Tools & Wizards About Us
reviewparks.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 39

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    58% of other websites

  • 97

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 91% of websites

  • 75

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    35% of websites

  • 98

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    92% of websites

reviewparks.com

Account Suspended

Page Load Speed

1.9 sec in total

First Response

158 ms

Resources Loaded

1.3 sec

Page Rendered

471 ms

reviewparks.com screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Reviewparks content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about reviewparks.com

[tdc_zone type="tdc_content" tdc_css="eyJhbGwiOnsiZGlzcGxheSI6IiJ9fQ=="][vc_row tdc_css="eyJhbGwiOnsiZGlzcGxheSI6IiJ9fQ==".

Visit reviewparks.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Reviewparks.com page load time and found that the first response time was 158 ms and then it took 1.8 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 35% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

reviewparks.com performance score

39

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value4.2 s

19/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value5.2 s

23/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value5.2 s

60/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value1,120 ms

23/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value0

100/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value8.7 s

36/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

reviewparks.com

158 ms

reviewparks.com

481 ms

000e0bc081c35066752fe91fdc9d6b7a.css

259 ms

css

40 ms

js

112 ms

Our browser made a total of 35 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 71% of them (25 requests) were addressed to the original Reviewparks.com, 20% (7 requests) were made to Fonts.gstatic.com and 3% (1 request) were made to Fonts.googleapis.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (481 ms) belongs to the original domain Reviewparks.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 464.8 kB (58%)

Content Size

796.5 kB

After Optimization

331.7 kB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript

In fact, the total size of Reviewparks.com main page is 796.5 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. 50% of websites need less resources to load. HTML takes 500.5 kB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-89%

Potential reduce by 446.7 kB

  • Original 500.5 kB
  • After minification 453.1 kB
  • After compression 53.8 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 446.7 kB or 89% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-3%

Potential reduce by 4.5 kB

  • Original 138.6 kB
  • After minification 134.1 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. Reviewparks images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-9%

Potential reduce by 13.6 kB

  • Original 157.4 kB
  • After minification 157.4 kB
  • After compression 143.8 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.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 18 (72%)

Requests Now

25

After Optimization

7

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 25 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Reviewparks. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 19 to 1 for JavaScripts and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

reviewparks.com

reviewparks.com

158 ms

reviewparks.com

reviewparks.com

481 ms

000e0bc081c35066752fe91fdc9d6b7a.css

000e0bc081c35066752fe91fdc9d6b7a.css

259 ms

css

css

40 ms

js

js

112 ms

adsbygoogle.js

adsbygoogle.js

54 ms

index.js

index.js

109 ms

tagdiv_theme.min.js

tagdiv_theme.min.js

388 ms

tdPostImages.js

tdPostImages.js

384 ms

tdSocialSharing.js

tdSocialSharing.js

385 ms

tdModalPostImages.js

tdModalPostImages.js

384 ms

comment-reply.min.js

comment-reply.min.js

385 ms

underscore.min.js

underscore.min.js

385 ms

js_files_for_front.min.js

js_files_for_front.min.js

385 ms

public.min.js

public.min.js

387 ms

js_files_for_front.min.js

js_files_for_front.min.js

384 ms

tdToTop.js

tdToTop.js

385 ms

tdMenu.js

tdMenu.js

386 ms

tdAjaxSearch.js

tdAjaxSearch.js

386 ms

tdTrendingNow.js

tdTrendingNow.js

386 ms

tdLoadingBox.js

tdLoadingBox.js

386 ms

tdSmartSidebar.js

tdSmartSidebar.js

387 ms

lazyload.min.js

lazyload.min.js

390 ms

elements.png

elements.png

141 ms

footer_bg.jpg

footer_bg.jpg

399 ms

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmWUlfBBc9.ttf

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmWUlfBBc9.ttf

20 ms

KFOmCnqEu92Fr1Mu4mxP.ttf

KFOmCnqEu92Fr1Mu4mxP.ttf

59 ms

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmSU5fBBc9.ttf

KFOlCnqEu92Fr1MmSU5fBBc9.ttf

115 ms

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsjZ0B4gaVc.ttf

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsjZ0B4gaVc.ttf

156 ms

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsiH0B4gaVc.ttf

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsiH0B4gaVc.ttf

157 ms

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsgH1x4gaVc.ttf

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsgH1x4gaVc.ttf

158 ms

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsg-1x4gaVc.ttf

memSYaGs126MiZpBA-UvWbX2vVnXBbObj2OVZyOOSr4dVJWUgsg-1x4gaVc.ttf

158 ms

newspaper.woff

newspaper.woff

155 ms

review-Parks-Logo-272x90-1.png

review-Parks-Logo-272x90-1.png

152 ms

review-Parks-Logo-140x48-1.png

review-Parks-Logo-140x48-1.png

151 ms

Accessibility Review

reviewparks.com accessibility score

97

Accessibility Issues

Contrast

These are opportunities to improve the legibility of your content.

Impact

Issue

High

Background and foreground colors do not have a sufficient contrast ratio.

Best Practices

reviewparks.com best practices score

75

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

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

Page has valid source maps

SEO Factors

reviewparks.com SEO score

98

Search Engine Optimization Advices

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

High

Tap targets are not sized appropriately

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 Reviewparks.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 Reviewparks.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

reviewparks.com

Open Graph data is detected on the main page of Reviewparks. This is the best way to make the web page social media friendly. Here is how it looks like on Facebook: