Tools & Wizards About Us
ridgewoodgrp.com screenshot

Report Summary

  • 39

    Performance

    Renders faster than
    59% of other websites

  • 45

    Accessibility

    Visual factors better than
    that of 19% of websites

  • 75

    Best Practices

    More advanced features
    available than in
    36% of websites

  • 62

    SEO

    Google-friendlier than
    22% of websites

ridgewoodgrp.com

????pk10??ͧ(?й?)?ٷ???վIOS??׿/ͨ?ð?

Page Load Speed

1.7 sec in total

First Response

188 ms

Resources Loaded

1.4 sec

Page Rendered

151 ms

ridgewoodgrp.com screenshot

About Website

Click here to check amazing Ridgewoodgrp content. Otherwise, check out these important facts you probably never knew about ridgewoodgrp.com

????pk10??ͧΪ???ṩ??????,??/ ?? ????,?? /Ʊ ???ӡ?????pk10??ͧע?ᡢ??¼???ͻ???????,?????Լ???ʱ?????????Щ????pk10??ͧ??Ϸ????,????pk10??ͧ???ڸ?˹????ӽ????˺Ϸ?ע??IJ??ʹ?˾???ܵ???˹??????????IJ?????Լ??Ӫҵ????,??Ϊ????pk10??ͧ...

Visit ridgewoodgrp.com

Key Findings

We analyzed Ridgewoodgrp.com page load time and found that the first response time was 188 ms and then it took 1.5 sec to load all DOM resources and completely render a web page. This is quite a good result, as only 30% of websites can load faster.

Performance Metrics

ridgewoodgrp.com performance score

39

Measured Metrics

name

value

score

weighting

FCP (First Contentful Paint)

Value1.8 s

88/100

10%

LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)

Value65.3 s

0/100

25%

SI (Speed Index)

Value9.3 s

12/100

10%

TBT (Total Blocking Time)

Value150 ms

95/100

30%

CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)

Value1.235

1/100

15%

TTI (Time to Interactive)

Value22.9 s

1/100

10%

Network Requests Diagram

ridgewoodgrp.com

188 ms

flick.css

188 ms

www.ridgewoodinvestments.com

581 ms

dpUniSlider.css

160 ms

style.css

146 ms

Our browser made a total of 46 requests to load all elements on the main page. We found that 4% of them (2 requests) were addressed to the original Ridgewoodgrp.com, 91% (42 requests) were made to Ridgewoodinvestments.com and 2% (1 request) were made to Ajax.googleapis.com. The less responsive or slowest element that took the longest time to load (581 ms) relates to the external source Ridgewoodinvestments.com.

Page Optimization Overview & Recommendations

Page size can be reduced by 616.0 kB (31%)

Content Size

2.0 MB

After Optimization

1.4 MB

  • HTML
  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

In fact, the total size of Ridgewoodgrp.com main page is 2.0 MB. This result falls beyond the top 1M of websites and identifies a large and not optimized web page that may take ages to load. 40% of websites need less resources to load. Images take 1.3 MB which makes up the majority of the site volume.

HTML Optimization

-84%

Potential reduce by 37.6 kB

  • Original 44.9 kB
  • After minification 33.2 kB
  • After compression 7.3 kB

HTML content can be minified and compressed by a website’s server. The most efficient way is to compress content using GZIP which reduces data amount travelling through the network between server and browser. This page needs HTML code to be minified as it can gain 11.7 kB, which is 26% of the original size. It is highly recommended that content of this web page should be compressed using GZIP, as it can save up to 37.6 kB or 84% of the original size.

Image Optimization

-5%

Potential reduce by 66.3 kB

  • Original 1.3 MB
  • After minification 1.2 MB

Image size optimization can help to speed up a website loading time. The chart above shows the difference between the size before and after optimization. Ridgewoodgrp images are well optimized though.

JavaScript Optimization

-75%

Potential reduce by 439.4 kB

  • Original 584.3 kB
  • After minification 511.9 kB
  • After compression 145.0 kB

It’s better to minify JavaScript in order to improve website performance. The diagram shows the current total size of all JavaScript files against the prospective JavaScript size after its minification and compression. It is highly recommended that all JavaScript files should be compressed and minified as it can save up to 439.4 kB or 75% of the original size.

CSS Optimization

-81%

Potential reduce by 72.8 kB

  • Original 89.5 kB
  • After minification 71.8 kB
  • After compression 16.8 kB

CSS files minification is very important to reduce a web page rendering time. The faster CSS files can load, the earlier a page can be rendered. Ridgewoodgrp.com needs all CSS files to be minified and compressed as it can save up to 72.8 kB or 81% of the original size.

Requests Breakdown

Number of requests can be reduced by 27 (60%)

Requests Now

45

After Optimization

18

  • Images
  • JavaScript
  • CSS

The browser has sent 45 CSS, Javascripts, AJAX and image requests in order to completely render the main page of Ridgewoodgrp. We recommend that multiple CSS and JavaScript files should be merged into one by each type, as it can help reduce assets requests from 16 to 1 for JavaScripts and from 13 to 1 for CSS and as a result speed up the page load time.

