Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
The bottleneck is ads_webinformer form.
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
etc wrote #328601:
Caching latest forum news saves ~100ms, but the performance score is still under 90.
Just so I understand this: As I have the etc_cache plugin installed on the site, can I simply put that forum code within <txp:etc_cache id="forum-api" time="-900"> tags and then that is cached on the server for 15 minutes for all subsequent visitors (and then fetched again for 15 minutes upon first visitor to site after that) – i.e. the server won’t make an API request during that duration? I am a little unsure if I interpreted this plugin’s use correctly?
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
philwareham wrote #328617:
the server won’t make an API request during that duration?
That’s right (and actually already done), it will pull the content from etc_cache table instead. But the main guilty is here. And since the request seems to be delayed, caching it is problematic.
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
We tweaked the forum widget cache-iness when spam was more prevalent than now, so deleted junk threads wouldn’t appear on the .com front page.
Edit: I’ll check to be sure, but the fluxBB caching side of things for the widget should be 0, so .com-side can do the magic.
Last edited by gaekwad (2021-02-08 11:41:11)
Online
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
etc wrote #328618:
That’s right, it will pull the content from
etc_cachetable instead. But the main guilty is here. And since the request seems to be delayed, caching it is problematic.
Thanks. I have just cached the forum API and also the blog listing on our homepage which have combined saved some milliseconds. You are correct though, the web informer ad is the main cause of the delay in server response (about 300-400ms saved if I omit that from the page).
However, I don’t think I will be able to cache this item anyway as I’m not sure what agreements they have with Robert – whether they track hits to that external HTML as a metric in how well their ad is performing or if it’s simply a way of getting backlink juice for their domain. I’ve been told off before for messing with that so I’m reluctant to make any further changes.
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
It’s annoying though – I’m getting a consistent page load of around 180ms on Pingdom Tools for the Textpattern homepage without that ad, and 560ms with the ad.
Upshot of all this though, is that Textpattern is super-quick when everything is optimised as well as I can currently do. And that’s without a Varnish, or similar, cache on top (as far as I’m aware).
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
At least we know it’s not Textpattern.
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
etc wrote #328623:
At least we know it’s not Textpattern.
I wonder if there is a way, with PHP, to request that web informer HTML asynchronously at the start of our code execution (say, above the <html> tag in a page template) and then when it gets to the point in the template where it needs to insert it, it’s had a headstart on fetching the item (kind of like we are doing with defer on JavaScript). That could shave some time off. Is that possible with PHP?
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
philwareham wrote #328624:
request that web informer HTML asynchronously at the start of our code execution (say, above the <html> tag in a page template) and then when it gets to the point in the template where it needs to insert it, it’s had a headstart on fetching the item
I don’t think the difference would be noticeable. Leave it with Robert :-)
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
More ideas:)
Are you compressing the content before delivery?
I know it is not nice for people who want to learn, but did you think of using pat_speeder?
Yiannis
——————————
NeMe | hblack.art | EMAP | A Sea change | Toolkit of Care
I do my best editing after I click on the submit button.
Offline
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
To be honest, the site is optimised to the max, apart from maybe a few server-side PHP caching tricks (and the aforementioned issue with one ad). The site even serves AVIF in a couple of places for images in cutting-edge browsers. I’ve been tweaking it over a few weeks with latest optimisation techniques just as an area of interest for my future work.
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
colak wrote #328633:
Are you compressing the content before delivery?
Aside from caching (which I’m testing at the moment), we’re very efficient on most things. Compression, optimisation, building PHP and Nginx from source to trim the stuff we don’t use, all sort of things.
Online
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
colak wrote #328608:
I guess it has to do with search engine visibility. As much as it sucks G has the lion share of the market/prospective visitors. Using a less controversial language, having your site load quickly for your visitors is actually a good thing.
I am testing my sites on developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/ and I am getting high 90s scores both for desktop and mobile devices.
i see that google is dictaing that PNG images are now sub-standard!
Image formats like JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, and WebP often provide better compression than PNG or JPEG
PNG; Portable Network Graphics (PNG, officially pronounced PING, more commonly pronounced PEE-en-JEE) is a raster-graphics file format that supports lossless data compression. PNG was developed as an improved, non-patented replacement for Graphics Interchange Format (GIF).
So are we going to be continuously hounded to re-format years of images to suit G’s preferences?
…. texted postive
Offline
Re: Core Web Vitals to affect Google rankings May 2021
bici wrote #328651:
So are we going to be continuously hounded to re-format years of images to suit G’s preferences?
Yes. And not only for images. They are pushing hard for using AMP for “faster” delivery… yeah good try… anything on AMP sets the G. cookie as a first-party cookie. More detailed profiling by G, and on the way defeating mechanisms (ITP) that browsers such as Safari, Brave and Firefox build in to protect users privacy etc.
Where is that emoji for a solar powered submarine when you need it ?
Sand space – admin theme for Textpattern
phiw13 on Codeberg
Offline