Improvement in Page Speed worth Compromise on HTML Validation?
-
Our developer has improved page speed, particularly for Mobile. However the price for this improvement has been a HTML validation error that cannot be removed without compromising on the page load speed. Is the improvement in speed worth the living with the validation error? The concern is paying a high SEO price for this "fatal error". Or perhaps this error is in fact not serious?
-
Fatal Error: Cannot recover after last error. Any further errors will be ignored.
From line 699, column 9; to line 699, column 319
>↩ ↩
`OUR DEVELOPER'S COMMENT:
| This was made following Google page speed insights recommendations. If we remove that, will loose on page load performance |
The domain URL is www.nyc-officespace-leader.com`
-
-
Yeah sequence of load is also important when its time to go granular to find the true opportunities. Because the up-front evaluation time that can identify issues, can often result in faster-easier-more template-driven ways to speed up everything on a larger scale with less effort needed.
That doesn't mean its okay to ignore other bottlenecks. Just that the more clarity of understanding, the more likely real, sustainable success can be achieved.
-
I agree with Alan's points. I have also found WebSiteTest.com really useful. It allows for multiple runs on multiple devices and you can download the results in CSV. Expanding on Alan's point around looking at bottleneck points, when you use these tools, you need to take time to understand the waterfall chart as that is where you can see how the browsers interact with all of these files (html, css, js, images etc).
I have been doing a ton of reading on front end optimization recently. Aside from all of the above, you could have issue with the critical rendering path (great resources here and here). Many times folks look at a single asset and say, "This javascript file is too big, lets minify it and get faster!" That is a good thing and will help you. That said, you have to look at the render path as you may have that same smaller JS file blocking other downloads that need to be downloaded first to render the page faster. Optimizing the render path can give you some additional gains.
Good luck!
-
Kingalan1
I'm not a programmer by trade - the way I begin even considering these things is by running tests on various tool platforms.
For example, put a page you think is slow into URIValet.com - test as Googlebot. The resulting report has a block of information in it regarding total size of files processed. It breaks that data down to file types. Look at the CSS/JS lines - if they are more than 50k to 100k total for either CSS or JSS, there is almost certainly inefficiency in there, and likely unnecessary bloat.
Go to WebPageTest.org and do the same - put in the URL you want to check - choose a server location and DSL (which gives a fair mid-range speed evaluation), and Chrome as the browser emulator. The resulting report gives you a lot of information, however the one page in that report that may be most helpful in this situation is the "Details" report - if you go there, and scroll down, you'll get to the section that lists, line by line, every single file, script, image and asset processed for that page, and all of the data on speed of processing each step of the way (such as First Byte Time, DNS lookup, SSL lookup, and more). Those can reveal several individual bottleneck points.
-
Thanks for your excellent, highly detailed response!!
Is there a way to test the CSS files that my developer has created to see if they are coded in an efficient and concise manner?
We use a virtual private server at Inmotion Hosting and Amazon CDN for for images. So I would think that the hosting service is adequate. Traffic does not exceed 3000 unique visitors a month so the load on the server is minimal.
-
1. Taking shortcuts that are not sound sustainable based methods to gain value somewhere else is almost certainly going to become a problem when you least expect it at some future date and this is a great example. Moving CSS and or JS to below the proper location is a recipe for complete page display failure on any number of devices that may or may not current exist.
Have you tested your pages with Google's Fetch and Render to ensure they properly load, or where they may get a "partial" result? If they get a "partial" result, that's a red flag warning that you ignore at your own peril.
2. You haven't provided numbers - is the page speed improvement a case of going from 20 seconds to down to 5 seconds? Or is it going from 8 seconds to 6 seconds? Or what? This matters when evaluating what to care about and expend resources on.
3. If just moving those to their proper place in the page header section is causing speeds to slow down dramatically, you have bigger problems. First one that comes to mind is "why do those scripts / CSS files cause so much speed slowdown? Its likely they're bloated and need to be reduced in size, or they're housed on a pathetic cloud server that is itself doing you more harm than good.
-
I'm not sure if it would affect the current page speed but it would fix the invalid HTML error from the validator. If the validation errors concern you it might be worth giving it a try and testing the result? It's good to make sure that pages validate all the high issues at least to be sure of no possible display or rendering issues in different browsers now or in the future.
-
Would correcting the code in this manner so the html validates result in a slower page load timE?
-
That error is coming up from the validator because the links to your stylesheets are outside the ending body and html tags. The stylesheet links normally go within the tags at the top but I understand from what you've said for page speed these have been moved to the bottom page however no tags / html / stylesheets / javascript etc should be outside the ending and tags.
If you move the CSS stylesheet references and the comments so they are where the javascript files are (before the ending tags) that would fix the fatal error you are seeing.
Hope that helps!
-
Thanks so much. I understand most errors are not too important. However I wonder if a "fatal" error should not be of grater concern.
Thanks, Alan
-
I am not a developer so any developer with a SEO background can tell you better but in general page load speed is important both from user point of view as well as search engine rankings and as far as W3C validation is concern, there are quite a few errors that you can ignore in order to stick with your page load speed.
