11 ms·

Wondered how well it would rank on those insight scores, https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spacejam.com%2F https://

Wondered how well it would rank on those insight scores, https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spacejam.com%2F https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... Looks like 80kb and they still find things.

pcurve 6y ago
98 on first try, 97 on refresh. 99 on 2nd refresh. Are they just making stuff up?
- hbosch 6y ago
  If they were making stuff up, you'd think at least their own Google.com would score higher than a 76.
- baddox 6y ago
  That’s an extremely small variation in score. Why would that make you think they’re making stuff up? Networks and servers don’t always respond with identical timings.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pcurve 6y ago
    Yes, 98, 97, 99 are small. But when I punched in Google.com, I got 84, and then 78, then 90. That's a pretty wide range.
- dafman 6y ago
  There's a bit about the variability here: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/blob/master/docs/variability.md https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/blob/master/docs/...
racl101 6y ago
Reminds me of that quote from Ryan from the Office: I'm such a perfectionist that I'd kinda rather not do it at all, than do a crappy version. Seems that Google's software shares that mentality.
toast0 6y ago
It's pretty darn hard to hit their page delivery targets unless you're serving from something close to their testing site. https doesn't help, because it adds round trips (www.spacejam.com doesn't support tls 1.3, and I wouldn't want pagespeed to be using a resume handshake for initial load anyway). An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeathcult.fun https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > It's pretty darn hard to hit their page delivery targets unless you're serving from something close to their testing site. Are you sure? Have you tried using a CDN? > An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though Here's an example site I run that gets a close to perfect score that has a fairly complex landing page: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.checkbot.io&tab=desktop https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... (it should load close to instant once it connects in your browser: https://www.checkbot.io/ https://www.checkbot.io/) The main tips I can give for a high page speed that most websites don't do are avoid large header images, make sure text is visible before custom fonts load, use minimal CSS (and/or inline the CSS for the header into the top of the HTML), don't use blocking JavaScript and especially avoid huge JavaScript triggered cookie popups (the blocking JavaScript + big delay for the Largest Contentful Paint will kill your score).
- weare138 6y ago
  Google can't even meet their own metrics. The Gmail landing page gets a PageSpeed score of 24. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=gmail.com https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...

pcurve 6y ago

98 on first try, 97 on refresh. 99 on 2nd refresh. Are they just making stuff up?

hbosch 6y ago
If they were making stuff up, you'd think at least their own Google.com would score higher than a 76.
baddox 6y ago
That’s an extremely small variation in score. Why would that make you think they’re making stuff up? Networks and servers don’t always respond with identical timings.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pcurve 6y ago
  Yes, 98, 97, 99 are small. But when I punched in Google.com, I got 84, and then 78, then 90. That's a pretty wide range.
dafman 6y ago
There's a bit about the variability here: https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/blob/master/docs/variability.md https://github.com/GoogleChrome/lighthouse/blob/master/docs/...

racl101 6y ago

Reminds me of that quote from Ryan from the Office: I'm such a perfectionist that I'd kinda rather not do it at all, than do a crappy version. Seems that Google's software shares that mentality.

toast0 6y ago

It's pretty darn hard to hit their page delivery targets unless you're serving from something close to their testing site. https doesn't help, because it adds round trips (www.spacejam.com doesn't support tls 1.3, and I wouldn't want pagespeed to be using a resume handshake for initial load anyway). An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeathcult.fun https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...

seanwilson 6y ago
> It's pretty darn hard to hit their page delivery targets unless you're serving from something close to their testing site. Are you sure? Have you tried using a CDN? > An ultra small, static site can sometimes get 100 though Here's an example site I run that gets a close to perfect score that has a fairly complex landing page: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.checkbot.io&tab=desktop https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=... (it should load close to instant once it connects in your browser: https://www.checkbot.io/ https://www.checkbot.io/) The main tips I can give for a high page speed that most websites don't do are avoid large header images, make sure text is visible before custom fonts load, use minimal CSS (and/or inline the CSS for the header into the top of the HTML), don't use blocking JavaScript and especially avoid huge JavaScript triggered cookie popups (the blocking JavaScript + big delay for the Largest Contentful Paint will kill your score).
weare138 6y ago
Google can't even meet their own metrics. The Gmail landing page gets a PageSpeed score of 24. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=gmail.com https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=...