HTTP Compression -- Any potential issues with doing this?
-
We are thinking about turning on the IIS-6 HTTP Compression to help with page load times. Has anyone had any issues with doing this, particularly from an SEO or site functionality standpoint? We just want to double check before we take this step and see if there are any potential pitfalls we may not be aware of. Everything we've read seems to indicate it can only yield positive results.
Any thoughts, advice, comments would be appreciated.
Thank-you,
Matt & Keith
-
Thanks.
-
Thanks.
-
I am aware that IE6 is old and many sites have dropped support for it. It's usage will vary by market. If the fix required 10 minutes of your time, you wouldn't do that for 1% or more of your potential customers?
If you have any Chinese users for instance, you'd want to make it work. Or if you're targeting people who are less tech-savvy or older in age, your IE6 usage numbers are bound to be higher. I agree that for most sites, it's probably not a huge issue. Since I experienced it on our site, I thought I'd mention it. If there is an issue, there is also likely a published fix that would require minimal effort.
-
You do realize that Microsoft has been trying to kill IE6 off, and just recently celebrated IE6 usage in the US dropping below 1%, right?
I wouldn't consider IE6 in your business plans.
-
Once you implement it, I'd check is that Internet Explorer 6 likes it. I can't remember the details, but when we added compression on our site, there were instances where IE6 didn't like it.
-
According to Google's Webmaster blog, Googlebot supports gzip and deflate
Googlebot: Sure. All major search engines and web browsers support gzip compression for content to save bandwidth. Other entries that you might see here include "x-gzip" (the same as "gzip"), "deflate" (which we also support), and "identity" (none).An incompatible compression would be the only downside to turning on compression.
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
-
Weird Google indexing issues with www being forced
IM working on a site which is really not indexing as it should, I have created a sitemap.xml which I thought would fix the issue but it hasn't, what seems to be happening is the Google is making www pages canonical for some of the site and without www for the rest. the site should be without www. see images attached for a visual explanation.
Technical SEO | | Donsimong
when adding pages in Google search console without www some pages cannot be indexed as Google thinks the www version is canonical, and I have no idea why, there is no canonical set up at all, what I would do if I could is to add canonical tags to each page to pint to the non www version, but the CMA does not allow for canonical. not quite sure how to proceed, how to tell google that the non www version is in fact correct, I dont have any idea why its assuming www is canonical either??? k11cGAv zOuwMxv0 -
Fundamental HTTP to HTTPS Redirect Question
Hi All I'm planning a http to https migration for a site with over 500 pages. The site content and structure will be staying the same, this is simply a https migration. Can I just confirm the answer to this fundamental question? From my reading, I do not need to create 301 redirect for each and every page, but can add a single generic redirect so that all http references are redirected to https. Can I just double check this would suffice to preserve existing google rankings? Many Thanks
Technical SEO | | ruislip180 -
Http to https for large ecommerce - our steps taken (any others recommended?)
**Here is the message from our technical team for the http to https migration; are there any other http to https migration steps recommended? ** Http to https migration steps (for this large ecommerce site): We implemented HTTPS (HTTP over TLS) protocol today (5/4/2017). Applied a patch to ensure that HTTPS pages did not have NoIndex, NoFollow and tested before and after . Added new IIS HTTPS Redirect to enforce HTTPS from HTTP and changed others, including the WWW redirect Changed HTTPS only for Cookies as required as per new PCI vulnerabilities Changed the Basepage HTML template to use Relative Paths or Absolute URLs with HTTPS only (to prevent mixed content) Created and ran a SQL Script to cleanup 16 tables from HTTP to HTTPS (about 20,000 of them, including internal URL links, site settings, etc) Ran Google Sitemap Generator to create new sitemaps with HTTPS Added new HTTPS instance of the site into Webmaster Tools, then added verification code to master page, verified and then submitted the sitemaps to Search Console (QUESTION: will historical data in Google Console/ WMT be preserved for https?) **Follow up steps for http to https migration for large ecommerce: ** From this point forward, to avoid “mixed content”, the Marketing team must use either Relative Paths or Absolute Paths with HTTPS only in any customization (i.e. Basepage) or any new link, such as created in Content Management (i.e. Long Description). Any mixed content will make the website look not secure to customers and search engine spiders – so it is very important to be disciplined and diligent about this. Contact Salesforce to change the protocol to HTTPS only. Meanwhile, to prevent mixed content, we put in a temporary custom javascript change as workaround – but this should not be permanent especially as to the next upgrade will remove it – so we need Saleforce to make a change ASAP. We did not change Blog site (on sub domain), but we should even though it is only a Content site because it will not be signaled as Secure. This means we need to have someone make the changes to WordPress to enforce HTTPS and then change any links. In terms of impact to page ranking due to Google’s treatment of HTTPS over HTTP and due to some impact to page speed – we will need to monitor closely to see how indexing, organic traffic and page ranking goes and take any additional actions as necessary.
