Dark pattern pet peeve once you complete the test. The options are either:<p><pre><code> Yes, send me my report and occasional emails with helpful
tips on how to improve my online presence. Google may send
me recommendations for certain Google products and services
and contact me with further help and tips based on my
TestMySite results.
</code></pre>
Or:<p><pre><code> No thanks, I don’t want to get my detailed results.
</code></pre>
What if I want to get my results, but not subscribe to your marketing drip campaign?<p>Screenshot: <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/csm6j5u9hq5wubw/Screenshot%202017-01-10%2013.32.32.png?dl=0" rel="nofollow">https://www.dropbox.com/s/csm6j5u9hq5wubw/Screenshot%202017-...</a>
I ran it on a tiny static 99.9% text-only site that finishes loading in 0.15s, a full 0.1s of which is a 1.5KB creative commons graphic, and google knocks 9 points off on mobile because I don't defer the 8ms request for 374 bytes of CSS? Seems arbitrary.
The PageSpeed Insights[0] tool is better. Less scrolling to see results, actionable steps to fix issues and no scroll hijacking. Also seems to scan websites quicker.<p>[0] <a href="https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/" rel="nofollow">https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/</a>
I find testing using these types of tools better, as it gives a real world performance metric (actual load times) <a href="https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/dJNbUe/www.instapainting.com" rel="nofollow">https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/dJNbUe/www.instapainting.com</a>
Speaking to some of the Google developers and the head of mobile web performance - not even Google use their own tool as a measure / benchmark for performance. PageSpeed Insights is both broken and convoluted at best.<p>- No support for HTTP/2
-- This means that if you follow all the "right" approaches for performance with HTTP/2, you'll be slapped with a terrible PageSpeed score due to it not taking into account the effect of multi plexing connections.
- Has constant bugs around determining the flow of assets on the page and thinks that assets at the bottom become render blocking when they do not<p>Google tend to use a combination of their own tooling + WebPageTest.org (which is also theirs) to test performance issues.<p>This tool is mainly geared at the non-developer type, but it's unfortunately misleading and just wrong. It doesn't measure speed, it measures performance methodologies and whether they have been implemented or not (and old ones at that).<p>The more important metrics are time to paint, time to domcontentready. Using WebPageTest will get you what you want. I find it pretty offensive and misleading that Google is using such a tool and promoting it to users, because frankly it misses the entire point of performance.<p>Things like this:
"Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold content" when you're running an H/2 site with an appcache and pushing assets is just downright wrong.<p>It's sad that there's a general miscommunication within the company about performance. Ilya Gregorik and co say one thing, and the rest say another.
I don't understand. Why not simply use PageSpeed where it tells you exactly what to fix to improve each aspect?<p><a href="https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/" rel="nofollow">https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/</a>
If it provides the scores I'm assuming it also has detailed information on how those scores were calculated. Why not provide the detailed results right away instead of collecting emails. Every time I see "Get Something Free" or something similar my bullshit meter starts peaking right away.
Neat, I had it report on itself..<p><pre><code> DESKTOP SPEED 96/100 GOOD
MOBILE SPEED 94/100 GOOD
MOBILE FRIENDLINESS 100/100 GOOD</code></pre>
Just tried it out, now waiting for the reports.<p>It'd be nice if they let me sign in with my Google account, so I can generate multiple reports without having to repeatedly type in my email. It seems reasonable to assume that anyone that uses a tool like this would likely have multiple pages or sites they'd want to check, no?
I tested reddit (which I hate using on mobile), and it got a Poor 63/100 for speed while high marks for mobile optimization. I guess it's a perfect representation of many SPAs out there. Fancy JS frameworks that are built for mobile, but it takes 10s+ to load if you're not on Wifi/4G.
Ironically this site does not work correctly for me on my phone. On the latest stable safari and iOS version the field to enter your email to get the report is missing. No ad blockers enabled etc...
They say that more people surf the web on mobile than on desktop.<p>Does anyone has some more data on this? What do they include in 'mobile', also tablets?<p>I surf on my phone a lot but I still surf on my notebook as well, actually the entire day at the office
Hm... It doesn't return anything for my site. It runs the tests, says 100% done, then returns to the home-screen without an input field.<p>Anyone else?