Website review, no card needed
ore.edu.pl website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 24 October 202636 issues · 80 checks
This review found 36 issues worth fixing on ore.edu.pl, 14 of them high impact, across 80 checks. The most urgent: use efficient cache lifetimes. Your full playbook turns these into prioritised fixes alongside reviews, competitors and channels.
- Homepage
- Phone render
- Links and pages
- Google PageSpeed
Google PageSpeed Insights (opens in a new tab), mobile
Site score
80BClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 9, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.9 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 2.0 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 2.8 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 3.5 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 4.1 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 4.5 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 4.9 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 5.1 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 5.2 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 5.3 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 5.5 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 5.6 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 5.7 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 5.7 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 5.6 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 5.3 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 3.1 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.8 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 92 ms |
| May 9, 2026 | 92 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 91 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 92 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 93 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 93 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 94 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 94 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 91 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 88 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 83 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 84 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 85 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 86 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 85 ms |
Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab): real Chrome visitors over rolling 28-day periods.
One score from every part of this review. How it works
Speed
Use efficient cache lifetimes
4.0 s · 4.7 MB63 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (4.7 MB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
1.9 s · 693 KiBAbout 693 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 1.9 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
2.5 s5 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 2.5 s.
3,867 HTML elements
The page has 3,867 HTML elements. Above 1,500, rendering and every interaction get slower on phones.
Improve image delivery
300 ms · 1.3 MB12 images could be 1.3 MB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.
Mobile performance score: 57
57/100Your mobile performance score is 57 (desktop: 73). Pages that score under 90 lose visitors before the first paint.
Legacy JavaScript
300 ms · 61 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 61 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 300 ms faster on a phone.
4 third-party services on the page
4 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Facebook and Google Fonts and others), adding 454 KiB and 326 ms of main-thread time.
4 long tasks on the main thread
4 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 141 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Reduce unused CSS
100 KiBAbout 100 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page.
Minify JavaScript
8 KiB8 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
Chained critical requests
Critical files load one after another instead of in parallel (3 chains). Preconnecting to key origins and preloading the hero image shortens the chain.
Forced reflow
Scripts make the browser recalculate the layout repeatedly while the page loads, which wastes processor time on phones.
2 checks passed
Main-thread work: 1.2 s
A phone's processor spends 1.2 s on main-thread work while loading, 391 ms of it running JavaScript. That is comfortably low.
Server response: 253 ms
253 msYour server sent the HTML in 253 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.
Core Web Vitals
Fails Core Web Vitals for real visitors
Real Chrome users on phones do not pass Google's Core Web Vitals on this page (28-day field data from the Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab)). Google uses this in ranking.
Real-user TTFB: 2.2 s
2.2 sReal visitors wait 2.2 s for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Largest Contentful Paint: 12.3 s
12.3 sYour largest element takes 12.3 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the text “Znajdź informacje o szkoleniach i programach Szybko znajdź …”.
Time to Interactive: 18.8 s
18.8 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 18.8 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 10.3 s
10.3 sVisually, the page fills in at 10.3 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
First Contentful Paint: 4.6 s
4.6 sThe first text or image appears after 4.6 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
Largest content (LCP) got 28% slower for real visitors
+28%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.9 s to 1.8 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Real-user FCP: 2.3 s
2.3 sReal visitors see the first content after 2.3 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
11 images without width and height
11 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) held steady for real visitors
-7%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 92 ms to 85 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
5 checks passed
Real-user LCP: 2.4 s
2.4 sReal visitors wait 2.4 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user INP: 92 ms
92 msReal visitors wait 92 ms for the page to respond to a tap (75th percentile). Good is under 200 ms.
Real-user CLS: 0.00
0.00For real visitors the layout shifts by 0.00 (75th percentile). Good is under 0.1.
Total Blocking Time: 96 ms
96 msScripts block the page for only 96 ms while loading. Good is under 200 ms.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.002
0.002The layout barely moves while loading (CLS 0.002, good is under 0.1).
Images and page weight
Page weight: 5.3 MB in 71 requests
5.3 MBYour homepage downloads 5.3 MB in 71 requests on a phone: images 3.7 MB (35), scripts 1.2 MB (28) and stylesheets 156 KiB (3). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
21 images in older formats
21 images (3.4 MB) are JPEG, PNG or GIF. The same pictures as WebP or AVIF are usually much smaller at the same quality, and every current browser shows them.
16 images below the first screen load straight away
16 images further down the page (2.8 MB) download before anyone scrolls to them. Adding loading="lazy" lets the first screen load first.
About 1.5 g of CO₂ per visit
1.49 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 1.49 g of CO₂e: 178.7 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
1 checks passed
Images are sized for phones
No image is downloaded at more than three times the size it is drawn on a phone.
Accessibility
All page content should be contained by landmarks (95 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 95 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
4 links without text
4 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
2 form fields without a label
2 form fields have no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names.
Elements with visible text labels do not have matching accessible names. (16 elements).
2 checks passed
Every image has alt text
All 62 images in the HTML carry an alt attribute.
51 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 52 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 51 passed and 1 failed. 2 mores need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
147 links crawlers can't follow
147 links have no real href, so search engines can't follow them.
Title is short (24 characters)
Your title is only 24 characters: “Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji”. Between 30 and 65 characters leaves room to say what you do and for whom.
No structured data
No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.
No social preview image
No Open Graph image (also missing: og:title, og:description), so links shared on LinkedIn, Slack or Facebook show no preview picture.
