Lol, I'm not sure there's any value in this tool anymore

[Matthew Curney]

Google Pagespeed Insights reports an "A" rating to broken sites.  I pulled up a competitor's site that is down with a 500 server error, and this page speed tool reports it as "GOOD" with a stellar rating.  

My site on the other hand is given an "F".  Why?  Because I'm loading google fonts, lol.  Which comes un-minified and uncompressed.  I'm also loading a few Font Awesome icons, which loads the tiniest bit of render-blocking js.  

For these two reasons, my site is ranked as "POOR".  Yet a site that is completely down, completely broken with a server error is rated as "GOOD".  

These black or white rankings aren't helpful.  And certainly aren't reflective of the page's overall speed. 

Just thought I would pass this along.  Maybe stop ranking 500 server errors as "A" sites from now on. 

[Matthew Curney]

[Rick Steinwand]

Obviously Google isn't checking for http errors. All images and external files (if any) are properly compressed = good rating. What idiot would submit their site to Google if it's down? I don't see a problem here.

You on the other hand, could simply host your own fonts. Copy them to your server and serve them compressed. Problem solved. TBH I don't see the need for loading fonts. They just give the user a bad experience and slow down the site. Do you REALLY need that many fonts that you'd get an "F"? Why can't you cut back to TWO fonts (headings & body)?

Fix your problems and quit badmouthing this free tool that nobody made you use.

[Matthew Curney]

What idiot would get so defensive on a pagespeed forum? 

I'll download my Google font and Font Awesome font icons. That's valid advice, and will help. 

Not gonna touch your "typography don't matter" comment. 

I'm here TO fix my problems.  Which are now fixed. Sorry that your feelings got hurt along the way. 

[Rick Steinwand]

I didn't call you an idiot. I simply stated if my website was down, it would would be a bad idea to submit to PSI since it's not intended for that.

Sorry your panties got in a bunch, but my post wasn't a personal attack on you. You're the one who made it into an attack.

I offered my opinion on what PSI was intended to test for and you didn't like it.

I offered advise on how to fix your bad score and you didn't like it.

If you don't want advice, don't post here.

I'm glad you got your problem figured out, 'cause if you call people idiots, more than likely other people won't help you.

[Matthew Curney]

Thx dad

[Carlos Lizaga Anadon]

Hi Matthew,

While Rick gave you some tips, I'd recommend following the general guidelines that pagespeed is recommending to you.
IE: in the hypothetical case of your site being this I'd probably start optimizing static resources such as images, applying compression, minifying CSS/JS and setting up cache on headers so resources can be locally loaded instead of bulk downloaded all the time you enter there. Once you're there, you should be able to continuously improve little by little other aspects such as first-byte timing (server delay) and CSS/JS download blocking the first render of the site.

That would probably put that site in a 75-80 score which should be fair enough to compete with an hypothetical competitor.

There's no reason to take recommendations as personal attack, specially if you're asking for those.

Best,
Carlos.

[Matthew Curney]

Thank you, Carlos. 

That is a wealth of helpful information.  I will use it. 

Forgive my previous saltiness. 

Cheers, 

Matt