Increase Google site performance

[Dani]

Google PageSpeed Insights indicates a score of 90+. However, the same pages still fall into the slow speed category in Google Search Console Chrome UX report. It says FCP is longer than 3 seconds (3.1s average). What is some low hanging fruit I can do to help real world performance? We serve static content via a cookieless subdomain but using a third-party CDN is cost-prohibitive.

[jkon]

Lets talk a bit about the facts , https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daniweb.com%2Fprogramming%2Fweb-development%2Fthreads%2F521412%2Fincrease-google-site-performance this is the PageSpeed inshight about this spesific page of a site / sector of an app that we are talking now. As you can see it has 59 / 100 overall performance in mobile mode making it yellow. That means that it isn't a garbage but it isn't a even a good one. There is a long dispute if that means that the search engine associated with this tools will throw that in its results deep down. With my experience I can tell that there isn't a linear association but THERE IS AN ASSOCIATION after all (if all other logical optimatation and content managment play along). In desktop it has 95 / 100 that is acceptable (not great but acceptable). For a site that you don't have content managment I can't see why this can't be 100/100 or even make some even better impovement after 100/100 (that this search engine loves , appreciate and marks (I just made this test with a 100/100 web app and still it has suggestions , those has to do with the Content Managment dpt. but I wondered if we the R&D can alter them server side in order to make it even more happy than 100/100) ). The excessive DOM size issue is a really easy one (I can't understand why extensive composition in a CSS would be logical in any way and why a child of a child of a sector that is unique and has a CSS id it has to have a class if it doesn't have siblings of the same type) . Of course you should ensure that the text stay visible during web font load , its simple user experience guidence , but ok I would play along (and I often do) with that one if the site / web app were a clothing brand , but in a forum I can't see the meaning of it. As for CDN's DaniWeb is not based in images and I couldn't see any reason to do it , even if there was a reason the right way (in my point of view and with the experiments and production alternatives that I have made) to implement it has more work and less cost but here its not the case to start talk about it.

[Trasser]

What is wrong with page loading speed? Does Google have detailed explanations? I checked the page loading speed of our site. Here are the stats and a screenshot host-tracker.com/InstantCheck/3/5bae8e87-7a40-ea11-a94a-0003ff7328cc/ 7 seconds to fully load is a great indicator!

[Dani]

I just tried that tool and got over 25 seconds for the homepage of Reddit.

You can see from the screenshot that the page is done loading in < 4 seconds without the ad.

[Dani]

In desktop it has 95 / 100 that is acceptable (not great but acceptable).

You wouldn't consider 95/100 better than acceptable? Can you please, please, please link me to a social network / forum site that is better than 95 so I can see what they're doing that you want me to.

For a site that you don't have content managment I can't see why this can't be 100/100

But, of course, DaniWeb is based off of a quite complex content management system. It certainly isn't a static site.

The excessive DOM size issue is a really easy one

Our extensive DOM size is primarily due to page length. Yes, I probably could avoid nesting HTML elements a bit more than I already am, I agree.

I can't understand why extensive composition in a CSS would be logical in any way and why a child of a child of a sector that is unique and has a CSS id it has to have a class if it doesn't have siblings of the same type

Ease of development and managing the stylesheet and HTML code. Also, because it significantly reduces the amount of CSS required. For example:

// HTML on Page 1:

<div id="foo" class="red"></div>
<div id="bar" class="red"></div>

// HTML on Page 2:

<div id="foo" class="green"></div>

// HTML on Page 3:

<div id="baz" class="green"></div>

// CSS just using IDs

#foo, #bar, #baz { color: red; }
#foo.green { color: green; } /* Override Style */

// CSS using classes

.red { color: red }
.green { color: green }

Classes are much simpler to keep track of and maintain, and I think having a lightweight CSS file is more important than a few extra DOM nodes.

Of course you should ensure that the text stay visible during web font load , its simple user experience guidence

We use FontAwesome.com to generate the little image icons that appear throughout the site. They are generated as a font. We don't want to show something in their place before the icons are loaded. Google PageSpeed Insights is not familiar with FontAwesome, and therefore they don't realize we have a reason why we want to do this. We do, however, also use custom text fonts in place, and for those we do use a fallback default serif that shows before the custom font is downloaded.

As for CDN's DaniWeb is not based in images and I couldn't see any reason to do it

We serve all images from a cookieless subdomain. The benefit of doing this is that the HTTP headers don't have to include the cookie information with every transfer, speeding up load time. Additionally, they are served from a much more lean server than what serves our heavy dynamic content.