Doesn't pass Google PageSpeed test

Interesting, I don’t show any additional savings on my end either, but I see what you mean about Google’s recommendations. I wonder if they are using a different libjpeg derivative. I’ll do some digging, and see what I can find.

Thanks for the quick response! ??

True. The reason why it doesn’t show any additional saving is that it has been optimized using EWWW Image Optimizer Cloud. So the question is why PageSpeed is still not happy about it.

I’ve tried libjpeg6 (what google supposedly uses), libjpeg8 (the most common version), libjpeg9a (the most recent version that EWWW IO uses), libjpeg-turbo (another very popular fork), and libmozjpeg (developed by Mozilla, still very much in development).

None of them give any improvement over what we’re seeing except libmozjpeg, and even that gives less than 500 bytes of savings. I’m going to let this simmer for a day or two and see if I have any other ideas. If you find anything in the meantime, let me know.

Unfortunately, this is beyond my area of expertise so I can’t help at all.

But just want to point out that IIRC PageSpeed expects 600+ bytes of savings, so perhaps we’re almost there with libmozjpeg.

Again, thanks for responding to this issue in a prompt manner ??

Hi,

Here are a couple more images that have the same problem:

https://www.tripletremelo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/141019-comet_6867ebd2a3e63ee0f298c57b720f3e2c.nbcnews-ux-1040-600-220×160.jpg

https://www.tripletremelo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Orig.src_.Susanne.Posel_.Daily_.News-robots.replace.humans.work_.artificial.intelligence.2025_occupycorporatism-800×531-220×160.jpg

Perhaps having more images to test with, can help identify the issue.

Thanks

I don’t see Google giving any more savings on the second one, and the other was compressed further on my site, but I’m not sure where that lives on your site, so I couldn’t run it through Pagespeed for verification.

The very first one (the klatz band) shows 1.2kb on Pagespeed, so that’s more than I was able to achieve with libmozjpeg. Still stumped, I even tried jpegoptim via trimage, and got the same results as the EWWW IO cloud.

Ok, so I tried a couple more things. I installed mod_pagespeed on my dev server, and saw no savings, even with their beta version. This is exactly what they use for the online tests (or should be), so that was a bit surprising.

Last test was to upload to my test server online here: https://test.shanebishop.net/2014/10/23/testing-unsquishable-jpg/

You can run that through pagespeed yourself to see the results, but they surprised me, because it showed no savings available on the images, and I then re-downloaded that image just to make sure that it was the same size as the original I grabbed from your link.

This leaves us with 2 possibilities:
1. You have a plugin that is slipping data into the images when they are viewed, but not when they are downloaded.
2. Google has a bug in their pagespeed scanner that is somehow being triggered by your page(s) specifically.

Either way, the images ARE fully optimized, but it is a puzzle as to what is causing the discrepancy, unless you have a plugin that is doing something sneaky with images. Perhaps a list of your active plugins would be useful to try and rule that out.

Oops, I think that could have been due to caching. I use CloudFlare in front of my server.

So, I disabled caching temporarily then checked the “klatz band” image on this particular page https://www.tripletremelo.com/this-smartwatch-can-transform-itself-into-an-actual-smartphone/ . PageSpeed doesn’t complain about it so I think it was indeed due to caching.

I will keep an eye and will let you know if there is any further issue.

I really apologize for the trouble caused. Thanks very much for the help.

Aha, I should have thought of that myself, I’m a cloudflare user myself (one of the first 500 in fact). Glad you got it figured out!