LCP is too big

Capitao

Hello,
I have read all the articles i found about leap.
I checked a lot of threads here.
My LEAP settings are practically all ENABLED.
My cache is 88%
My plugins conflicts is well managed
My host is a high end VPS, with amazing results if i test a new blog.

However, i have LCP problems. Also FCP. And TTFB.
I have many images on post, it is certain, but that should not be a problem. Similar tools like shortpixel or other CDN usually work easily with this.

Using pagespeed.web.dev and the Ezoic Leap LAB, when i check any of my recent posts, one by one, they are all on bad shape.
The domain with this situation is lo***

Any tip to fix this?

Mohammad2306

It wasn't clear but if you're using Shortpixel on this site, you'll need to disable because it can have a technical conflict with LEAP (or disable the related image settings in LEAP). Your images did get converted to the webp format.

Many of the pages on your site are fine. That said, you can still take additional steps if this is an important concern for you. If you haven't already done so, you will want to review your list of WP plugins and disable any that are not essential, thus reducing plugin bloat. You can also go to the Optimize section in LEAP to enable additional options. It's even possible to remove ads above the fold (via Leap -> Optimize -> Script Execution) but this will reduce your ad revenue considerably.

Capitao

Mohammad2306

I am not using shortpixel. It was an example of other sites that i have with the same amount of images and same theme/layout, which is not a problem when i use tools as shortpixel. (this thought was to exclude the image reason to slowdown my website)
I don't have any CDN/optimize tool to conflict with leap.

My plugins are managed, i don't see them as a problem.
The pages are getting bad evaluations by google metrics, so it is kind a concern for me.

What additional options are you talking about to enable on LEAP? I got the majority ON.

HarryB

Are you noticing this in particular on new pages? I've been running tests on some of your worst affected pages and actually running a live test returns a much better LCP value when compared to the results that you've been seeing It could be that the image files aren't cached on new pages, so you're seeing longer load times.

For example this page [redacted] which is reportedly your worst page for LCP, the LCP element is the first thing loaded after the initial html , and is loaded in <.5 seconds. Which is more than enough to meet the pass requirements for LCP.

If you're testing pages that are new, then in all likelihood these images aren't cached, so your results are going to be worse than what's actually reflected in the user experience. We're already serving these images in optimize formats and prioritizing them at the front of the page load, so optimization is looking really good from that perspective. Over time as users continue to visit your pages, you'll see improvements in your performance as more and more users are served cached versions of your site.

Capitao

Thank you @HarryB
Please remove the name of my article in your text, and also the image that contains that name. I appreciate the example, but i prefer to not have them publicly.

Indeed, i feel that new pages have a worse result, probably for the cache section.
However, i waited some weeks before i open this thread to ensure that i have several weeks and months of content to compare.
In Ezoic LAB and Page Insights by Google, many of my posts have problems to be solved.
Even on my google search console, WEB VITALS sections, i can see have i have a problem:
< image.png >

I don't feel that the problem is with theme or anything related. None of the comments so far detected any problem clearly from my side.

In ultimate case, i will have to disable ADS, or LEAP, or both to see if i can solve this, if i can't find a solution here.

Thank you for your time.

Tucker_P_Ezoic

When you look at the 'my scores' section of the LEAP dashboard, and look at the 'worst scores' --- there's only about 5-6 pages that aren't passing (this uses real-user data, not a one time test).
When you then put this into the Lab to test, they're passing on desktop (the worst performing page LCP on desktop renders in 1.1 seconds), and only moderately affected on mobile when testing on a few different occasions.
It's also highlighting the element so that you can take a look and see if maybe the formatting for those particular elements is different from the one's that are passing.

We realize you are seeing data provided in search console from their daily testing, but if you use the real-user data that's presented by LEAP we're not sure there is anything dramatic that would cause you to need to disable LEAP or ads, or that would be negatively affecting your search ranking.
Just so you're aware, core-web vitals metrics and speed based metrics account for around 2% of all ranking factors for search engines - so having a handful of pages that have an occasional LCP issue that corrects over time isn't likely to cause any sort of ranking or search issue.
Your traffic on the site has improved over time since using Ezoic and LEAP as well - so there's no indication that any drastic action should be taken.

Capitao

Tucker_P_Ezoic thank your good analyse.
I understand that they are tools by Google and its partners, and the results don't seem to match the reality. However, that was exactly the point i opened this thread.
It is "hard to sleep well", knowing that Google is telling me that i have a problem in the majority of my site and i do not do anything. Sooner or later, big or small, i will have a impact if my competitors don't have a problem on Google eyes.
If it is fair or not, that is another question.
The reports from Google Search console are also increasing day by day.

I will try some radical measures. Test and learn.
Thank you all

Jan

Capitao This is something that our team is routinely looking at, and I can assure you we've looked at tens of thousands of sites and the specific tradeoffs between speed and overall user experience. You are correct, it is an indicator of page experience, but even Google has walked back the significance of it recently. Check out this exceprt from an article about the topic - https://www.searchenginejournal.com/ranking-factors/are-core-web-vitals-a-ranking-factor/:

Fast forward to April 2023, when Google “simplified” its guidance around page experience signals in search rankings.

While Google still recommends maintaining strong CWV for a good user experience and still uses these metrics as ranking signals, improving one or more metrics does not guarantee better rankings.

Page experience continues to be a ranking factor but is evaluated holistically by Google’s core ranking systems rather than as a single “page experience signal.” Mueller also updated Google Search Central audiences on YouTube in July 2023 about INP coming to CWV in 2024.

To be candid, you're making assumptions that core web vitals are the end all be all for ranking a site, which isn't true. At the end of the day, every website owner will need to make decisions on what is important to them. Is it more important that I focus on good content, or make my site as fast as humanly possible? Is a specific plugin on my site that is slowing it down useful enough that I want to keep it running on the site? These are decisions you will be faced with when running a website.

My strong recommendation is to look at the user experience metric for your site and see if there is a negative impact on that end vs. this specific single metric. I'd also encourage you to check out some of the biggest publications out there, and how their core web vitals look. I think you would be surprised at the wide ranging scores for core web vitals.

This isn't to dismiss the concern - I can empathize that it keeps you up at night because at the end of the day its a tangible score that Google has created, and it's 'easier' to try and complete this than it is to write good content because that is arbitrary. But I have seen the same concern many many times (and is the whole reason why LEAP was created in the first place), and the amount of time spent trying to improve this almost never actually moves the needle from a search rank perspective because It's one aspect of the website and not fully representative of the users expereince.