- URL: https://twitter.com/explore
- Date: 09/19/22 19:05:51
- ExperimentSettings: motog4v1054GVirginia USA
- First View only
- Test runs: 3
- Connectivity: 9000/9000 Kbps, 170ms Latency
- Custom Metrics
Related Links: Original (Control Run), Original Test
Experiment Impact (Notable changes between experiment and control)
|Start Render||First Contentful Paint||Speed Index||Largest Contentful Paint||Cumulative Layout Shift||Total Blocking Time||Page Weight||Blocking Requests|
Note: This experiment had a 0.65s difference in response time between the median experiment and control runs, which can make other metric changes seem more significant than they really are. To examine the variability of response times in all test runs, you can plot full results. Or, you can view this comparison with TTFB removed from relevant metric comparisons.
Here's how your overall opportunities look after this experiment:
Jump to Opportunities by Category:
Is it Quick? Not bad...
This site took little time to connect and deliver initial code. It began rendering content with little delay. There were no render-blocking requests. The largest content rendered a little late.
- Opportunities 7
- Tips 7
- Pro Experiments 10
Is it Usable? Needs Improvement.
This site had minor layout shifts. It took little time to become interactive. It had 3 accessibility issues, 2 critical. Some HTML was generated after delivery, potentially delaying usability.
- Opportunities 3
- Tips 3
- Pro Experiments 3
Is it Resilient? Not bad...
This site had no render-blocking 3rd party requests that could be a single point of failure. It had no security issues. Some HTML was generated after delivery, which can cause fragility.
- Opportunities 1
- Tips 1
- Pro Experiments 3
Filmstrip Comparison (Experiment vs. Control)
Adjust Filmstrip Settings
- Visual change
- Visual change + Layout Shift
- Largest Contentful Paint
- Largest Contentful Paint + Layout Shift