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
-
Link externally from destination pages
Hello, From my destinations pages, is it beneficial to have a link going externally to the hotels my clients are staying in ? In other words is it beneficial to my website or will it hurt me to link external from all my destinations pages to all the hotels my clients are staying in ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
One Page Design / Single Product Page
I have been working in a project. Create a framework for multi pages that I have So here is the case
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Roman-Delcarmen
Most of them are single page product / one page design wich means that I dont have many pages to optimize. All this sites/ pages follow the rules of a landing page optimization because my main goals is convert as many users as I can. At this point I need to optimize the SEO, the basic stuff such as header, descriptions, tittles ect. But most of my traffic is generated by affiliates, which is good beacuse I dont have to worrie to generate traffic but if the affiliate network banned my product, then I lose all my traffic. Put all my eggs in the same basket is not a good idea. Im not an seo guru so that is the reason Im asking whic strategies and tactics can give me results. All kind of ideas are welcome1 -
How do we decide which pages to index/de-index? Help for a 250k page site
At Siftery (siftery.com) we have about 250k pages, most of them reflected in our sitemap. Though after submitting a sitemap we started seeing an increase in the number of pages Google indexed, in the past few weeks progress has slowed to a crawl at about 80k pages, and in fact has been coming down very marginally. Due to the nature of the site, a lot of the pages on the site likely look very similar to search engines. We've also broken down our sitemap into an index, so we know that most of the indexation problems are coming from a particular type of page (company profiles). Given these facts below, what do you recommend we do? Should we de-index all of the pages that are not being picked up by the Google index (and are therefore likely seen as low quality)? There seems to be a school of thought that de-indexing "thin" pages improves the ranking potential of the indexed pages. We have plans for enriching and differentiating the pages that are being picked up as thin (Moz itself picks them up as 'duplicate' pages even though they're not. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggiaco-siftery0 -
Prioritise a page in Google/why is a well-optimised page not ranking
Hello I'm new to Moz Forums and was wondering if anyone out there could help with a query. My client has an ecommerce site selling a range of pet products, most of which have multiple items in the range for difference size animals i.e. [Product name] for small dog
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LauraSorrelle
[Product name] for medium dog
[Product name] for large dog
[Product name] for extra large dog I've got some really great rankings (top 3) for many keyword searches such as
'[product name] for dogs'
'[product name]' But these rankings are for individual product pages, meaning the user is taken to a small dog product page when they might have a large dog or visa versa. I felt it would be better for the users (and for conversions and bounce rates), if there was a group page which showed all products in the range which I could target keywords '[product name]', '[product name] for dogs'. The page would link through the the individual product pages. I created some group pages in autumn last year to trial this and, although they are well-optimised (score of 98 on Moz's optimisation tool), they are not ranking well. They are indexed, but way down the SERPs. The same group page format has been used for the PPC campaign and the difference to the retention/conversion of visitors is significant. Why are my group pages not ranking? Is it because my client's site already has good rankings for the target term and Google does not want to show another page of the site and muddy results?
Is there a way to prioritise the group page in Google's eyes? Or bring it to Google's attention? Any suggestions/advice welcome. Thanks in advance Laura0 -
Page Title Tag operands , - |
Hi, Anyone have any good suggestions about using commas, hyphens, vertical bar in the title tag and how it affects rankings? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
Content per page?
We used to have an articles worth of content in a scroll box created by our previous SEO, the problem was that it was very much keyword stuffed, link stuffed and complete crap. We then removed this and added more content above the fold, the problem I have is that we are only able to add 150 - 250 words above the fold and a bit of that is repetition across the pages. Would we benefit from putting an article at the bottom of each of our product pages, and when I say article I mean high quality in depth content that will go into a lot more detail about the product, history and more. Would this help our SEO (give the page more uniqueness and authority rather than 200 - 250 word pages). If I could see one problem it would be would an articles worth of content be ok at the bottom of the page and at that in a div tab or scroll box.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Dynamic pages - ecommerce product pages
Hi guys, Before I dive into my question, let me give you some background.. I manage an ecommerce site and we're got thousands of product pages. The pages contain dynamic blocks and information in these blocks are fed by another system. So in a nutshell, our product team enters the data in a software and boom, the information is generated in these page blocks. But that's not all, these pages then redirect to a duplicate version with a custom URL. This is cached and this is what the end user sees. This was done to speed up load, rather than the system generate a dynamic page on the fly, the cache page is loaded and the user sees it super fast. Another benefit happened as well, after going live with the cached pages, they started getting indexed and ranking in Google. The problem is that, the redirect to the duplicate cached page isn't a permanent one, it's a meta refresh, a 302 that happens in a second. So yeah, I've got 302s kicking about. The development team can set up 301 but then there won't be any caching, pages will just load dynamically. Google records pages that are cached but does it cache a dynamic page though? Without a cached page, I'm wondering if I would drop in traffic. The view source might just show a list of dynamic blocks, no content! How would you tackle this? I've already setup canonical tags on the cached pages but removing cache.. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
How important is the number of indexed pages?
I'm considering making a change to using AJAX filtered navigation on my e-commerce site. If I do this, the user experience will be significantly improved but the number of pages that Google finds on my site will go down significantly (in the 10,000's). It feels to me like our filtered navigation has grown out of control and we spend too much time worrying about the url structure of it - in some ways it's paralyzing us. I'd like to be able to focus on pages that matter (explicit Category and Sub-Category) pages and then just let ajax take care of filtering products below these levels. For customer usability this is smart. From the perspective of manageable code and long term design this also seems very smart -we can't continue to worry so much about filtered navigation. My concern is that losing so many indexed pages will have a large negative effect (however, we will reduce duplicate content and be able provide much better category and sub-category pages). We probably should have thought about this a year ago before Google indexed everything :-). Does anybody have any experience with this or insight on what to do? Thanks, -Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cre80