Page speed - what do you aim for?
-
Hi Mozzers - was just looking at website speed and know the google guidelines on average page load time but I'm not sure whether Google issues guidelines on any of the other 4? Do you know of any guidance on domain lookup, server response, server connection or page download?
Page Load Time (sec) - I tend to aim for 2 seconds max: http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/your-website-design-should-load-in-4-seconds/
Server Response Time: [Google recommends 200ms]: https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/insights/Server Redirection Time (sec) [dependent on number of redirects so probably no guide figure]
Domain Lookup Time (sec)
Server Connection Time (sec)
Page Download Time (sec)Thanks, Luke
-
IMHO, if somebody is paying us for SEO, then our GOAL is to get the homepage to load in a second or less.... especially if most of the users are mobile. If it's mid 1 second, then we can grudgingly live with that.
I'm glad you asked about server response times.... for most sites, after the content is optimized ( smaller images, clunky code, etc...) the initial server response time is usually the culprit for getting over a second.... as long as the rest of the home page is "light". Light to us is under 1MB. Depending on your CMS, there are a variety of ways to get the response time to be 200ms or less.
Google Pagespeed, as David said, is a good measurement, but it's not the holy grail of measurements. We use it only to identify areas that need improvement. Waterfalls tell us what's taking so long and what's heavy.
You didn't ask about plugins - which is a major culprit to caching, minify errors, conflicts, speed and weight. We limit all active plugins to TEN (including caching, SEO, security). For some sites, plugin clean up is the easiest way to speed up a site.
At the end of the day, nothing beats clean code, light images and a lightening fast server.
-
Thanks for all the feedback everyone - much appreciated, Luke
-
As long as the page loads quick for users then I wouldn't put a huge focus on this. True that Google looks at page load speed, but I wouldn't put all your eggs in that basket. We have sites that show a 2.5-3.5 second load time, and they still dominate ranking results. Focus on creating a better experience.
One of the simple ways to speed up load times is to minify and compress CSS and Javascript files as small as possible, but be sure to check that the minification does not break areas of the site. We have seen improvements as high as 75% just from completing this step alone.
If you have a Joomla or WordPress website, here is a great plugin that will do this for you: https://www.jch-optimize.net/
-
Hi Luke! When using this tool (https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/) we aim to have our clients above 80 for both mobile and desktop.
-
I will be honest, I don't trust Google with PageSpeed. There are too few questions asked about how it actually fits in with the metrics and what is used. One example is Google says resources like Google Analytics do not count against your score in the SERPS. But in the test they do. If you use several Google assets like Adwords, Analytics, fonts, ect; you will show a very low score. Using them will actually block you from seeing other things that you can fix.
What we have started doing is figuring out what Google actually needs and presenting it to them. We started hiding tracking codes from Google. Bing, Facebook, ect from them. We hide our analytics tracking script from Google's crawler. I figured out that Google's test servers have the FA library and also their font library locally on the machine, so we have started hiding those from it as well. Any 3rd party script we have that Google does not need to see has been hidden as well, segmentify, olark, anything really. Doing these things has raised our score quite a bit.
-
"if you have 2 or even 3 redirects mobile users wait for 5 seconds before see anything. Hint - that's why i won't click on most bit.ly, ow.ly, goo.gl links in Twitter, Facebook, G+ when i'm on mobile. Because they first pass via t.co redirect then redirect that i can see and sometime even 3rd redirect."
Just adding a bit of weight to what you said, here's a test of a t.co link through bit.ly: https://i.gyazo.com/ca87c486a903914c2b058612cc93f3f0.png on 3g, it's 4.27s to even start loading Google. Without t.co: https://i.gyazo.com/f22c18a0879f76ecf653662153e17c43.png which is 2.35s.
-
Pagespeed score means nothing unfortunately. http/2 puts a spanner in the works for a lot of it.
https://blog.newrelic.com/2016/02/09/http2-best-practices-web-performance/
Being this section:
- Concatenating JavaScript and CSS files: Combining smaller files into a larger file to reduce the total number of requests.
- **Image spriting: **Combining multiple small images into one larger image.
- Domain sharding: Spreading requests for static assets across several domains to increase the total number of open TCP connections allowed by the browser.
