fneuf

Thanks for your answer. I’ll do so in the coming hours.

Please refer to the latest VZJFZAHH report for analysis.

It is made with LiteSpeed cache on server activated, PageSpeed unactivated, and WP plugin settings reset and only set as caching.

This time it looks like load time did improve, but other perfs (# requests, page size, pingdom perf grade, PSI metrics) are still decreasing, but this time just a little bit when cache is on.

Hello,

Thanks for your message. Please consider that’s already the case. That’s how I intended to setup my wordpress plugin environment. If it’s not the case, defacto I need help to identify which parameter should be disabled/enabled.

Yes, it’s my original intent. And had quite success with that during a few days (first numbers in my first post). At some point, I suppose when I was investigating the Contact-Form-7 issue that I finally solved, something changed and did alter the results.

And also yes, my host use some kind of Apache/Nginx architecture and propose their customer, should they wish, to activate LiteSpeed OR Varnish through the cPanel, along with PageSpeed Mod possibilities. I tried to get a better understanding of that, but they refuse to give me more details for “industrial secrecy” and “competitors protection” reasons.

Thanks for your answer.

I was not using optimizing features in LiteSpeed plugin because I already had FVM (and then Autoptimize) plus Async javascripted activated. Did not wanted to mix settings.

My host offer this Apache/Nginx stack plus the possibility to use LiteSpeed cache or a Varnish based one. If I understand you correctly, they shouldn’t propose that?

I’ll try with PageSpeed completely off.

EDIT : and to be complete, until last weekend when the behavior issue arise, this stack plus LS server cache, plugin, FVM, Async and PSpeed were working great (my best metrics achieved so far).

Thanks for your answer Stanley. The Report number is KDQUDXTU.

I would need to test it a bit more, but LS cache server on with plugin off seems an in-between solution : not the worst spec (for instance PSI 95/62), but definitely not the best is achieved. The best is still clearly achieved with all caching ways off.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by fneuf.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by fneuf.

Did it and did get an answer. Thanks !

I almost forgot one point, the icing on the cake. When LS is on, the one form I have on one page, based on Contact Form 7, still cannot work.

Thanks, I’ll give those advices a go.

I choose to use the LiteSpeed Cache plugin because of the presence of an LS Cache on the Server side.

I’ve understood all the benchmark results are contextuals. I’m checking tendencies, more than discrete values. That’s why the values given in my previous message are averaged.

In FVM, what is the difference in between:
A – “Inline CSS in the footer”
B – “Inline CSS both in the header and footer”
Is selecting only B acting as also having selected A? Is the inlining result the same, but copied at both places?

Thanks for this clear clarification. I understand the purpose here.

I’m a bit uncertain now, regarding optimisation. I thought I was getting pretty good at this game. After some days of careful fiddling, documenting myself and testing I went up to:
– GTmetrix : PSpeed 92 / YSlow 86 / 1.7s / 20 requests
– PSI 100 86
– Pingdom 84 / 614ms / 22 requests

At one point I identified an error in the Contact Form 7 behavior. Corrected it. And I’m now stucked at:
– GTmetrix : PSpeed 87 / YSlow 76 / 2.8s / 46 requests
– PSI 64 56
– Pingdom 74 / 1.13s / 48 requests

What confuses me is that, it seems whatever my parameters PSI mobile (and not desktop) only keeps declining while other benchmarks roughly stays the same. I even did a restore of my last good settings on the whole website. Even that did not change at all my current results.

I use :
– of course “Fast Velocity Minify”,
– “Async JavaScript”,
– LiteSpeed Cache”,
– on server (ngnix brotli) my host offers numerous “mod_pageSpeed” scripts.
Considering my situation I have now red most of the doc of those plugins, and it so looks my parameters are not crazy. What would be your setup recommendation in this environment? Any obvious thing to check I might have underlooked?

Thanks for the clarification.

Then I’m not sure to totally get the options about PSI. Does that mean, that PSI queries are handled differently that say, browser query?

Thanks, this solved the issue on my install.

Do you know when this will be properly corrected ?

EDIT : any use in our scenario to this other recommendation ?

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by fneuf. Reason: add_action( ‘wp_footer’, ‘wpcf7_recaptcha_onload_script’, 1, 0 );

I’m a bit of a “perfectionist”, so I define title, alt, desc for all the images I upload.

Checking my website, I saw that title attribute was not used in the pages’ code. After a quick research I realized that Gutenberg did get rid of this attribute. And that’s why & where I found your plugin. I understood one of its purpose, through “Insert Image Title into post HTML” option, was to overcome Gutenberg policy and insert Title attribute in a website frontend.

Now I’m a bit confused. I’ll try to reformulate your last answer to see if I understand it correctly: “When Gutenberg is used the plugin can not directly feed website pages with the media library images attributes”. Is it the right understanding?

Hello @arunbasillal,

Thanks for your message. I’m speaking about both existing and newly uploaded images and yes, also on the Gutenberg editor.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by fneuf.