1

Our page passes the Google Mobile Friendly tester, loads in less than 4 seconds in tests on other sites, and loads in 2 seconds in Chrome on iPhone, newest.

Every time we test in the Mobile Friendly tester at Google, it says the page is mobile friendly, but says it could not load some resources, BUT the resources are just 3 or 4, AND they are different every time! Usually just some .png images. It just shows OTHER ERROR. It literally has not given the same answer twice, with no changes to the page between.

Is Google going to mess with our ranking or SERPs if this remains so?

Update:

As you can see in the test results below, the unloaded resources report is DIFFERENT EVERY TIME.

If anyone has any suggestions for changes or for speeding up the page, I'd be SO appreciative.

:)

Before and after each test, I made no changes at all.

I'm simply hitting their reload tool to test again.

(ALL of the supposedly missing resources are definitely all present, checked multiple times.)

Here is the URL of the prototyped page I'm testing: https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/index_NEW.asp

Testing at Google's Mobile Friendly testing page.

Here are the results:

Test one:

2 page resources couldn't be loaded

Resource Type Status https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/goPaywall.png Image Other error https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/sentry_splashNew.png Image Other error

Test two:

2 page resources couldn't be loaded

Resource Type Status https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/goPaywall.png Image Other error https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/sticker_Icon_pencil.png Image Other error

Test three:

3 page resources couldn't be loaded

Resource Type Status https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/stickerIcon_cut.png Image Other error https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/stickerIcon_help.png Image Other error https://www.sentrylogin.com/sentry/images/stickerIcon_star_empty.png Image Other error

1

Couldn't really tell if they will hurt your rankings given your situation but I'd recommend to have things fixed so that you do not possibly show any chance for Google or your competitor to get ahead of your rankings.

Below is just a use-case for your understanding:

Case A: No effect in rankings unless any new algorithm that prioritizes for page-load issues

If your website is acting similar to your competitor websites where they also face the page-load issues similar to yours, then there will be no effect in rankings. (Remember, I am only considering 1 signal out of 300+ for just a use-case basis)

Case B: Effect in rankings due to poor engagement rates

If your page-load issues are causing lack of information that are really required for the visitor or serve value to the page, you will often see visitors leaving your site. If your bounce back increases or visitors have a poor landing page experience, it is obvious that the rankings will drop unless you are performing better than your competitors.

New contributor
idk is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • Although it sounds like the testing tool may be having problems that visitors never see. – Stephen Ostermiller Feb 11 at 13:52
  • True, that might be the case as well which everybody often encounters into. But for OP if he really has loading issues because of server errors or loading times related to its hosts, he will have to fix them. – idk Feb 12 at 7:05
0

If they change the layout/rendered version, yes it will hurt your rankings. If they do not, then they will not. If they are external resources which you do not have control over, inspect this carefully & let the resource owner know.

  • I'd be surprised if transient errors that don't care the test to fail would hurt rankings. Do you have a reference or experience to back up your claims? – Stephen Ostermiller Feb 9 at 16:49
  • Thanks to all, I'll keep studying the issue. – Eric Shawn Feb 9 at 18:23
  • Thanks, updated the original post with that info. – Eric Shawn Feb 10 at 0:05
  • @StephenOstermiller, no I dont. It's just logical conclusion. – hasbehas Feb 10 at 17:52

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.