What To Do When Improved Site Speed & Layout Result In Higher Bounce Rates & Lower Time On Site
-
We launched a new Bootstrap 3.0 site template 2 weeks ago. The site loads 5x faster and has a much improved layout (utilizing most common above the fold recommendations ). It's only been two weeks, but our bounce rate has increased 5-10% and our avg time on site decreased by 10-18%. Here is the page for one of our most common products so you can see the general experience: <a>http://www.jwsuretybonds.com/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.htm</a> (here is the old version: <a>http://199.119.123.134/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.htm</a>)
We spent two months implementing the new design and working on a speedy load time. We had anticipated a drastic improvement, not mild downturn in user behavior.
I'm hopeful that the Analytics metrics aren't showing the true picture on the keywords we care about (can't see anymore due to "Not Provided" listed as most keywords now. Argh!) and perhaps some of the more important/accurate user behavior metrics that we can't see are improving.
We know our industry and our clients needs VERY well. We THOUGHT our new content/layout was perfect so it will be tough for us to try to make improvements at this point. We believe our best plan of action now is to add more content on each page and A/B test it along with other subtle changes. The problem is that our new content is very concise and hits on all of the primary visitor intentions, so additions of content could be redundant and making concise answers more "fluffy", which is what we tried to get away from.
What do you think? Is there reason for panic? What would your plan of attack be if your "sure shot" new design didn't provide the improvements you "knew" it would?
-
The placeholder text on the ballpark estimate tool is using an html5 attribute which isn't supported in ie 9 or earlier. You can circumvent this with placeholders.js which will allow the attribute to work properly in browsers that don't normally support it.
-
Nice analysis. It is smart to look at performance by resolution.
I would collect more data. Some people may visit your site several times before taking any action.
-
Good thoughts, but the data is conflicting when I look at it by resolutions of the users.
Oddly enough tablets resolutions appear to have better results with the new site. Our best performing resolution on the new site is 768x1024. We're seeing a 25% increase for time on site there, compared to being down 18% on avg across all resolutions.
Larger desktop resolutions are worse with the new site.
Mobile resolutions are seeing an improved bounce rate, but less time on site.
All of the data appears to be so conflicting. As stated, we are only 2 weeks in to the new design and saw just under 10,000 sessions in this time period. Is that enough data to begin obsessing or should I wait a bit more?
-
I'm a bit perplexed as to why you feel there is less content above the fold now though.
I usually view webpages on a 1600 wide monitor. When your new page loads it spreads to about 1100+ pixels wide. However, most people view webpages in a smaller browser window - especially those who view on tablets. So, when I grab the edge of the browser window and start to narrow it, at about 1000 pixels of width both of your right columns disappear and the design collapses to a single column that has a very different presentation - with a small fraction of the clickable content options.
Try narrowing your browser window by hand and watch what happens. I have not looked at your site on a tablet but it might not look like you think.
-
It has yet to be seen of the if the "cash register is slowing down". We changed our primary focus to collecting estimates (mini-conversions that take 15 seconds) in larger quantities rather than requesting everything we need for a formal quote (5-10 min process). It appears to be on par with the old site for now, but I anticipate it possibly increasing in the coming weeks, as we are focusing further down the sales pipeline, which will take a bit for it to populate the end (sales). So far, it's promising.
Thanks for the candid assessment on the two sites. I agree on the contrast. We'll have to look into making some edits to our css to improve this.
I'm a bit perplexed as to why you feel there is less content above the fold now though...The tabs used (General, Gov Requirement, Costs, Ask An Expert) are something that I feel provides more to do above the fold. Can you elaborate?
Thanks again EGOL. Much appreciated.
-
So, bounce rate and time on site are down. Is the cash register slowing down?
About the designs. I am not surprised that the original design had a lower bounce rate. When someone lands on that page they had lots of content and navigation options above the fold. And those options were highlighted with contrasting colors (blue top nav, green calls to action, three cartoony links on the right). Your original site was toploaded and high contrast.
Your new site is low contrast (hard to find nav and alternative links because everything is white and nav links are teeny tiny type. That reduces the visibility. Also options for alternative content are now way below the fold. Furthermore, what the visitor sees changes with his monitor width. As the width of the monitor window decreases lots of above the fold content options disappear from view. When monitor window gets below 1000 pixels options to click are tiny and the design becomes much less effective. What does it look like on tablet in portrait format?