- Inlining assets: Bundling assets with the HTML document source, including base-64 encoding images or writing JavaScript code directly inside
-
It's hard to be explained but "Less is MORE!" in general for that numbers.
Examples - redirectors. Redirects can overkill your site specially on mobile users. For that even simply site redirect can took second or two. Example www.example.com -> 301 -> m.example.com; looks simple isn't? But in reality after client took 301 redirect he must make new domain resolving (for m.exmaple.com) and then new connect to new server (m.example.com). And this is simply case... if you have 2 or even 3 redirects mobile users wait for 5 seconds before see anything. Hint - that's why i won't click on most bit.ly, ow.ly, goo.gl links in Twitter, Facebook, G+ when i'm on mobile. Because they first pass via t.co redirect then redirect that i can see and sometime even 3rd redirect. I know that marketers want to see "clicks", but isn't good for mobile users.
Server connection is also need to be less. But this mean that server need to be closer to user. Best example is Australia. There even simply DNS resolving + connection took one second. And client doesn't receive single byte from server yet... You can see WebPageTest.org (there are Australian servers). But of course providing single server there is expensive, so you need to have deep pockets to make servers there. That's why most of companies providing CDN support. Since CDN endpoint is closer to user it make things little bit faster for them. And if CDN is setup correct should be much faster.
So - idea is "Less is More!". The best is if you use WPT to benchmark your site from all over the world. And also setup Analytics to count speed. Because it's different speed when your site is on perfect conditions in datacenter than in real world.
-
Hi Luke,
Here is what google recommends in terms of page speed. Server response time to be less than 200 ms.
Now, coming to the Page Speed tool / Insight that google provide the measure the page speed ratings (1-100) , Google Page Speed score is indeed a strong indicator of a website’s loading performance in terms of time.
As per my research, total website download less than 10 secs corresponds to 75-85 on pagespeed score.
I hope this helps.
Thanks,
Vijay
-
Thanks Tom for picking up on that error - ugh - corrected now. Brain working sluggishly this morning lol!
-
Hi Luke,
"Avg. Page Load Time (sec) [Google recommends 200ms]:" That's actually for the server response time.
Personally, the only thing that matters is that the overall page load time is quick. I aim if possible for sub 2 seconds for any page.
Tom
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
-
Doorway page penalty
Has Google changed their interpretation of Doorway pages?We do not sell widgets but allow me to use Widget for this example;If we sold 25 very different widgets an online vendor would typically have 1 "mother" website with 25 different inner pages, each page to explain each type of widget they sell.However, for the past 9 years our approach is to have 25 different websites, one for each widget. With these 25 sites we concentrated on ranking the home page only . All these sites link back to our (No idexed) "Mother' site via no follow links where we have our Shopping Cart and Terms of Business. We did this partly to avoid having 25 separate Shopping Carts and to avoid having to change our Terms 25 times each time that became necessary. But yes we also did this as it was so much easier to rank each different type of widget in the SERPS. Also we think its a better user experience as in our business buyers of yellow widgets will not be interested in blue widgetsWe have been reading for years that google does not like doorways pages but we were not 100% certain if they might regard our sites as such .This is because our approach has worked great for nine years. That is until December last year when all 95% our sites fell dramatically in the SERPS usually from page 1 to page 2 or 3. First thing we did was to go through all our sites and search for the obvious; toxic links, duplicate content, keyword density, https issues, mobility issues, anchor text, etc etc and of course content. We found no obvious problems that could affect 95% of the sites at the same time but we ordered new homepage content for most of our sites from expert seo writers. However, after putting on this new content 3 -4 weeks ago our sites have not moved up the SERPS at all.So we are left with the inescapable conclusion that our problem is because google sees and devalues our sites as doorway pages especially as 95% of your sites have been affected all at the same time Would any SEO experts on this forum agree or be able to offer an opinion?If so, what might be the solution going forward? We have 2 solutions under consideration;1) Remove all links from each of our 25 sites to our "mother Site" and put a shopping cart and our TOS on each of the 25 sites so they are all truly independent stand alone websites.2) Create 25 inner pages on our mother site (after removing the no index) , for each of the 25 widgets we sell , then 301 each of the 25 individual sites home pages to its inner page on the mother site . I think this might be the best solution partly as almost all of our higher ranking competitors are ranking their inner pages not their homepage. But I worry if these 25 sites will really pass much link juice if they have been devalued by Google.?Any advice will be gratefully received.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | apcsilver90 -
