Page experience on mobile

[Anatoliy]

Yesterday I noticed a new tab in Google Search Console - Page experience on mobile. And was pleasantly surprised to get the 99.9% score. What are yours?

Should I thank XenForo for that or @Kirby & @mazzly for their add-ons? )

 

[briansol]

it's a collection of all mobile views, so both amp and regular loads.

so, everyone

 

[Anatoliy]

it's a collection of all mobile views, so both amp and regular loads.

so, everyone

what's your score?

 

[Ivancas]

@Kirby

He doesn't have any resources here?

 

[Faust]

I tried to check, but for some reason, is showing some https error, which I don’t know how to fix.

 

[briansol]

what's your score?

99.8

 

[Anatoliy]

He doesn't have any resources here?

Sorry, I can't tell you anything about it. This secret isn't mine. )

 

[Ozzy47]

He doesn't have any resources here?

He does, just not any in the resource section.

 

[mazzly]

Noticed this one also yday when checking our GSC:

Checking further into the "Core Web Vitals > Mobile" I see that all the "poor URLs" are the canonical pages of our forum, and all the Good URLs are with ?amp=1

So I guess the addon helps

 

[Masetrix]

Some pages are classified as "faulty" by WebVitals because of the advertising, over whose loading times I have no influence. (CLS > 0,1)
Still, I think this is a 15 year old, multiple migrated forum, very good

 

[Masetrix]

Noticed this one also yday when checking our GSC:

Checking further into the "Core Web Vitals > Mobile" I see that all the "poor URLs" are the canonical pages of our forum, and all the Good URLs are with ?amp=1

So I guess the addon helps

I can only fully agree with that.
Without AMP the statistics wouldn’t look so good: D

 

[Masetrix]

Should I thank XenForo for that or @Kirby & @mazzly for their add-ons? )

I think both. Kirby's tool and the loading times in relation to the fonts are unbeatable, plus the fast loading times of AMP's mobile style ...

 

[Anatoliy]

Checking further into the "Core Web Vitals > Mobile" I see that all the "poor URLs" are the canonical pages of our forum, and all the Good URLs are with ?amp=1

That's because you didn't apply Kirby's magic. )
My canonical urls exactly as Good as my amps.


Another question is why only 4.7k out of 17k.

So I guess the addon helps

Yep, it does. Both of them help equally well.

 

[duderuud]

98,9% with 6.2mln good urls.

 

[Anatoliy]

Without AMP the statistics wouldn’t look so good: D

That's actually a very good question that I really itching to check. )

I think both. Kirby's tool and the loading times in relation to the fonts are unbeatable, plus the fast loading times of AMP's mobile style ...

In any case, thank you to all - XF team, mazzly, Kirby.

 

[Anatoliy]

6.2mln good urls

Do you also have like 20-30% from total Valid in Coverage as Good mobile urls?
I have 17.5k Valid and only 4.5k under Mobile. (

 

[Mr. Jinx]

I think both. Kirby's tool and the loading times in relation to the fonts are unbeatable

That's because you didn't apply Kirby's magic

I think I missed something here.
Care to share?

 

[Anatoliy]

I think I missed something here.
Care to share?

 

[duderuud]

Do you also have like 20-30% from total Valid in Coverage as Good mobile urls?
I have 17.5k Valid and only 4.5k under Mobile. (

What exactly do you mean? Currently on mobile but I can't see or sort on mobile in the Coverage section.

Under mobile I have 67k valid pages while having 515k total valid pages (in the Coverage section that is). Is that what you mean?

 

[Anatoliy]

Under mobile I have 67k valid pages while having 515k total valid pages (in the Coverage section that is). Is that what you mean?

Thanks!
And I was confused with "6.2mln good urls". I thought it is the number of valid pages, but I guess those are "Total impressions of good URLs".