Network Requests Diagram

ridgewoodgrp.com

ridgewoodgrp.com

188 ms

flick.css

flick.css

188 ms

www.ridgewoodinvestments.com

www.ridgewoodinvestments.com

581 ms

dpUniSlider.css

dpUniSlider.css

160 ms

style.css

style.css

146 ms

grid-12.css

grid-12.css

144 ms

gantry.css

gantry.css

146 ms

wordpress.css

wordpress.css

200 ms

style1.css

style1.css

192 ms

wp.css

wp.css

190 ms

fusionmenu.css

fusionmenu.css

204 ms

style.css

style.css

230 ms

colorbox.css

colorbox.css

238 ms

jquery.min.js

jquery.min.js

6 ms

jquery.dpUniSlider.js

jquery.dpUniSlider.js

245 ms

scrollTo.js

scrollTo.js

244 ms

jquery.form.min.js

jquery.form.min.js

273 ms

mailchimp.js

mailchimp.js

274 ms

jquery.ui.core.min.js

jquery.ui.core.min.js

303 ms

datepicker.js

datepicker.js

374 ms

mootools.js

mootools.js

513 ms

styling.js

styling.js

330 ms

jcycle.js

jcycle.js

371 ms

smooth.js

smooth.js

354 ms

gantry-buildspans.js

gantry-buildspans.js

382 ms

gantry-inputs.js

gantry-inputs.js

405 ms

fusion.js

fusion.js

417 ms

comment-reply.min.js

comment-reply.min.js

432 ms

jquery.colorbox.1.5.9.js

jquery.colorbox.1.5.9.js

428 ms

css

css

25 ms

logo.png

logo.png

61 ms

Photo-2-Iceberg1.jpg

Photo-2-Iceberg1.jpg

353 ms

Photo-3-Bridge1.jpg

Photo-3-Bridge1.jpg

433 ms

Research.jpg

Research.jpg

254 ms

Photo-6-Newton1.jpg

Photo-6-Newton1.jpg

354 ms

adirondack-chairs-ocean3.jpg

adirondack-chairs-ocean3.jpg

435 ms

arrow.png

arrow.png

57 ms

twitter-bird2.png

twitter-bird2.png

76 ms

linkedin-logo.png

linkedin-logo.png

70 ms

Rainbow-Boats2.jpg

Rainbow-Boats2.jpg

253 ms

menutop-daddy.png

menutop-daddy.png

66 ms

LearnMore.jpg

LearnMore.jpg

103 ms

Group-Shot-Small-310-by-120.jpg

Group-Shot-Small-310-by-120.jpg

102 ms

TalktoRidgewood1.jpg

TalktoRidgewood1.jpg

163 ms

left-arrow.png

left-arrow.png

60 ms

right-arrow.png

right-arrow.png

53 ms

Accessibility Review

ridgewoodgrp.com accessibility score

45

Accessibility Issues

Internationalization and localization

These are opportunities to improve the interpretation of your content by users in different locales.

Impact

Issue

High

<html> element does not have a [lang] attribute

Names and labels

These are opportunities to improve the semantics of the controls in your application. This may enhance the experience for users of assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

High

Links do not have a discernible name

Tables and lists

These are opportunities to improve the experience of reading tabular or list data using assistive technology, like a screen reader.

Impact

Issue

High

Lists do not contain only <li> elements and script supporting elements (<script> and <template>).

Best practices

These items highlight common accessibility best practices.

Impact

Issue

High

[user-scalable="no"] is used in the <meta name="viewport"> element or the [maximum-scale] attribute is less than 5.

Best Practices

ridgewoodgrp.com best practices score

75

Areas of Improvement

Trust and Safety

Impact

Issue

High

Does not use HTTPS

Low

Ensure CSP is effective against XSS attacks

User Experience

Impact

Issue

High

Serves images with low resolution

General

Impact

Issue

Low

Detected JavaScript libraries

SEO Factors

ridgewoodgrp.com SEO score

62

Search Engine Optimization Advices

Content Best Practices

Format your HTML in a way that enables crawlers to better understand your app’s content.

Impact

Issue

High

Image elements do not have [alt] attributes

Language and Encoding

  • Language Detected

    EL

  • Language Claimed

    EN

  • Encoding

    UTF-8

Language claimed in HTML meta tag should match the language actually used on the web page. Otherwise Ridgewoodgrp.com can be misinterpreted by Google and other search engines. Our service has detected that Greek is used on the page, and it does not match the claimed English language. Our system also found out that Ridgewoodgrp.com main page’s claimed encoding is utf-8. Use of this encoding format is the best practice as the main page visitors from all over the world won’t have any issues with symbol transcription.

Social Sharing Optimization

ridgewoodgrp.com

Open Graph data is detected on the main page of Ridgewoodgrp. This is the best way to make the web page social media friendly. Here is how it looks like on Facebook: