Why would an image that's much smaller than our Website header logo be taking so long to load?
-
When I check http://www.ccisolutions.com at Pingdom, we have a tiny graphic that is taking much longer to load than other graphics that are much bigger. Can anyone shed some light on why this might be happening and what can be done to fix it?
Thanks in advance!
Dana
-
Thanks so much Alan for this great response. While I am not as technically savvy as you and Jason, I knew that I shouldn't 100% rely on Pingdom either, so I am very familiar with the other tools you mentioned and use them routinely.
Since my hands are tied as I have no access to either server or source code. as I mentioned to Jason, I will be taking these suggestions to our IT Director to see how far I can get in addressing these issues.
I am on the PageSpeed warpath, and really appreciate your generous response.
I'll let you know what happens!
Dana
-
Thanks so much Jason,
This is great information. As I do not have access to the server or source code, I am going to take your response, in addition to Alan's to our IT Director and see what kind of actions we can take.
It's a bit of a relief to know that the images aren't our biggest problem.
Your comment about 304's is very timely because last week I was scouring through server log files and noticed quite a few 304's. You've pretty much answered my question on why I found so many of those.
These are all the pains of self-hosting with insufficient staff and know-how to set things up properly. Hoepfully, we can get by with a little help from our friends.
Thanks so much!
Dana
-
All great info so far. Let me add some considerations.
CSS images - 16 - total file size - 455,806
Quite often a site references images in CSS files that aren't even displayed on some, most or nearly all pages. They're baked into the CSS style sheet used across part or all of the site.
When this happens, Google crawls all of those images regardless of whether they're displayed. They do so because it's one of their goals to "discover all the content you have". Because of that, their crawler has no choice but to make extra calls to the server for every image referenced.
So every call to the server adds to the page speed that matters most to Google rankings. As a result, if a review of those images shows they are not needed on key pages of the site, consider having a different style sheet created for those pages that doesn't include them in the CSS.
Also, while Pingdom helps to detect possible bottlenecks (I use it solely for this reason) it is NOT a valid representation of potential page speed problems as far as Google's system is concerned. The reason is the Pingdom system does not process a page's content the way the Google system does. So even if Google Analytics reports a page speed of 15 seconds, Pingdom will routinely report a speed a tiny fraction of that.
While not ideal, I always rely on URIValet.com and WebPageTest.org (the '1st run test, not the "2nd run, because that caches processing) to do my evaluation comparisons.
Where I DO use Pingdom, is when I enter in a URL (be sure to set the test server to a U.S. server, not their European server), when the test has been run, I click over to the "Page Analysis" tab. That breaks down possible bottleneck points in file types, process types, and even domains (if you have 3rd party service widgets or code that's a big issue sometimes and this will show the possible problem sources).
For example, for your home page, that report shows 73% of even that system's own time was processing images. And it also shows six domain sources, with 94.49% of the process time coming from your own domain.
Note an interesting thing though - that report also shows 63% of the time was due to "connect" time - meaning more than half of even Pingdom's process was sucked up just connecting wwhich helps reaffirm the notion that if Google has to make many requests of your server, each request has to connect and thus it can add to overall speed.
-
Hey Dana,
Smooshing images is always a best practice, but in your case, I tool a peek at your homepage and your images aren't that poorly optimized. In your case image optimization is going to save you 30K of 176K in images on your homepage. (I still wouldn't discourage you from setting up automated image optimization such as smoosh).
Your bigger performance problems are that you aren't using gzip on your CSS or JS files. Turning on GZip for your .css and .js files would save you 110K out of 236K in text files.
By far the biggest thing you could do to speed up your user experience would be to set a reasonable browser cache for all your static assets. You're website has many assets that are used on every page the visitsor sees (like all the stuff in your header, footer, and nav). The browswer should download those files the first time the visitor hists and pages, and then when they go to every other page, the browser should know it's OK to use the local copy rather than going back to the server to see if their is a newer version. But because their is no browser cache set, the browser is obligated to check with the server every time. In most cases the browser will get an error 304 error when it asks for the same file again (error 304 means the asset hasn't changed since the last time you ask), so the browser uses the local copy, but all that hand-shaking takes time that you could save if you set browser cache times for all your asset.
GZip is #3 on the SEO Tips article you found, Browser Caching is #1, and those are the two things that are costing your particular homepage the most page performance issues.
-Jason
-
Thanks Charles,
Your comments made me curious for more information because I am sooooo not a graphics person. You sent me in the right direction and I appreciate that. I also found this post here at SeoMoz: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/15-tips-to-speed-up-your-website
Looks like we have some smooshing to do!