One H1 headline
Your <h1> is empty.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is incomplete here.
1,084 internal links, 46 external
The homepage links to 1,084 pages on ore.edu.pl and 46 external pages.
4 checks passed
Meta description: 150 characters
Your meta description is 150 characters: “ORE - Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji jest publiczną placówką doskonalenia nauczycieli o zasięgu ogólnokrajowym prowadzoną prz…”.
Canonical URL set
The canonical URL is https://ore.edu.pl/.
robots.txt in place
robots.txt is in place and points crawlers to your sitemap.
XML sitemap found
Your XML sitemap is reachable at https://ore.edu.pl/wp-sitemap.xml.
AI search readiness
No Organization structured data
There is no Organization (or LocalBusiness) JSON-LD, so search engines and AI assistants have no machine-readable facts about who runs the site: its name, logo, profiles and contact details.
No llms.txt
There is no https://ore.edu.pl/llms.txt, a short Markdown guide to your key pages for AI tools (llmstxt.org). It is optional and few AI tools read it yet, so treat it as a cheap extra.
2 checks passed
AI answer engines may read the site
Your robots.txt lets the crawlers behind ChatGPT search, Claude and Perplexity read the site and cite it in answers.
Text is in the HTML
Your server sends the page's text in the HTML (5,677 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
2 pages share a title
https://ore.edu.pl/o-nas and https://ore.edu.pl/2023/03/o-osrodku all use the title “Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji – Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji”. Search engines can't tell which page to show for a search, so each competes with the others.
15 pages share a meta description
https://ore.edu.pl/2026/06/patronaty-2026, https://ore.edu.pl/2017/12/kontakt-ore, https://ore.edu.pl/projektyue, https://ore.edu.pl/o-nas, https://ore.edu.pl/2023/03/o-osrodku and https://ore.edu.pl/2023/03/nasze-dzialania and 9 others use the same meta description. A description written for each page earns more clicks.
1 link to non-canonical URLs
Your homepage links to 1 page by a URL that isn't its canonical one, for example https://ore.edu.pl/o-nas, whose canonical is https://ore.edu.pl/2023/03/o-osrodku. Linking straight to the canonical URL saves crawlers a detour and keeps ranking signals on one address.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 199 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
5 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 15 pages we checked loaded without an error.
Every page has a meta description
All 15 pages that loaded have a meta description.
Every page has an H1
Each page we checked has a main headline.
No linked page is hidden from search
None of the pages we checked carries a noindex tag.
Every page has a title
All 15 pages that loaded have a <title>.
Best practices
22 small tap targets
22 of 58 tappable elements near the top of the page are smaller than 24 px, hard to hit with a thumb.
Missing source maps
Large scripts ship without source maps.
2 checks passed
No console errors
No JavaScript errors were logged while the page loaded on a phone.
Mobile viewport set
The page declares a mobile viewport.
Content and conversion
No call to action on the first screen
On a phone, there is no call to action on the first screen: visitors have to scroll to find out what to do next.
No calls to action
We found no call-to-action buttons or links (such as “Book a demo” or “Get a quote”) anywhere on the homepage.
No social proof
No testimonials, customer logos, ratings or customer counts on the homepage: nothing tells a new visitor that others already trust you.
Phone number is not tap-to-call
Your phone number appears as text but isn't a tel: link, so phone visitors can't tap to call.
No risk reducer
No guarantee or risk reducer (money-back, free trial, no credit card) is mentioned, which is often what tips a hesitant visitor.
About 1,871 words of copy
The homepage carries about 1,871 words of visible text.
2 checks passed
2 short forms
2 short forms (2 fields at most) are right on the homepage.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Analytics.
Privacy and tracking
3 trackers load before any consent
3Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Meta Pixel (measured from a US location before any click). No consent tool was detected. Visitors from the EU, UK and several US states must be asked first.
No consent tool detected
No known cookie consent tool loads with the page. Some sites build their own banner, and some only show one to visitors from the EU.
4 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 4 hosts run by other companies (fonts, scripts, analytics, ads), each of which sees the visitor's IP address.
Security, domain, email and software versions
The security, domain and email checks, software and plugin versions, and any app with a known security problem are visible only to people at ore.edu.pl, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- CMS
- WordPress
- Framework
- jQuery
- Analytics
- Google Analytics
Company
- Founded
- 2010
- Headquarters
- Warsaw
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 36 issues on ore.edu.pl, including 16 speed issues, 5 SEO issues and 3 conversion gaps. That is the website alone. The full Growth Playbook pairs these findings with what your customers say in public reviews and communities and what your closest competitors do better, then turns everything into at least 20 prioritised ideas, each with the evidence behind it, a step-by-step playbook, a metric and an owner.
- 28 research agents read your site, reviews, competitors, communities and public filings
- Customer review mining (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot and more) and voice-of-pain analysis in your buyers’ own words
- Competitor intelligence with battlecards for your closest rivals
- Ideal customer profile, buyer segments and buying-stage funnel
- Ranked channels, outreach sequences and content angles
- Live Reddit threads where buyers ask for what you sell, with draft replies
- Earned media and PR openings
- At least 20 ideas with evidence, a step-by-step playbook, metric, owner, effort and impact, grouped into this week, this quarter, big bets and wildcards, plus a 30/60/90-day roadmap
- PDF, Markdown, CSV, Notion and Linear exports, and a shareable page your team can track progress on
- Refresh the playbook later to see what changed
14-day money-back guarantee: not happy for any reason, email us within 14 days and we refund in full.