My vote is for the old design on producing a lower bounce rate, generating higher time on site and getting visitors to explore your content and products..
-
Thanks Dean. Those were some excellent finds/tips. It appears IE8 & IE9 make up 10% of our visitors collectively so a decent amount are affected.
To my surprise, IE visitors have our best bounce rates and time on site. The items you listed still need addressing, but boy are these stats baffling!
-
Hi
Just did a very quick test via saucelabs.com using windows 7 ie9 and the client logos get messed up, more importantly the 'ball park estimator' does not display any input information in the actual field. ie where you have the $Bond Amount text this is not displayed on the tests I did.
Signup for a free account (30mis of testing I think) it would be well worth it. There are other cross browser testing sites out there so any will do the job.
-
I updated the original post with a link to the old site template for comparison as well.
New: <a> http://www.jwsuretybonds.com/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.htm</a>
Old: <a>http://199.119.123.134/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.htm</a>
-
That's correct. The original url I posted uses the extension .htm
Chris typed html in error.
-
I can see it on auto_dealer_bond.htm rather than auto_dealer_bond.html
Have you done cross browser testing with something like www.saucelabs.com Check your analytics for the most popular browser you visitors use and test against that, also check if certain browsers are resulting in more bounces.
-
Hah! Yes...as luck would have it, immediately after making the post, our server crashed! We're up 99.9% of the time, so I don't think it is related.
We're back up now.
-
http://www.jwsuretybonds.com/surety-bonds/commercial-bonds/auto_dealer_bond.html gives me a 404 which might be a good bounce reason
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
-
Is there an issue if we show our old mobile site to Google & new site to users
Hi, We have our existing mobile site that contains interlinking in footer & content and new mobile site that does not have interlinking. We will show existing mobile site to google crawler & new mobile site to users. Will this be taken as black hat by Google. The mobile site & desktop site will have same url across devices & browsers. Regards
Web Design | | vivekrathore0 -
404's and a drop in Rank - Site maps? Data Highlighter?
I managed an old (2006 design) ticket site that was hosted and run by the same company that handled our point of sale. (Think, really crappy, customer had to click through three pages to get to the tickets, etc.) In Mid February, we migrated that old site to a new, more powerful site, built by a company that handles sites exclusively for ticket brokers. (My site: TheTicketKing. - dot - com) Before migration, I set up 301's for all the pages that we had currently ranked for, and had inbound links pointing to, etc. The CMS allowed me to set every one of those landing pages up with fresh content, so I created unique content for all of them, ran them through the Moz grader before launch, etc. We launched the site in Mid February, and it seemed like Google responded well. All the pages that we had 301's set up for stayed up fairly well in rank, and some even reached higher positions, while some took a few weeks to get back up to where they were before. Google was also giving us an average of 8-10K impressions per day, compared to 3000 per day with the old site. I started to notice a slow drop in impressions in mid April (after two months of love from Google,) and we lost rank on all our non branded pages around 4/23. Our branded terms are still fine, we didn't get a message from Google, and I reached out to the company that manages our site, asking if they had any issues with their other clients. They suggested that I resubmit our sitemaps. I did, and saw everything bump back up (impressions and rank) for just one week. Now we're back in the basement with all the non branded terms once again. I realize that Google could have penalized us without giving us a message, but what got me somewhat optimistic was the fact that resubmitting our sitemaps did bring us back up for around a week. One other thing that I was working on with the site just before the drop was Google's data highlighter. I submitted a set of pages that now come back with errors, after Google seemed to be fine with the data set before I submitted it. So now I'm looking at over 300 data highlighter errors when I'm in WMT. I deleted that set, but I still get the error listings in WMT, as if Google is still trying to understand those pages. Would that have an effect on our rank? Finally I do see that our 404's have risen steadily since the migration, to over 1000 now, and the people who manage the CMS tell me that it would have no effect on rank overall. And we're going to continue to get 404's as the nature of a ticket site would dictate? (Not sure on that, but that's what I was told.) Would anyone care to chime in on these thoughts, or any other clues as to my drop?
