Reducing cumulative layout shift for responsive images - core web vitals
-
In preparation for Core Web Vitals becoming a ranking factor in May 2021, we are making efforts to reduce our Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) on pages where the shift is being caused by images loading. The general recommendation is to specify both height and width attributes in the html, in addition to the CSS formatting which is applied when the images load. However, this is problematic in situations where responsive images are being used with different aspect ratios for mobile vs desktop. And where a CMS is being used to manage the pages with images, where width and height may change each time new images are used, as well as aspect ratios for the mobile and desktop versions of those.
So, I'm posting this inquiry here to see what kinds of approaches others are taking to reduce CLS in these situations (where responsive images are used, with differing aspect ratios for desktop and mobile, and where a CMS allows the business users to utilize any dimension of images they desire).
-
@seoelevated
Hi,
I am facing issue of higher cumulative layout shift. The reason behind this is that I am loading css script at the end once complete page is rendered (in order to reduce page loading time. So page loading time is reduced on the cost of higher cumulative layout shift. I am new in SEO. Kindly suggest me, for improved google search ranking, whether it will matter and whether I should load css at the start itself for reducing cumulative layout shift. Also, being a pin code finder website, texts are limited only. Should I add more text in webpages for improved ranking. (for reference, the website is https://pincodeinfo.online ) -
I'm in the same exact situation as well! Feels like we are kind of stuck as I also have different aspect ratios for device and use a CMS that has a lot of limitations.
-
yes please, would love to know also, getting this error through aa gtmetrix and PSI reports
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Sudden Drop in Mobile Core Web Vitals
Web Vitals Screengrab.PNG For some reason, after all URLs being previously classified as Good, our Mobile Web Vitals report suddenly shifted to the above, and it doesn't correspond with any site changes on our end. Has anyone else experience something similar or have any idea what might have caused such a shift? Curiously I'm not seeing a drop in session duration, conversion rate etc. for mobile traffic despite the seemingly sudden change.
Technical SEO | | rwat0 -
Can't get Google to index our site although all seems very good
Hi there, I am having issues getting our new site, https://vintners.co indexed by Google although it seems all technical and content requirements are well in place for it. In the past, I had way poorer websites running with very bad setups and performance indexed faster. What's concerning me, among others, is that the crawler of Google comes from time to time when looking on Google Search Console but does not seem to make progress or to even follow any link and the evolution does not seem to do what google says in GSC help. For instance, our sitemap.xml was submitted, for a few days, it seemed like it had an impact as many pages were then visible in the coverage report, showing them as "detected but not yet indexed" and now, they disappeared from the coverage report, it's like if it was not detected any more. Anybody has any advice to speed up or accelerate the indexing of a new website like ours? It's been launched since now almost two months and I was expected, at least on some core keywords, to quickly get indexed.
Technical SEO | | rolandvintners1 -
50% Visibility drop following June 2021 Google Update
Hello everyone,
Algorithm Updates | | yacpro13
We've observed a 50% drop in our Visibility score in the last week. This is our biggest drop ever, which coincides with June Google updates. We're an established ecommerce website located in Canada. This has obviously severely impacted sales. I'm frantically searching for information regarding fixes / implementations to recover asap, but if anybody could point us in the right direction, that would be hugely appreciated. Thanks!0 -
We redesigned our website, make it responsive and page views tanked. What happened?
Last year, we redesigned our site and made it responsive. Our page views only grew by only 3% (the previous year they grew by 40%). If we exclude homepage views from our calculations, we get a drastically different picture-- and see over 30% growth for both total and unique pageviews. Any thoughts?
Web Design | | Anna720 -
Good web design layouts
Hello, Where do you guys go to get inspiring new ideas for web design layouts. I'm making a portfolio and need one more design. I'm thinking 4 is enough sample sites. So far I have 3. Thanks!
Web Design | | BobGW1 -
Web Developments and Breakpoints for SEO
Google likes fast and clean pages. Pages load better when they are optimized for each platform. With the new Ultra HD resolutions and ultra phones, what is the optimal number of breakpoints for web page with images on them?
Web Design | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
What To Do When Improved Site Speed & Layout Result In Higher Bounce Rates & Lower Time On Site
We launched a new Bootstrap 3.0 site template 2 weeks ago. The site loads 5x faster and has a much improved layout (utilizing most common above the fold recommendations ). It's only been two weeks, but our bounce rate has increased 5-10% and our avg time on site decreased by 10-18%. Here is the page for one of our most common products so you can see the general experience: <a>http://www.jwsuretybonds.com/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.htm</a> (here is the old version: <a>http://199.119.123.134/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.htm</a>) We spent two months implementing the new design and working on a speedy load time. We had anticipated a drastic improvement, not mild downturn in user behavior. I'm hopeful that the Analytics metrics aren't showing the true picture on the keywords we care about (can't see anymore due to "Not Provided" listed as most keywords now. Argh!) and perhaps some of the more important/accurate user behavior metrics that we can't see are improving. We know our industry and our clients needs VERY well. We THOUGHT our new content/layout was perfect so it will be tough for us to try to make improvements at this point. We believe our best plan of action now is to add more content on each page and A/B test it along with other subtle changes. The problem is that our new content is very concise and hits on all of the primary visitor intentions, so additions of content could be redundant and making concise answers more "fluffy", which is what we tried to get away from. What do you think? Is there reason for panic? What would your plan of attack be if your "sure shot" new design didn't provide the improvements you "knew" it would? 🙂
Web Design | | TheDude0 -
Web Developer Using Stock Photos
Hello, The organization is selling a cms system in a niche market across the country. It has the normal SEO challenges, in addition he is using purchased stock images. This seemed ok, while he was smaller but now we are growing rapidly and these images are VERY STOCK- and well used ( I have checked with Tiny Eye). I remember a few years ago this was a flag to the search engines who went through manual review, is this still true? It seems to me that the theme's that come with the images, are duplicated ( including navigation & footers), so having the duplicated images would be another negative. Thank you for your suggestions!
Web Design | | TammyWood0