Line 1: Disassemble problems with the greatest content painting: analysis and solution

Article image Line 1: Disassemble problems with the greatest content painting: analysis and solution
Article image Line 1: Disassemble problems with the greatest content painting: analysis and solution
Publication date:05.09.2025
Blog category: Web Technology News

Barry Pollard, Google Chrome's web productivity expert, explained how to identify the true causes of the bad Lowest Contentible Paint (LCP) and how to fix them. LCP is a key web vital that measures how long it takes to display the largest content element in the site of the site visitor (the part that the user sees in the browser). Content item can be an image or text. For LCP, the largest content items are HTML block elements that occupy the most places horizontally, for example, paragraph

, headings (H1 - H6) and image(Almost all HTML elements that occupy a considerable horizontal space).

"A mistake often made by publishers and SEOs after PageSpeed ​​Insights (PSI) indicates a page because

🚀 Polllard recommends staying on PSI, as it provides several tips on understanding the problems that lead to poor LCP work. It is important to understand what data the PSI gives you, especially the data received from the Chrome (Crux) user experience that comes from anonymous estimates by Chrome visitors. There are two types: URL data and source data.

  • 📌 URL data is an estimate for a specific settling page. Source level data are generalized grades from the entire website. PSI shows URL data if there was enough traffic to the URL. Otherwise, it will show data at a source level (a generalized indicator for the whole site).

Polllard recommends looking at TTFB (time to the first byte) because, in his opinion, "TTFB is the first thing that happens to your page."

"Slow TTFB essentially means one of two things: 1) It takes too long to send a request to your server 2) Your server is too long. But determine what it (and why!) Can be difficult, and there are several possible reasons for each of these categories."

🚀 Polllard continued its review of LCP debugging with specific tests described below.

What can be the causes of bad LCP?

According to Pollard, they may include low server performance, forwarding, code, database, slow connections through geographical location and slow connections with specific areas related to specific causes, such as advertising campaigns.

How can I correct a bad LCP?

Polllard advises tests with Lighthouse Lab, especially the audit of the "time of the server's initial response." The goal is to check the recurrence of the TTFB problem to exclude the possibility that the PSI value is faster than most users see.

Can CDN hide the problem?

So, according to Pollard, content delivery networks (CDN), such as Cloudflare, can hide any major server level problems.

🚀 Barry finished his discussion, advising that the problem can only be corrected after it has been tested for recurrence.

🧩 Summary: Optimization for the greatest content painting requires web developers understanding different aspects of the webpage. It is important to know what data you look, check the TTFB, use test tools and take into account the possible CDN impact. Only after detecting and debugging the problem can you successfully correct it.
🧠 Own considerations: I believe that understanding these aspects of web development is very important for successful optimization of sites. Although some problems may seem difficult, understanding what they are and how to solve them can help provide a more smooth and effective user experience. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that not all problems can be solved the same: each site has its own unique challenges and needs.

Comments

SpecOpsDev Avatar
Ніколи не думав, що LCP може бути такою серйозною справою! Але якщо елементи контенту з'являються повільніше, ніж мій ранковий кавовий ритуал, тоді ми точно маємо проблему. Як же важливо знайти оптимальне рішення, без зайвих стресів для користувачів, які чекають на безцінні зображення та текст!
05.09.2025 07:00 SpecOpsDev
BugHunter Avatar
Тема серйозності LCP не викликає сумнівів, але цей підхід знову нагадує мені стару приказку про "ліки, які гірші за хворобу". Якщо думати, що просто покращення показника LCP вирішить проблеми, то можна опинитися там, де "все працює", але ніхто не задоволений. Багато хто взагалі не вникає в суть, сприймаючи рекомендації Google за чисту монету. Замість того, щоб гнатися за цією ароматною морквою, варто поставити запитання – чи дійсно ми покращуємо досвід користувача, або ж просто обробляємо дані для проформи? Пора переглянути стратегію і звернути увагу на реальні потреби.
05.09.2025 07:28 BugHunter
UXNinja Avatar
Цікавий матеріал, але знову ж таки, на мій погляд, варто зосередитися не лише на LCP, а й на тому, чи дійсно це покращує досвід користувача. Легко заблукати у цифрах і забути про просту істину: як би швидко не завантажувався контент, якщо він не задовольняє запити користувачів, все одно залишаємо їх у розпачі. Можливо, є сенс спочатку запитати себе: "А чи хоче хтось це читати?" Хоча, якщо за LCP стоїть хіба що мій котик на екрані – можливо, справа не лише в швидкості, а й у змісті! 😂
05.09.2025 08:18 UXNinja