Hope this helps!
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
-
Issue with AMP pages
Hello, We have implemented AMP on our blog pages, but now some of the Web pages are also being shown like AMP pages. ( no footer and no navigation ) What could have gone wrong ? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Johnroger0 -
Help.. there was a html and php version of my home page on my server for about a week. Now lost all rankings!
Our home page has disappeared from the Google SERPS completely. It won't even show for a search of our business name although other internal pages appear. Site appears in bing for our keywords but not for our business name. When I republished the site I got a message saying there was a php and html version of the site on the home page. I deleted this immediately but was then advised by another staff member that they had also got that message the week before but not done anything about it - so I think it was out there for about a week. Could this be the cause of the ranking drop? We have also done the following: Checked GWM for robots issue, manual action, crawl errors, blocked URLs - all good. Some crawl errors on other pages relating to broken links. All sorted and marked as fixed. Checked for duplicate content - redirected non www version of site to www Checked back links Removed video from home page that was temporarily unavailable when we did fetch and render Added canonical tag Added H1 tag that was missing Coding checked - all looks good There has been no change to the content of the page. We have fetched and rendered and resubmitted for indexing but it's still not coming back in SERPS it did for a short time the other day and then after a couple of days disappeared again Prior to all this it had ranked really well for our most important keywords for years. It's not a new site. The page is indexed as it comes up when doing a site: search. Please can anyone help? Nobody seems to have the answer and we don't know what else to do. The site is NSFW NSFW https://goo.gl/dwA8YB Main keyword sex toy party
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GemmaApril0 -
NoIndex Purchase Page
We ran a ScreamingFrog report of one of our websites and found that there are thousands of instances of a single page with a different URL parameter, for example: purchase.cfm?id=1234
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ErnieB
purchase.cfm?id=1235
purchase.cfm?id=1236
purchase.cfm?id=1237 and we do not need purchase.cfm to be indexed for any reason as there is practically no content on that page to begin with, but it's just part of the purchase steps in our website. What is the best way to deal with this for Google & SEO? Should we do a Meta NoIndex of this purchase.cfm page? Thank you.0 -
SEO structure question: Better to add similar (but distinct) content to multiple unique pages or make one unique page?
Not sure which approach would be more SEO ranking friendly? As we are a music store, we do instrument repairs on all instruments. Currently, I don't have much of any content about our repairs on our website... so I'm considering a couple different approaches of adding this content: Let's take Trumpet Repair for example: 1. I can auto write to the HTML body (say, at the end of the body) of our 20 Trumpets (each having their own page) we have for sale on our site, the verbiage of all repairs, services, rates, and other repair related detail. In my mind, the effect of this may be that: This added information does uniquely pertain to Trumpets only (excludes all other instrument repair info), which Google likes... but it would be duplicate Trumpet repair information over 20 pages.... which Google may not like? 2. Or I could auto write the repair details to the Trumpet's Category Page - either in the Body, Header, or Footer. This definitely reduces the redundancy of the repeating Trumpet repair info per Trumpet page, but it also reduces each Trumpet pages content depth... so I'm not sure which out weighs the other? 3. Write it to both category page & individual pages? Possibly valuable because the information is anchoring all around itself and supporting... or is that super duplication? 4. Of course, create a category dedicated to repairs then add a subcategory for each instrument and have the repair info there be completely unique to that page...- then in the body of each 20 Trumpets, tag an internal link to Trumpet Repair? Any suggestions greatly appreciated? Thanks, Kevin
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kevin_McLeish0 -
HTML entities and SEO
I recently came across an article on HTML entities that discussed how their appear in search results. The same article also mentioned that their use might be considered spam. Since I know nothing of them (other than what I read in the one article) are they a good or bad idea to make meta descriptions stand out from the crowd?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | casper4340 -
Why duplicate content for same page?
Hi, My SEOMOZ crawl diagnostic warn me about duplicate content. However, to me the content is not duplicated. For instance it would give me something like: (URLs/Internal Links/External Links/Page Authority/Linking Root Domains) http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/contact?utm_source=enews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enews20110516 /1/1/31/2 http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/contact?utm_source=enews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enews20110711 0/0/1/0 http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/contact?utm_source=enews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enews20110811 0/0/1/0 http://www.nuxeo.com/en/about/contact?utm_source=enews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enews20110911 0/0/1/0 Why is this seen as duplicate content when it is only URL with campaign tracking codes to the same content? Do I need to clean this?Thanks for answer
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nuxeo0 -
How to resolve Duplicate Page Content issue for root domain & index.html?
SEOMoz returns a Duplicate Page Content error for a website's index page, with both domain.com and domain.com/index.html isted seperately. We had a rewrite in the htacess file, but for some reason this has not had an impact and we have since removed it. What's the best way (in an HTML website) to ensure all index.html links are automatically redirected to the root domain and these aren't seen as two separate pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ContentWriterMicky0 -
We are changing ?page= dynamic url's to /page/ static urls. Will this hurt the progress we have made with the pages using dynamic addresses?
Question about changing url from dynamic to static to improve SEO but concern about hurting progress made so far.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | h3counsel0