Dana
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google Only Understand Image in img src=image path and not data-src= image path
Hello Moz Team Actually for my ecommerce site at product page for one product i have many images and what my developer did for 1st image is on Img src format but other images load on after click for that they have used data-src= image path, data-big= image path so Google Only Understand Image in img src=image path and not data-src= image path? If yes that means only img src = image path will index in google and not other images?2) So in images sitemap xml I have to submit only images scr = images path images only?3) Currently in my images sitemap xml all images are there either img src, data-src etc so what will google do here? He will ignore data-src images or he will try to search on website ? Will he confuse or use by bandwidth or crawl rate? Can you pls guide me? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Johny123450 -
Our client's site was owned by former employee who took over the site. What should be done? Is there a way to preserve all the SEO work?
A client had a member of the team leave on bad terms. This wasn't something that was conveyed to us at all, but recently it came up when the distraught former employee took control of the domain and locked everyone out. At first, this was assumed to be a hack, but eventually it was revealed that one of the company starters who unhappily left the team owned the domain all along and is now holding it hostage. Here's the breakdown: -Every page aside from the homepage is now gone and serving a 404 response code -The site is out of our control -The former employee is asking for a $1 million ransom to sell the domain back -The homepage is a "countdown clock" that isn't actively counting down, but claims that something exciting is happening in 3 days and lists a contact email. The question is how we can save the client's traffic through all this turmoil. Whether buying a similar domain and starting from square one and hoping we can later redirect the old site's pages after getting it back. Or maybe we have a legal claim here that we do not see even though the individual is now the owner of the site. Perhaps there's a way to redirect the now defunct pages to a new site somehow? Any ideas are greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | FPD_NYC0 -
Should I noindex my blog's tag, category, and author pages
Hi there, Is it a good idea to no index tag, category, and author pages on blogs? The tag pages sometimes have duplicate content. And the category and author pages aren't really optimized for any search term. Just curious what others think. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Rignite0 -
Matt Cutts says 404 unavailable products on the 'average' ecommerce site.
If you're an ecommerce site owner, will you be changing how you deal with unavailable products as a result of the recent video from Matt Cutts? Will you be moving over to a 404 instead of leaving the pages live still? For us, as more products were becoming unavailable, I had started to worry about the impact of this on the website (bad user experience, Panda issues from bounce rates, etc.). But, having spoken to other website owners, some say it's better to leave the unavailable product pages there as this offers more value (it ranks well so attracts traffic, links to those pages, it allows you to get the product back up quickly if it unexpectedly becomes available, etc.). I guess there's many solutions, for example, using ItemAvailability schema, that might be better than a 404 (custom or not). But then, if it's showing as unavailable on the SERPS, will anyone bother clicking on it anyway...? Would be interested in your thoughts.
Technical SEO | | Coraltoes770 -
Should you change Temporary redirects 302's to a 301 even if page is not important/intended for ranking ?
Hi Whilst i appreciate its best practice to 301 redirect permanently moved pages, what if the page is say a login page or other page you not really interested in ranking or transferring juice to ? is it still important/best practice to do so simply because the page has permanently moved hence should still be a 301 even though you don't really want it to rank ? cheers dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence1 -
Google indexing less url's then containded in my sitemap.xml
My sitemap.xml contains 3821 urls but Google (webmaster tools) indexes only 1544 urls. What may be the cause? There is no technical problem. Why does Google index less URLs then contained in my sitemap.xml?
Technical SEO | | Juist0 -
ECommerce Site, URL's, Canonical and Tracking Referral Traffic
I'm very, very new to eCommerce websites that employ many different URL's to track referral traffic. I have a client that has 18 different URL's that land on the Home Page in order to track traffic from different referral sources. For example: http://erasedisease.com/?ref=abot - Tracks traffic from an affiliate source http://erasedisease.com/?ref=FB01 - Tracks traffic from a FB Ad http://erasedisease.com/?ref=sas&SSAID=289169 - Tracks more affiliate traffic ...and the list goes on and on. My first question is do you think this could hinder our Google rankings? SEOMoz Crawl doesn't show any Duplicate Content Errors, so I guess that's good. I've just been reading a lot about Canonical Url's and eCommerce sites, but I'm not sure if this is a situation where I'd want to use some kind of canonical plugin for this Wordpress website or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!!
Technical SEO | | Linwright0 -
Will a "blog=example "parameter at the end of my URLs affect google's crawling them?
For example, I'm wondering if www.example.com/blog/blog-post is better than www.example.com/blog/blog-post?blog=example? I'm currently using the www.example.com/blog/blog-post?blog=example structure as our canonical page for content. I'm also wondering, if the parameter doesn't affect crawling, if it would hurt rankings in any way. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Intridea0