Tech Support Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Normally it is expected that mobile test will produce worse results, as they are emulating slow mobile network in their tests. The most obvious thing I can see without any additional details is "Serve images in next-gen formats", which is typically because of not using WebP for screenshots. Please create support ticket, we can confirm that. Then a fix could be possible to make results better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 13 Author Share Posted June 13 Disabling Google Recaptcha as you suggested is an improvement but still short way short of the benchmark demo results for mobile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Support Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 Unfortunately we don't see anything more easy to do, you have to adjust design or do any of the enhancement proposed by this tool. It is not easy to get 100 on mobile for this tool, you have to do a lot of effort to get this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viper Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 Hello, why don't head tags in kvs? Quote I dont see any head tag this a reason to make search engine ignore your website Quote h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6 It's good for seo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 14 Author Share Posted June 14 4 hours ago, viper said: Hello, why don't head tags in kvs? It's good for seo The on page SEO check by seobility I run periodically identifies some issues with headings structure in general and H1 headings in particular. I've previously considered this to be a secondary issue and not attempted to correct. As you suggest it probably is detrimental for Google indexing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 14 Author Share Posted June 14 21 hours ago, Tech Support said: Unfortunately we don't see anything more easy to do, you have to adjust design or do any of the enhancement proposed by this tool. It is not easy to get 100 on mobile for this tool, you have to do a lot of effort to get this. Noted. What design adjustments and enhancements did you do the the demo to get the mobile performance result 95 you previously reported? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Support Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 15 hours ago, Jim said: What design adjustments and enhancements did you do the the demo to get the mobile performance result 95 you previously reported? We did not do any adjustments, this is the behavior of default theme design without using any external scripts or advertising. I mean the default theme is already designed in a perfect way. But when you start adding advertising, or altering theme (e.g. adding more blocks to some pages), it will receive lower score, and this is normal. For example some themes may render additional blocks on index page, which make the page more heavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted June 15 Author Share Posted June 15 9 hours ago, Tech Support said: We did not do any adjustments, this is the behavior of default theme design without using any external scripts or advertising. I mean the default theme is already designed in a perfect way. But when you start adding advertising, or altering theme (e.g. adding more blocks to some pages), it will receive lower score, and this is normal. For example some themes may render additional blocks on index page, which make the page more heavy. You appear to be saying that due to perfect design the KVS default theme without any external scripts, advertising or any changes to templates will always achieve mobile performance 95%. Is this correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Support Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Yes, we have optimized everything possible by default and you can see the result here: https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-www-kvs-demo-com-video-240-ne-yo-beautiful-monster/sx7z1mp0j9?form_factor=mobile We are also looking into switching to using AVIF instead of WebP, as this will give even smaller image sizes, which is particularly important for player images on video pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egg Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 On 6/17/2024 at 7:48 AM, Tech Support said: Yes, we have optimized everything possible by default and you can see the result here: https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-www-kvs-demo-com-video-240-ne-yo-beautiful-monster/sx7z1mp0j9?form_factor=mobile We are also looking into switching to using AVIF instead of WebP, as this will give even smaller image sizes, which is particularly important for player images on video pages. Any ETA on the format change? I have been manually converting images to use on model screenshots, but the video thumbnails are stuck with jpeg for now it seems, which puts a considerable amount of load on the pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Support Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 For video screenshots it already supports WEBP. We are adding AVIF support right at this moment, but we found that it is not feasible to use it for thumbs. Its creation costs x10 times longer than WEBP, and it gives very slight improvement for small images. But for player images it should work well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.