown on this screenshot: https://www.warrencampdesign.com/images/googlePageSpeed.jpg

   I opened the dropdown menu for the first segment on the PageSpeed page, titled "Remove unused JavaScript," which suggests that I can shave off 2.4 seconds. However, the two JS files listed are from YouTube. Is there a way to correct how the JS renders on these two JS files?

   When I look at the drop-down list beneath the second segment titled "Eliminate render-blocking resources," I find that all nine listed CSS files are PVII files. Is GSC erroneously citing those CSS files as render-blocking resources"??? If not, how can I improve their rendering speed?

   I don't know JavaScript so I obviously I have no idea how to improve the PageSpeed of this page [and the other 34 similar pages in this directory] . . .

   The URL for the cited page is: https://www.warrencampdesign.com/parables/parable.3b.rich-fool.html

   Would those of you "in the know" about JS and GSC please inform me of what I must do to improve the page loading speed of this sample page?

   Much appreciated!

   Warren
   _______

   Posted 1 year ago
2. 

   wcamp
   

   offline

   Member

   Hi:

   A week has passed without receiving a response to my inquiry. I hope one of you will guide me on how to resolve the "LSC" errors that GSC cites.

   Thanks, in advance.

   Warren

   Posted 1 year ago
3. 

   Gerry
   

   offline

   PVII Team

   There really are no meaningful suggestion here, not without cutting content from your page.

   The Google Page Speed score for that page is 56. First, notce that the Google suggestions are followed by this disclaimer:

   OpportunitiesThese suggestions can help your page load faster. They don't directly affect the Performance score.

   They estimate a savings of 2.4 seconds by removing the unused JavaScript:

   1. …en_US/base.js(www.youtube.com)

   2. …www-embed-player.vflset/www-embed-player.js(www.youtube.com)

   Both are scripts from Google, and both are actually used on your page, for the YouTube videos.

   In effect, you can cut your p[age load speed by just about one half if you remove them.

   They also mention eliminating render-blocking resources to save another 1.62 seconds... easier said than done since these resources are the style sheets which must be read by the browser in order to render the page. What Google would want you to do is to re-write all of the css and scripts, and only include the css and scripts needed to render the first page view (screen), and then load the remaining styles and scripts in a separate deferred or async thread. This is virtually impossible for most persons, and I would strongly suggest not even attempting it... to save only 1.63 seconds.

   The overwhelming bulk of the low page speed score is caused by the off-site links to Google resources, get rid of those and you'll have a great Page Speed Index, but you wont have any video or Goggle analytics, Google fonts, and Google Double Click ads... all of which are causing the poor page speed.

   Posted 1 year ago
4. 

   wcamp
   

   offline

   Member

   I appreciate your explanation and advisory, Gerry. Thanks for detailing it as you have.

   To be sure that I fully understand you, please tell me if the following is correct.

   -- 1. The way to improve the page loading speed is to delete the video entirely.

   -- 2. I ought to leave all of the external style sheet callings as they are; no modifications are prudent.

   -- 3. I can ignore the GSC error warnings it emails to me regarding "LCP issue: longer than 4s (mobile)" as shown in the first screenshot (linked above).

   Am I correct in all three statements?

   Thanks, in advance, Gerry, for your advice on this.

   Warren

   Posted 1 year ago
5. 

   Gerry
   

   offline

   PVII Team

   Well, not quite...

   --1. They say you will save 2.4 seconds of page load time if you remove the two YouTube files. Again, this is under the 'Opportunities' section, it is strictly a suggestion. If the videos are important to your site and they are important have embedded in the page then do not remove them. If you can simply link to the YouTube video that would be best since then your page's load time will not be affected by the videos. It's a choice that you, the web designer, need to make.

   --2. Yes, the leave the style sheet and script links the way they are, the page load impact from them is significant.

   --3. Once you solve the video question in item 1 and Google updates their database to reflect your current site's load times you will not be getting the emails.

   Posted 1 year ago
6. 

   wcamp
   

   offline

   Member

   Thanks very much, Gerry, for your detailed explanation in item #1. I wasn't aware of the page loading differences between an embedded video and a linked one.

   I've created a JPEG image of the YouTube video and used it to replace the embedded video's image. I then added a hyperlink to that image that opens the video.

   Now, the page speed score gets a "91" instead of previous scores in the 40s and 50s. Hooooooray!

   https://www.warrencampdesign.com/parables/parable.3b.rich-fool.html

   Many thanks. I'll now do similarly to 35 other "Parables" pages that have embedded videos on them.

   Warren

   Posted 1 year ago
7. 

   Gerry
   

   offline

   PVII Team

   That's a great impovement Warren!

   One small issue, the image name has a syntax error so it is not showing:

   <img src="images/videoLink-RichFool.jpf"

   the file type should be .jpg

   Posted 1 year ago
8. 

   wcamp
   

   offline

   Member

   Gee. I thought that I did as PageSpeed Insights recommended: Convert "JPEG" image file types to "JPEG 2000" images, which use the .jpf extension. Interestingly, the newly converted .jpf image appears on my page when viewing on Safari but doesn't appear on Google Chrome. (???)

   Have I mistakenly interpreted PageSpeed Insights' recommendation to convert JPEGs to JPEG 2000s?

   I wonder why the browsers either render or don't render the .jof image.

   What do you suggest I do to remedy this situation while keeping high scores on the page load speed?

   Wondering Warren

   Posted 1 year ago
9. 

   Gerry
   

   offline

   PVII Team

   AFAIK the .jpf file format for images is only supported by Safari and iOS. Your page will load and score just as high on PageSpeed with the normal .jpg file format. I don't know where you got the jpf advice but do ignore it.

   Posted 1 year ago
10. 

    wcamp
    

    offline

    Member

    Thanks for your "ignore .jpf" advisory, Gerry. I'll reconvert the new .jpf files to the original .jpg files.

    Incidentally, it was PageSpeed Insights that suggested converting JPEG formatted files to JPEG 2000 files to improve page speed. Sadly, nowhere on its speed-test pages is there a warning that .jpf files (JPEF 2000) are not supported on major browsers.      (  ; - (

    I'll happily follow your "ignore it" recommendation.

    Posted 1 year ago

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.