Report Summary

  • 22

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    40% of other websites

  • 66

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 31% of websites

  • 58

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    19% of websites

  • 54

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    19% of websites

lildark.com

Hisham

Page Load Speed

2.6 sec in total

First Response

448 ms

Resources Loaded

1.3 sec

Page Rendered

779 ms

lildark.com screenshot

About Website

Welcome to lildark.com homepage info - get ready to check Lildark best content right away, or after learning these important things about lildark.com

Visit lildark.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Lildark.com page load time and found that the first response time was 448 ms and then it took 2.1 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 40% of websites can load faster. This domain responded with an error, which can significantly jeopardize Lildark.com rating and web reputation

Performance Metrics

lildark.com performance score

22

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value2.3 s

74/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value14.6 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value5.5 s

54/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value1,460 ms

15/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0.52

15/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value10.5 s

23/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

lildark.com

448 ms

pre_tumblelog.js

19 ms

jquery.min.js

11 ms

scrolltopcontrol.js

267 ms

back_to_the_top3.txt

34 ms

Our browser made a total of 80 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 3% of them (2 requests) were addressed to the original Lildark.com, 18% (14 requests) were made to Static.tumblr.com and 11% (9 requests) were made to Assets.tumblr.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (696 ms) relates to the external source 40.media.tumblr.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 583.4 kB (5%)

Content Size

11.3 MB

After Optimization

10.7 MB

In fact, the total size of Lildark.com main page is 11.3 MB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 70% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 10.6 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-78%

Potential reduce by 52.8 kB

  • Original 68.0 kB
  • After minification 63.6 kB
  • After compression 15.2 kB

HTML content can be minified and compressed by a website’s server. The most efficient way is to compress content using GZIP which reduces data amount travelling through the network between server and browser. HTML code on this page is well minified. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 52.8 kB or 78% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-1%

Potential reduce by 148.2 kB

  • Original 10.6 MB
  • After minification 10.5 MB

Image size optimization can help to speed up a website loading time. The chart above shows the difference between the size before and after optimization. Lildark images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-59%

Potential reduce by 381.8 kB

  • Original 645.7 kB
  • After minification 637.5 kB
  • After compression 263.9 kB

It’s better to minify JavaScript in order to improve website performance. The diagram shows the current total size of all JavaScript files against the prospective JavaScript size after its minification and compression. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 381.8 kB or 59% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-53%

Potential reduce by 543 B

  • Original 1.0 kB
  • After minification 971 B
  • After compression 486 B

CSS files minification is very important to reduce a web page rendering time. The faster CSS files can load, the earlier a page can be rendered. Lildark.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 543 B or 53% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 40 (53%)

Requests Now

75

After Optimization

35

The browser has sent 75 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Lildark. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 30 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.

Accessibility Review

lildark.com accessibility score

66

Accessibility Issues

ARIA

These are opportunities to improve the usage of ARIA in your application which may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

[aria-*] attributes do not match their roles

Names and labels

These are opportunities to improve the semantics of the controls in your application. This may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

<frame> or <iframe> elements do not have a title

High

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

lildark.com best practices score

58

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

High

Includes front-end JavaScript libraries with known security vulnerabilities

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

User Experience

Impact

Issue

High

Serves images with low resolution

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

High

Browser errors were logged to the console

High

Issues were logged in the Issues panel in Chrome Devtools

SEO Factors

lildark.com SEO score

54

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Content Best Practices

Format your HTML in a way that enables crawlers to better understand your app’s content.

Impact

Issue

High

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

High

Document uses plugins

Language and Encoding

  • Language Detected

    EN

  • Language Claimed

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Lildark.com can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that English is used on the page, and it matches the claimed language. Our system also found out that Lildark.com main page’s claimed encoding is utf-8. Use of this encoding format is the best practice as the main page visitors from all over the world won’t have any issues with symbol transcription.

Social Sharing Optimization

Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Lildark. Lack of Open Graph description can be counter-productive for their social media presence, as such a description allows converting a website homepage (or other pages) into good-looking, rich and well-structured posts, when it is being shared on Facebook and other social media. For example, adding the following code snippet into HTML <head> tag will help to represent this web page correctly in social networks: