Website review, no card needed
quiosque.pl website review
Visit site (opens in a new tab)Reviewed 24 October 202644 issues · 93 checks
This review found 44 issues worth fixing on quiosque.pl, 21 of them high impact, across 93 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
70CClosest competitors among reviewed websites
Compare side by sideShow as table
| Date | Real-visitor load time (LCP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 9, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 16, 2026 | 1.4 s |
| May 23, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| May 30, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 1.5 s |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 1.4 s |
Show as table
| Date | Real-visitor tap response (INP) |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2026 | 133 ms |
| May 9, 2026 | 133 ms |
| May 16, 2026 | 134 ms |
| May 23, 2026 | 133 ms |
| May 30, 2026 | 135 ms |
| Jun 6, 2026 | 135 ms |
| Jun 13, 2026 | 136 ms |
| Jun 20, 2026 | 137 ms |
| Jun 27, 2026 | 136 ms |
| Jul 4, 2026 | 141 ms |
| Jul 11, 2026 | 146 ms |
| Jul 18, 2026 | 149 ms |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 152 ms |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 152 ms |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 152 ms |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 154 ms |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 155 ms |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 154 ms |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 153 ms |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 152 ms |
| Sep 19, 2026 | 152 ms |
| Sep 26, 2026 | 153 ms |
| Oct 3, 2026 | 154 ms |
| Oct 10, 2026 | 154 ms |
| Oct 17, 2026 | 153 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
4.2 s · 1.3 MB53 files are served with short cache lifetimes, so returning visitors download them again (1.3 MB).
Reduce unused JavaScript
4.0 s · 860 KiBAbout 860 KiB of JavaScript is downloaded but never used on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 4.0 s faster on a phone.
Render-blocking requests
1.4 s3 files block the first paint until they finish downloading. Deferring or inlining them could save about 1.4 s.
Mobile performance score: 17
17/100Your mobile performance score is 17 (desktop: 48). Under 50 is Google's “poor” band: many phone visitors leave before the page is usable.
8 third-party services on the page
8 third-party services load with your homepage (Google Tag Manager, Google Maps and fwcdn3.com and others), adding 1.7 MB and 1.5 s of main-thread time.
Google Tag Manager adds 996 ms
996 msGoogle Tag Manager costs a phone 996 ms of main-thread work and 716 KiB of downloads while your page loads. Loading it after the page is usable, or only on the pages that need it, takes that off the critical path.
Reduce unused CSS
750 ms · 69 KiBAbout 69 KiB of CSS is downloaded but never applied on this page. Google estimates it would make the page about 750 ms faster on a phone.
11 long tasks on the main thread
11 long tasks block the main thread while loading, the longest for 363 ms. During a long task the page ignores taps.
Main-thread work: 3.1 s
A phone's processor spends 3.1 s on main-thread work while loading, 1.6 s of it running JavaScript. Above 2 s, taps and scrolls feel sluggish.
Google Maps adds 212 ms
212 msGoogle Maps costs a phone 212 ms of main-thread work and 395 KiB of downloads while your page loads. Loading it after the page is usable, or only on the pages that need it, takes that off the critical path.
Legacy JavaScript
150 ms · 43 KiBPolyfills for old browsers add 43 KiB JavaScript that modern phones do not need. Google estimates it would make the page about 150 ms faster on a phone.
Minify JavaScript
29 KiB29 KiB could be saved by minifying JavaScript.
Improve image delivery
11 KiB1 image could be 11 KiB smaller with modern formats (WebP or AVIF) and sizes that fit a phone screen.
Phones get a much slower page than desktops
Desktop scores 48 but mobile only 17. A gap that wide usually means heavy scripts and images that hit phones hardest.
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.
1 checks passed
Server response: 60 ms
60 msYour server sent the HTML in 60 ms, well inside Google's 600 ms guideline.
Core Web Vitals
Largest Contentful Paint: 17.4 s
17.4 sYour largest element takes 17.4 s to render on a phone. Google's threshold for “good” is 2.5 s. The largest element is the image.
Time to Interactive: 17.6 s
17.6 sThe page becomes fully interactive after 17.6 s. Good is under 3.8 s.
Speed Index: 10.5 s
10.5 sVisually, the page fills in at 10.5 s (Speed Index). Good is under 3.4 s.
Cumulative Layout Shift: 0.515
0.515The layout shifts by 0.515 while loading, so content jumps under the reader's thumb. Good is under 0.1.
Total Blocking Time: 928 ms
928 msScripts block taps and scrolling for 928 ms in total while the page loads. Good is under 200 ms.
First Contentful Paint: 3.4 s
3.4 sThe first text or image appears after 3.4 s on a phone. Good is under 1.8 s.
42 images without width and height
42 images have no width and height attributes, so the layout jumps as each one loads.
Tap response (INP) got 15% slower for real visitors
+15%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' tap response (inp) went from 133 ms to 153 ms at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
Largest content (LCP) held steady for real visitors
+2%Over the last 25 four-week periods to 2026-10-17, real Chrome visitors' largest content (lcp) went from 1.4 s to 1.4 s at the 75th percentile (Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab) history).
6 checks passed
Passes Core Web Vitals for real visitors
Real Chrome users on phones pass Google's Core Web Vitals on this page (28-day field data from the Chrome UX Report (opens in a new tab)).
Real-user LCP: 1.3 s
1.3 sReal visitors wait 1.3 s for the largest content to appear (75th percentile). Good is under 2.5 s.
Real-user INP: 151 ms
151 msReal visitors wait 151 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.
Real-user FCP: 1.0 s
1.0 sReal visitors see the first content after 1.0 s (75th percentile). Good is under 1.8 s.
Real-user TTFB: 448 ms
448 msReal visitors wait 448 ms for your server to start answering (75th percentile). Good is under 800 ms.
Images and page weight
Page weight: 2.8 MB in 84 requests
2.8 MBYour homepage downloads 2.8 MB in 84 requests on a phone: scripts 1.8 MB (36), images 843 KiB (23) and stylesheets 77 KiB (3). Under 2 MB keeps phones on slow connections fast.
About 0.8 g of CO₂ per visit
0.79 gBy the Sustainable Web Design model, a visit to your homepage emits about 0.79 g of CO₂e: 94.8 kg a year at 10,000 visits a month. It scales with page weight, so every byte cut lowers it.
3 checks passed
Images use modern formats
Every sizeable image is WebP, AVIF or SVG.
Images load when needed
Images below the first screen wait until the visitor scrolls to them.
Images are sized for phones
No image is downloaded at more than three times the size it is drawn on a phone.
Accessibility
Certain ARIA roles must be contained by particular parents (3 elements)
Certain ARIA roles must be contained by particular parents: 3 elements on the page fail this check, rated critical by axe-core.
Certain ARIA roles must contain particular children (2 elements)
Certain ARIA roles must contain particular children: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated critical by axe-core.
1 button without a name
1 button has no accessible name, so screen readers announce just “button”.
Malformed lists
Some lists contain elements other than list items, which screen readers announce wrongly.
Orphan list items
Some list items are not inside a list.
1 text element with low contrast
1 text element doesn't have enough contrast against the background to read easily, especially outdoors on a phone.
8 images without alt text
8 images have no alt text, which hurts accessibility and image search.
All page content should be contained by landmarks (4 elements)
All page content should be contained by landmarks: 4 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination (2 elements)
Landmarks should have a unique role or role/label/title (i.e. accessible name) combination: 2 elements on the page fail this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Document should not have more than one contentinfo landmark (1 element)
Document should not have more than one contentinfo landmark: 1 element on the page fails this check, rated moderate by axe-core.
Zoom is disabled
The viewport tag blocks pinch-zoom, which low-vision visitors rely on.
19 links without text
19 visible links have no text or label, so screen readers cannot say where they go.
10 form fields without a label
10 form fields have no label, so screen readers announce an empty box and autofill guesses.
Headings skip levels
Headings skip levels (h3 → h6), which makes the page harder to scan with a screen reader.