Technical SEO | | seo20170 -
Google Search Console - URL Parameters Tab ISSUE
Hi, Recently i removed some disallowed parameters from my robots.txt and added the setting No Url in my search console URL parameters tab (as can be seen in the image http://prntscr.com/e997o5) Today i saw the orderby parameter indexed even if the setting is to not crawl those urls. Anyone any idea why is this happening? Thank god that all those urls with parameters are canonicalised to their original url's.
Technical SEO | | dos06590 -
Duplicate content issue on Magento platform
We have a lot of duplicate pages (600 urls) on our site (total urls 800) built on the Magento e-commerce platform. We have the same products in a number of different categories that make it easy for people to choose which product suits their needs. If we enable the canonical fix in Magento will it dramatically reduce the number of pages that are indexed. Surely with more pages indexed (even though they are duplicates) we get more search results visibility. I'm new to this particular SEO issue. What do the SEO community have to say on this matter. Do we go ahead with the canonical fix or leave it?
Technical SEO | | PeterDavies0 -
Bing Webmaster Tools Incompatibility Issues with new Microsoft Edge Browser
Our client received an email from Bing WMTs saying "We have identified 4 known issues with your website in Microsoft Edge – the new default browser for Windows 10 and Bing – Of the four problems mentioned, only two seem to be relevant (maybe) We’ve found that this webpage may include HTML markup that treats Microsoft Edge differently from other modern browsers. The new EdgeHTML rendering engine for Microsoft Edge is document-mode agnostic and designed for fast, modern rendering. We recommend that you implement one code base for all modern browsers and include Microsoft Edge as part of your modern browser test matrix. **We've found that this webpage may have missing vendor-specific prefixes **or may have implemented vendor-specific prefixes when they are not required in common CSS properties. This may cause compatibility problems with how this webpage renders across different browsers. Last month the client received 20K visitors from all IE browsers and this is significant enough to be concerned about. **Are other folks making changes to their code to adapt to MS Edge? **
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB0 -
Wrapping my head around an e-commerce anchor filter issue, need help
I am having a hard time understanding how Google will deal with this scenario, I would love to hear what you guys think or suggest. Ok a category page on the site in question looks like this. http://makeupaddict.me/6-skin-care All fine and well, But a paginated page or a filtered category pages look like these http://makeupaddict.me/6-skin-care#/page-2 and http://makeupaddict.me/6-skin-care#/price-391-1217 From my understanding Google does not index an anchor without a shebang (#!), but that doesn't mean that they do not still crawl them, correct? That is where the issue comes in, since anchors are not indexed and dropped from the urls, when Google crawls a filtered or paginated page, it is getting different results. From the best of my understanding, and someone can correct me if I am wrong but an anchor is not passed in web languages like a querystring is. So if I am using php and land on http://makeupaddict.me/6-skin-care or http://makeupaddict.me/6-skin-care#/price-391-1217 and use something like .$_SERVER['SELF'] to get the url both pages will return http://makeupaddict.me/6-skin-care since the anchor is handled client side. With that being the case, is it imagined that Google uses that standard or is it thought they have a custom function that grabs the whole url anchor in all? Also if they are crawling the page with the anchor, but seeing it anchor less how are they handling the changing content?
Technical SEO | | LesleyPaone0 -
Http vs https: which is better for seo / usability
Hi All, Firstly thank you for taking the time to look. My dilemma is as follows; I have a site on wordpress that I have added an ssl certificate to and the entire domain is secure. The site has a mix of content including a blog area and product pages. My question is what does Google prefer, http or https or does it not matter As i see it my option is to keep the entire site as https and enforce this sitewide so all non secure content redirects to the https version or i could enforce https just in the cart and or product pages, all other content, homepage, blog, about us, contact us etc would be http. From an seo perspective ie google search engine, is their a best way to proceed? Finally, as i currently have http and https both displaying ie duplicate, what would be the way to fix this, i have yoast plugin so can set the canonical there and can also edit my robot.txt. I have come across this resource (http://www.creare.co.uk/http-vs-https-duplicate-content) and am wondering if this guideline is still correct or is there another more current way, if so I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction. thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | Renford_Nelson0