Web Design | | Ticket_King0 -
We believe we accomplished an SEO Parallax site with a nice balance. Can the MOZ community critique this site from an SEO perspective?
Our goal was to accomplish a site that has parallax scrolling and great onsite optimization. We noticed that most Awwward winning sites www.awwwards.com have great parallax scrolling but no SEO. Can the MOZ community critique this site from an SEO perspective? (Note this site was optimized for Chrome or Firefox. If you are using IE, you will be redirected to the old site.) www.posicionamientowebenbuscadores.com Note the site is in BETA still. It has the following technologies CSS3 HTML5 REsponsive Wordpress Parallax Scrolling Onsite Optimization (SEO) No mobile (ran out of funds...)
Web Design | | Carla_Dawson0 -
Yes or No for Ampersand "&" in SEO URLs
Hi Mozzers I would like to know how crawlers see the ampersand (& or &) in your URLs and if Google frown upon this or not? As far as I know they purely recognise this as "and" is this correct and is there any best practice for implementing this, as I know a lot of people complained before about & in links and that it is better to use it as &, but this is not on links, this is on URLs. Reason for this is that we looking to move onto an ASP.Net MVC framework (any suggestions for a different framework are welcome, we still just planning out future development) and in order to make use of the filter options we have on our site we need a parameter to indicate the difference on a routing level (routing sends to controller, controller sends to model, model sends to controller and controller sends to view < this is pattern of a request that comes in on the framework we will be using). I already have -'s and /'s in the URLs (which is for my SEO structuring) so these syntax can't be used for identifying filters the user clicks or uses to define their search as it will create a complete mess in the system. Now we looking at & to say; OK, when a user lands on /accommodation and they selects De Kelders (which is a destination in our area) the page will be /accommodation/de-kelders on this page they can define their search further to say they are looking for 5 star accommodation and it should be close to the beach, this is where the routing needs some guidance and we looking to have it as follow: /accommodation/de-kelders/5-star&close-to-the-beach. Now, does the "&" get identified by search engines on a URL level as "and" and does this cause any issues with crawling or indexation or would it be best to look at another solution? Thanks, Chris Captivate
Web Design | | DROIDSTERS0 -
I need help with international SEO for two sites?
I'll try to keep this clear... I am working with an company based in Germany, they own company.com/de and company.com/en, and that's how they are currently structuring their domains. They also own companyusa.com that they really want to show up in USA only. They want to keep company.com/en for England/english speaking Europe and company.com/de for their German audience in Germany. They are wanting us to optimize/SEO for companyusa.com, and they want that URL to show up as the top google search in the USA for their "company" keyword. What is showing up now is www.company.com/en 1st in Google because it's been around longer and it has more domain authority. What is the best practice for us optimize companyusa.com so that it is the top dog in the USA while not messing up the other domains? Should we merge? Subfolders all around? Thanks for all the input.
Web Design | | Rocket.Fuel0 -
Mobile Web Sites
Hi I have started offering customers a mobile app view of their existing websites using sencha touch which works well. On visiting the website if a user visits via a mobile device they access the mobile app view of the site. I am looking for some best practice please - as many of the customers already have hosting with their existing website so would it be possible to use a subdomain of m.theirdomain.com which will point to the mobile website which will be hosted on our servers in the cloud. Or is the only alternative to use a subdomain for their mobile sites because they are hosted with us in the cloud of businessname.ourdomain.com ? Many Thanks
Web Design | | ocelot0 -
Footer backlinks for sites I've developed
I link back to my website via my company name on the footers of sites I develop. Lately I've been changing this to my keyword and mixing and matching. This has been done for new sites I create and old sites I've not seen any benefit so far after a couple of months. Most my clients are hosted on the same server as my main site that it links back to. 1. Is this a bad idea to link back on the same IP?
Web Design | | sanchez1960
2. Is footer backlinks to the main developer going to annoy Google?
3. Should I change my main site's server, will it help? All my competitors seem to do it and as far as I can tell they seem to get better results than I do. Because I'm now changing them the reason I see no benefit? Thanks0 -
Java-script slider & H1 tags
If you have a java-script slider on the homepage, each slide has an H1 tag heading, which of the H1 tags would google most likely consider? all of them or just the first one?
Web Design | | GraphicMail0