Author Topic: Optimizing Web Vitals  (Read 572 times)

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6773
    • View Profile
Optimizing Web Vitals
« on: May 19, 2021, 07:29:01 PM »
https://web.dev/optimize-vitals-lighthouse/

It's an overview, also covering new features in Lighthouse 7. It also flags this, which could be really handy

Quote
You might also find LCP Bookmarklet by Annie Sullivan useful for quickly identifying the LCP element with a red rectangle in just one click.

Adam C

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: Optimizing Web Vitals
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2021, 03:17:10 PM »
Core Web Vitals feels like a very well intentioned initiative from Google that has been executed rather poorly.

The diagnostic tools that are available to the vast majority are not good enough to pinpoint many issues.  The Field and Lab data often tell conflicting stories.  Only those with access to decent RUM data can really get into the details.

I would hope that Google recognise this and find a way to open up more granular RUM data from the CrUX dataset via Search Console or similar.

I'm not surprised in the least that the rollout was pushed back a month.

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6773
    • View Profile
Re: Optimizing Web Vitals
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2021, 07:12:31 PM »
>>RUM

Have you tried any tools like Astronatics or That's Why?
https://thatswhy.app/
https://astronatic.com/real-user-monitoring

19 tools for Real User Monitoring (2020 version)
https://robindirksen.com/blog/real-user-monitoring-tools

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6773
    • View Profile
Re: Optimizing Web Vitals
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2021, 01:36:03 AM »
I know a lot of people are not Brian Dean fans, but...

We analyzed 208,085 webpages to learn more about Core Web Vitals.
https://backlinko.com/core-web-vitals-study

Quote
1. 53.77% of sites had a good Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) score. 46.23% of sites had “poor” or “needs improvement” LCP ratings.

2. 53.85% of websites in our data set had optimal First Input Delay (FID) ratings. Only 8.57% of sites had a “poor” FID score.

3. 65.13% of analyzed sites boasted good optimal Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) scores.

4. The average LCP of the sites we analyzed clocked in at 2,386 milliseconds.


Eyeballing the graphs, it looks like there's not much difference between "Good" and "Needs Improvement" but there is a bigger drop if you get rated "Poor."

I didn't look, but they do have a link to a Google Doc on their methods.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 01:41:41 AM by ergophobe »