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
-
Site's meta description is not being shown in Google Search results. Instead our privacy policy is getting indexed.
We re-launched our new site and put in the re-directs. Our site is https://www.fico.com/en. When I search for "fico" in Google. I see the privacy policy getting indexed as meta descriptions instead of our actual meta description. I have edited the meta description, requested Google to re-index our site. Not sure what to do next? Thanks for your advise.
Technical SEO | | gosheen0 -
Is putting a manufacturer's product manual on my site in PDF duplicate content
I add the product manuals to our product pages to provide additional product information to our customers. Is this considered duplicate content? Is there a best way to do this so that I can offer the information to my customers without getting penalized for it? Should they be indexable? If not how do I control?
Technical SEO | | merch_zzounds0 -
What's Moz's Strategy behind their blog main categories?
I've only just noticed that the Moz' blog categories have been moved within a pull down menu. See it underneath : 'Explore Posts by Category' on any blog page. This means that the whole list of categories under that pull-down is not crawlable by bots, and therefore no link-juice flows down onto those category pages. I imagine that the main drive behind that move is to sculpt page rank so that the business/money pages or areas of the website get greater link equity as opposed to just wasting it all throwing it down to the many categories ? it'd be good to hear about more from Rand or anyone in his team as to how they came onto engineering this and why. One of the things I wonder is: with the sheer amount of content that Moz produces, is it possible to contemplate an effective technical architecture such as that? I know they do a great job at interlinking content from one post onto another, so effectively one can argue that that kind of supersedes the need for hierarchical page rank distribution via categories... but I wonder : "is it working better this way vs having crawlable blog category links on the blog section? have they performed tests" some insights or further info on this from Moz would be very welcome. thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | carralon
David0 -
Possible penguin hit but then back, now what's next?
hiz, i did a little check on my site by answering the quiz at mytrafficdropped.com and there was a question about on what dates there was drop in organic. and i did checked my analytics on a top sending keyword. here is what i found. see attached image . Traffic dropped totally on April 20 to onwards. Then got back better in june, but again dropped in October, still down.. anythoughts guys ? 1Jk47.png
Technical SEO | | wickedsunny10 -
Just read Travis Loncar's YouMoz post and I have a question about Pagination
This was a brilliant post. I have a question about Pagination on sites that are opting to use Google Custom Search. Here is an example of a search results page from one of the sites I work on: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/search-return?q=countryman I notice in the source code of sequential pages that the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags are not used. I also noticed that the URL does not change when clicking on the numbers for the subsequent pages of the search results. Also, the canonical tag of every subsequent page looks like this: Are you thinking what I'm thinking? All of our Google Custom Search pages have the same canonical tag....Something's telling me this just can't be good. Questions: 1. Is this creating a duplicate content issue? 2. If we need to include rel="prev" and rel="next" on Google Custom Search pages as well as make the canonical tag accurate, what is the best way to implement this? Given that searchers type in such a huge range of search terms, it seems that the canonical tags would have to be somehow dynamically generated. Or, (best case scenario!) am I completely over-thinking this and it just doesn't matter on dynamically driven search results pages? Thanks in advance for any comments, help, etc.
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
"Standout" tag and "Original content" tags - what's the latest?
In November 2010 Google introduced the "standout tag" http://support.google.com/news/publisher/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=191283 I can't find any articles/blog posts/etc in google after that date, but its use was suggested in a google forum today to help with original content issues. Has anyone used them? Does anyone know what's the latest with them? Are they worth trying for SEO? Is there a possible SEO penalty for using them? Thanks, Jean
Technical SEO | | JeanYates0 -
Blocking URL's with specific parameters from Googlebot
Hi, I've discovered that Googlebot's are voting on products listed on our website and as a result are creating negative ratings by placing votes from 1 to 5 for every product. The voting function is handled using Javascript, as shown below, and the script prevents multiple votes so most products end up with a vote of 1, which translates to "poor". How do I go about using robots.txt to block a URL with specific parameters only? I'm worried that I might end up blocking the whole product listing, which would result in de-listing from Google and the loss of many highly ranked pages. DON'T want to block: http://www.mysite.com/product.php?productid=1234 WANT to block: http://www.mysite.com/product.php?mode=vote&productid=1234&vote=2 Javacript button code: onclick="javascript: document.voteform.submit();" Thanks in advance for any advice given. Regards,
Technical SEO | | aethereal
Asim0 -
Should we use Google's crawl delay setting?
We’ve been noticing a huge uptick in Google’s spidering lately, and along with it a notable worsening of render times. Yesterday, for example, Google spidered our site at a rate of 30:1 (google spider vs. organic traffic.) So in other words, for every organic page request, Google hits the site 30 times. Our render times have lengthened to an avg. of 2 seconds (and up to 2.5 seconds). Before this renewed interest Google has taken in us we were seeing closer to one second average render times, and often half of that. A year ago, the ratio of Spider to Organic was between 6:1 and 10:1. Is requesting a crawl-delay from Googlebot a viable option? Our goal would be only to reduce Googlebot traffic, and hopefully improve render times and organic traffic. Thanks, Trisha
Technical SEO | | lzhao0