1 checks passed
37 automated accessibility rules passed
axe-core 4.13.0, the open-source engine behind most accessibility testing tools, ran 50 WCAG 2.2 A/AA and best-practice rules on the phone render: 37 passed and 13 failed. 1 more need a person to judge. Automated rules catch about a third of accessibility problems; the rest need manual testing.
SEO
No H1 headline
There is no <h1>, so neither visitors nor Google get a clear main headline.
No structured data
No structured data (JSON-LD), so Google can't show rich results such as your logo, ratings or FAQs.
No canonical URL
No canonical URL, so duplicate versions of the homepage (with or without www, with tracking parameters) can split ranking signals.
No XML sitemap
No XML sitemap at https://quiosque.pl/sitemap.xml, so Google discovers your pages only by following links.
1 link crawlers can't follow
1 link has no real href, so search engines can't follow it.
No X (Twitter) card tag
No twitter:card tag. X falls back to Open Graph, which is set, so this is minor.
84 internal links, 9 external
The homepage links to 84 pages on quiosque.pl and 9 external pages.
4 checks passed
Meta description: 153 characters
Your meta description is 153 characters: “Oficjalny sklep internetowy marek Quiosque i Laurella. Ponad 5000 modeli stworzonych dla kobiet, które cenią sobie eleg…”.
Title: 47 characters
Your title is a healthy 47 characters: “Quiosque - oficjalny sklep internetowy Quiosque”.
Open Graph tags complete
Open Graph tags are complete, so shared links show a title, description and image.
robots.txt in place
robots.txt is in place.
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://quiosque.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.
Opted out of AI training for 5 crawlers
robots.txt blocks GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended and CCBot, which collect pages to train models. That's a legitimate choice and doesn't by itself stop the site appearing in AI answers, which the crawlers above handle.
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 (990 words), so crawlers that don't run JavaScript still read it.
Other pages
7 pages without a meta description
https://quiosque.pl/schowek.html, https://quiosque.pl/koszyk.html, https://quiosque.pl/odziez, https://quiosque.pl/odziez/garnitury, https://quiosque.pl/odziez/komplety and https://quiosque.pl/odziez/t-shirty and 1 other have no meta description, so Google writes the search snippet from whatever text it finds.
15 internal pages checked
We fetched 15 pages linked from your homepage (of 63 found) and read each the way a search engine does.
6 checks passed
Linked pages load
All 15 pages we checked loaded without an error.
Canonical URLs point to themselves
No page we checked hands its ranking to a different URL.
Titles are unique
Every page we checked has its own title.
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
Deprecated browser APIs
The page uses 1 deprecated browser API that will stop working in future browsers (“Unload event listeners are deprecated and will be removed.”).
1 JavaScript error while loading
1 error was logged to the browser console while the page loaded, for example “Connecting to 'https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Raleway:ital,wght@0,100;0,200;0,300;0,400;0,500;0,600;0,700;0,8…”.
Missing source maps
Large scripts ship without source maps.
2 checks passed
Tap targets are thumb-sized
80 of 80 tappable elements near the top are at least 24 px.
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.
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 391 words of copy
The homepage carries about 391 words of visible text.
3 checks passed
2 short forms
2 short forms (1 field at most) are right on the homepage.
Analytics in place
Analytics detected: Google Tag Manager and Cloudflare Web Analytics.
Direct contact links
Visitors can reach you directly: 1 phone link and 0 email links.
Privacy and tracking
3 trackers load before any consent
3Before a visitor clicks anything, the page loads Google Ads, Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager (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.
9 cookies set on arrival
9Opening the homepage sets 9 cookies, 2 of them by other companies (measured from a US location before any click).
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.
20 other companies contacted
Loading the homepage contacts 20 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 quiosque.pl, because details like these could help someone attack a site. Every review keeps them private, whatever they found.
Upkeep, stack and company
Stack
- Analytics
- Google Tag Manager | Microsoft Clarity
Company
- Headquarters
- Bydgoszcz
Upkeep, stack, hiring and company data from programmable.info
Go beyond the website
What your $25 Growth Playbook adds
This review found 44 issues on quiosque.pl, including 17 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.