Alex RussellNov 25

Frontend is failing. 75% of devices with browsers are smartphones, but not even half of sites pass Core Web Vitals on them. Why not? Too much JavaScript, added to indulge SPA fantasies the data is falsifying in real time:

https://infrequently.org/2025/11/performance-inequality-gap-2026/

Show thread✨Soff✨ Mawr 

@slightlyoff While this is true, it should also be noted that Google has been screwing with the PageSpeed Insight algorithms at least quarterly, for years.

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-core-web-vitals-search-console-update-39766.html

The changes consistently reduce scores across the board for sites that historically were previlusly doing well. I used to run a site that had zero JS and no images, but its score dropped too!

I've come to the conclusion that PageSpeed Insights is not a reliable tool for making comparisons, and hasn't been for years.

Google Core Web Vitals Update In Search Console - Bug or Normal?

Google appears to have updated its Core Web Vitals metrics within Google Search Console a few days ago. The weird thing is that good URLs and URLs need improvements metrics all went down around that d

Search Engine Roundtable
Nov 25 at 8:17pmWeb
Show threadAlex RussellNov 25
@mawr The limits used in those scores were *always* too generous. That they are being slightly tightened as better metrics are developed only means they better reflect the user experience.
Show thread✨Soff✨ Mawr Nov 25

@slightlyoff If that's true, why do plain HTML pages with no Javascript and no images get worse scores than websites with more KBs of JS than the aforementioned sites altogether do?

I genuinely distrust Page Speed Insights as a tool after doing my own testing and research. Sites that load instantaneously without JS are scoring lower than sites loaded with JS do. This isn't about improved user experience, it's about pushing the latest "web enhancement" tech Google is profiting from.

Show threadAlex RussellNov 25
@mawr If you have URLs I can trace, I can answer that question.
Show thread✨Soff✨ Mawr Nov 25

@slightlyoff The site I was testing against seems to have been blocked by their services somehow...  

https://pewpew.solutions/

This was previously getting bad marks for Cumulative Layout Shift (nothing moves on the page) and one of the Contentful Paints. Like the lack of JS involved in loading the site made it get lower marks.

Edit: It's not loading because of the bad SSL cert (I stopped supporting the site years ago, when Reddit dropped API support)

Show threadAlex RussellNov 25
@mawr Loaded that site...and, welp, I am not going to help anyone on either side of that market if I can help it. Good luck, though.
Show thread✨Soff✨ Mawr Nov 25
@slightlyoff Thanks for looking for a way to write off a point with which you disagree, have a good one
Show threadAlex RussellNov 25
@mawr I was genuinely offering to help, per usual, but this is past my ethical line. If you have a different example site I can look at which is not for that (or similar) market, happy to look.
Show thread✨Soff✨ Mawr Nov 25

@slightlyoff I just want to point out that your ethical line seems to be the word "Gun" in the header of a site that is not functional and has not been functional for years, which cannot be supported.

Like, okay buddy. I'm sorry I scared you with that word.

I'm not putting a new site together just for you, I have more important things to focus on as I'm sure you do. Good luck with it.

Show threadJacob 'kurtextrem' GroßNov 25
@mawr @slightlyoff PageSpeed Insights are synthetic. Every run will look slightly different. Google also does not care about those, they only care about CrUX - the real user data at the very top of the PageSpeed Insights page. A 'simple' page like you describe should have great LCP, CLS & INP right away. If there is no JS, then there is a chance it's image heavy + those images don't have width/height which causes CLS. Or web fonts loading that shift things around.