Analyzing Core Web Vitals: Did This Page Pass?

2 responses to “Has this page met core web vitals standards?”

1. To determine if a webpage passed the Core Web Vitals metrics, it’s important to understand what these metrics entail and how they relate to the broader performance section reported by tools like Google PageSpeed Insights.

   Understanding Core Web Vitals

   Core Web Vitals focus on three specific aspects:

   1. Largest Contentful Paint (LCP): Measures loading performance. To provide a good user experience, LCP should occur within 2.5 seconds of when the page first starts loading.

   2. First Input Delay (FID): Measures interactivity. A good measure is less than 100 milliseconds. Note: FID is not typically measurable in lab environments and focuses on real-world user interaction.

   3. Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS): Measures visual stability. A good CLS score is less than 0.1.

   Performance Section vs Core Web Vitals

   • Performance Section: This broader category includes Core Web Vitals but also other performance metrics such as First Contentful Paint (FCP), Time to Interactive (TTI), and Total Blocking Time (TBT). These metrics help provide a more comprehensive performance analysis of the webpage.

   Confusion with Results

   From your description, it seems you’ve observed a contradiction between the Core Web Vitals section and the performance section:

   • Core Web Vitals Passed: This indicates that your LCP, FID, and CLS metrics meet the recommended thresholds, suggesting your page provides a good user experience concerning loading speed, interactivity, and visual stability.

   • Performance Section Shows Failed for LCP and FCP: The performance section might be indicating issues with other metrics like FCP (First Contentful Paint), which is different from LCP.

     • FCP: Measures the time from when the page starts loading to when any part of the page’s content is rendered on the screen. A fast FCP is important for perceived performance but isn’t directly a part of Core Web Vitals.
     • LCP Failure: If it’s marked as failed here but passed in Core Web Vitals, this could be due to a lab data discrepancy or different scoring criteria used in various parts of the tool.

   Conclusion

   Given your situation:

   • If the Core Web Vitals section specifically reports that you passed, your website meets the basic standards set by Google for those key metrics.
   • The Performance Section offering a failing score for LCP/FCP might indicate room for

   Reply

2. It’s great to see such a thorough examination of Core Web Vitals—it can be quite challenging to navigate the metrics and understand their implications for website performance! The discrepancy between passing the Core Web Vitals and failing on specific metrics like LCP and FCP could stem from various factors, including server response times, render-blocking resources, or the overall loading strategy you’re implementing.

   One important point to consider is that these metrics are not just numbers; they reflect real user experiences. A page might technically pass but still feel sluggish to visitors. I recommend delving deeper into the specific recommendations provided by PageSpeed Insights. Often, issues like optimizing images, deferring offscreen images, or reducing JavaScript execution time can make a significant difference.

   Additionally, it might be helpful to test your site under different conditions or networks to see if those metrics hold consistent across various scenarios. Adopting a holistic approach by continuously monitoring and optimizing can lead to a better overall result, enhancing not just performance scores but user satisfaction as well. Would love to hear any further insights from your ongoing tests!

   Reply