Page rank and menus
Hi, My client has a large website and has a navigation with main categories. However, they also have a hamburger type navigation in the top right. If you click it it opens to a massive menu with every category and page visible. Do you know if having a navigation like this bleeds page rank? So if all deep pages are visible from the hamburger navigation this means that page rank is not being conserved to the main categories. If you click a main category in the main navigation (not the hamburger) you can see the sub pages. I think this is the right structure but the client has installed this huge menu to make it easier for people to see what there is. From a technical SEO is this not bad?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AL123al0 -
Pages that 301 redirect to a 404
We are going through a website redesign that involves changing URL's for the pages on our site. Currently all our pages are in the format domain.com/example.html and we are moving to stip off the .html file extension so it would just be domain.com/example We have thousands of pages as the site deals with news so building a redirect for each individual page isn't really feasible. My plan is to have a generic rewrite rule that redirects any page that ends .html to the stripped off version of this. A problem I can see with this is that it will also redirect pages that don't exist. So for example, domain.com/non-existant-page.html would 301 to domain.com/non-existant-page which would then return a 404 status. What would the SEO repercussions be for this? Obviously if a page doesn't exist already then it shouldn't show up in the search engine indexes and shouldn't be a problem but I'm a bit worried about how old pages that currently legitimately 404 will be treated when they start to 301 redirect to a 404 instead. Not sure if there any other potential issues from this that I've missed either? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbb0240 -
404 Pages. Can I change it to do this without getting penalized ? I want to lower our bounce rate from these pages to encourage the user to continue on the site
Hi All, We have been streaming our site and got rid of thousands of pages for redundant locations (Basically these used to be virtual locations where we didn't have a depot although we did deliver there and most of them was duplicate/thin content etc ). Most of them have little if any link value and I didn't want to 301 all of them as we already have quite a few 301's already We currently display a 404 page but I want to improve on this. Current 404 page is - http://goo.gl/rFRNMt I can get my developer to change it, so it will still be a 404 page but the user will see the relevant category page instead ? So it will look like this - http://goo.gl/Rc8YP8 . We could also use Java script to show the location name etc... Would be be okay ? or would google see this as cheating. basically I want to lower our bounce rates from these pages but still be attractive enough for the user to continue in the site and not go away. If this is not a good idea, then any recommendations on improving our current 404 would be greatly appreciated. thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Page and Domain Authority
How much Page and Domain Authority we need to look for to secure a backlink.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ross254sidney0 -
Should we NOINDEX NOFOLLOW canonical pages?
Hi, I was window shopping at Gemvara and noticed something interesting... They rank very high for long-tail phrases such as "rose gold engagement rings" and in their pagination pages for that category not only they filled canonical to the main category page (which is logic) but also they "NOINDEX NOFOLLOW" the pages... Is that recommended? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
Does Google make continued attempts to crawl an old page one it has followed a 301 to the new page?
I am curious about this for a couple of reasons. We have all dealt with a site who switched platforms and didn't plan properly and now have 1,000's of crawl errors. Many of the developers I have talked to have stated very clearly that the HTacccess file should not be used for 1,000's of singe redirects. I figured If I only needed them in their temporarily it wouldn't be an issue. I am curious if once Google follows a 301 from an old page to a new page, will they stop crawling the old page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RossFruin0 -
How to avoid content canibalizm? How do I control which page is the landing page?
Hi All, To clarify my question I will give an example. Let's assume that I have a laptop e-commerce site and that one of my main categories is Samsung Laptops. The category page shows lots of laptops and a small section of text. On the other hand, in my article section I have a HUGE article about Samsung Laptops. If we consider the two word phrases each page is targeting then the answer is the same - Samsung Laptops. On the article i point to the category page using anchor such as "buy samsung laptops" or "samsung laptops" and on the category page (my wishful landing page) I point to the article with "learn about samsung laptops" or "samsung laptops pros and cons". Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0