Tools & Wizards About Us
constructionreviewonline.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 96

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    94% of other websites

  • 98

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 94% of websites

  • 92

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    80% of websites

  • 93

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    83% of websites

constructionreviewonline.com

Construction news | project leads| products | companies | machinery | equipment | services

Page Load Speed

1.1 sec in total

First Response

36 ms

Resources Loaded

534 ms

Page Rendered

486 ms

constructionreviewonline.com screenshot

About Website

Visit constructionreviewonline.com now to see the best up-to-date Construction Reviewonline content for India and also check out these interesting facts you probably never knew about constructionreviewonline.com

Construction in USA, Canada, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Morocco, Kenya and other African Countries, UK and Europe and Dubai, India, China, Australia and other Asian Countries. The constructi...

Visit constructionreviewonline.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Constructionreviewonline.com page load time and found that the first response time was 36 ms and then it took 1 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 20% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

constructionreviewonline.com performance score

96

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value1.4 s

97/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value2.5 s

90/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value1.7 s

100/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value90 ms

99/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value3.4 s

93/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

constructionreviewonline.com

36 ms

constructionreviewonline.com

153 ms

gppstub.js

49 ms

boise.js

23 ms

abilene.js

28 ms

Our browser made a total of 51 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 90% of them (46 requests) were addressed to the original Constructionreviewonline.com, 4% (2 requests) were made to The.gatekeeperconsent.com and 2% (1 request) were made to Googletagmanager.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (345 ms) belongs to the original domain Constructionreviewonline.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 109.1 kB (20%)

Content Size

532.7 kB

After Optimization

423.6 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Constructionreviewonline.com main page is 532.7 kB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 30% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 226.0 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-77%

Potential reduce by 101.8 kB

  • Original 131.7 kB
  • After minification 131.7 kB
  • After compression 29.9 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 101.8 kB or 77% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-2%

Potential reduce by 4.1 kB

  • Original 226.0 kB
  • After minification 221.9 kB

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. Construction Reviewonline images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-2%

Potential reduce by 3.0 kB

  • Original 166.6 kB
  • After minification 166.6 kB
  • After compression 163.6 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. This website has mostly compressed JavaScripts.

CSS Optimization

-3%

Potential reduce by 229 B

  • Original 8.4 kB
  • After minification 8.4 kB
  • After compression 8.2 kB

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. Constructionreviewonline.com has all CSS files already compressed.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 35 (71%)

Requests Now

49

After Optimization

14

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 49 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Construction Reviewonline. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 29 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 8 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

constructionreviewonline.com

constructionreviewonline.com

36 ms

constructionreviewonline.com

constructionreviewonline.com

153 ms

gppstub.js

gppstub.js

49 ms

boise.js

boise.js

23 ms

abilene.js

abilene.js

28 ms

tulsa.js

tulsa.js

43 ms

cash.js

cash.js

36 ms

js

js

68 ms

style.css

style.css

89 ms

frontend-gtag.js

frontend-gtag.js

86 ms

jquery.js

jquery.js

64 ms

search-filter-build.min.js

search-filter-build.min.js

53 ms

select2.min.js

select2.min.js

57 ms

wpp.min.js

wpp.min.js

85 ms

ccpaplus.js

ccpaplus.js

64 ms

index.js

index.js

85 ms

index.js

index.js

88 ms

imagesloaded.min.js

imagesloaded.min.js

89 ms

masonry.min.js

masonry.min.js

90 ms

custom-layouts.js

custom-layouts.js

89 ms

smooth-scroll.js

smooth-scroll.js

112 ms

core.js

core.js

113 ms

datepicker.js

datepicker.js

114 ms

menu.js

menu.js

105 ms

modal.js

modal.js

112 ms

api.js

api.js

114 ms

wp-polyfill-inert.js

wp-polyfill-inert.js

114 ms

regenerator-runtime.js

regenerator-runtime.js

120 ms

wp-polyfill.js

wp-polyfill.js

345 ms

index.js

index.js

117 ms

v.js

v.js

82 ms

ezoic.png

ezoic.png

42 ms

1061778456_0-140-3143-1908_1920x0_80_0_0_973cc487aa0447a9888c22f2e5a3433b-569x320.jpg

1061778456_0-140-3143-1908_1920x0_80_0_0_973cc487aa0447a9888c22f2e5a3433b-569x320.jpg

51 ms

2b436bac-245f-4d1b-8a77-4ec6d6ff5da5-620x372-1.jpg

2b436bac-245f-4d1b-8a77-4ec6d6ff5da5-620x372-1.jpg

49 ms

wind-463x320.jpg

wind-463x320.jpg

24 ms

construction-gd94a6a6dd_1280-427x320.jpg

construction-gd94a6a6dd_1280-427x320.jpg

40 ms

gettyimages-1250496484-612x612-1-576x320.jpg

gettyimages-1250496484-612x612-1-576x320.jpg

112 ms

boiler-upgrade-480x320.jpg

boiler-upgrade-480x320.jpg

35 ms

01-importance-of-heavy-equipment-maintenance-534x320.webp

01-importance-of-heavy-equipment-maintenance-534x320.webp

201 ms

utility1-425x320.jpg

utility1-425x320.jpg

55 ms

roofing-building-contractor-putting-asphalt-large-commercial-apa-1c9b6ca19f3124815a03b1258ecaeaaa-483x320.jpg

roofing-building-contractor-putting-asphalt-large-commercial-apa-1c9b6ca19f3124815a03b1258ecaeaaa-483x320.jpg

173 ms

tineco.png

tineco.png

64 ms

CTF-2024-696-x-398-px-560x320.png

CTF-2024-696-x-398-px-560x320.png

72 ms

css_onload.js

css_onload.js

81 ms

styles.css

styles.css

19 ms

search-filter.min.css

search-filter.min.css

35 ms

wpp.css

wpp.css

40 ms

widget-areas.css

widget-areas.css

84 ms

main.css

main.css

65 ms

constructionreviewonline.com

constructionreviewonline.com

93 ms

style-183536.css

style-183536.css

71 ms

Accessibility Review

constructionreviewonline.com accessibility score

98

Accessibility Issues

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

Links do not have a discernible name

Best Practices

constructionreviewonline.com best practices score

92

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

SEO Factors

constructionreviewonline.com SEO score

93

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

Links do not have descriptive text

Mobile Friendly

Make sure your pages are mobile friendly so users don’t have to pinch or zoom in order to read the content pages. [Learn more](https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/).

Impact

Issue

High

Document uses legible font sizes

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 Constructionreviewonline.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 Constructionreviewonline.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

constructionreviewonline.com

Open Graph description is not detected on the main page of Construction Reviewonline. 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: