Is the TTFB for different locations and browsers irrelevant if you are self-hosting?
-
Please forgive my ignorance on this subject. I have little to no experience with the technical aspects of setting up and running a server.
Here is the scenario:
We are self-hosted on an Apache server. I have been on the warpath to improve page load speed since the beginning of the year. I have been on this warpath not so much for SEO, but for conversion rate optimization. I recently read the Moz Post "How Website Speed Actually Impacts Search Rankings" and was fascinated by the research regarding TTFB. I forwarded the post to my CEO, who promptly sent me back a contradictory post from Cloudflare on the same topic. Ily Grigorik published a post in Google+ that called Cloudflare's experiment "silly" and said that "TTFB absolutely does matter."
I proceeded to begin gathering information on our site's TTFB using data provided by http://webpagetest.org. I documented TTFB for every location and browser in an effort to show that we needed to improve. When I presented this info to my CEO (I am in-house) and IT Director, that both shook their heads and completely dismissed the data and said it was irrelevant because it was measuring something we couldn't control.
Ignorant as I am, it seems that Ilya Grigorik, Google's own Web Dev Advocate says it absolutely is something that can be controlled, or at least optimized if you know what you are doing.
Can any of you super smart Mozzers help me put the words together to express that TTFB from different locations and for different browsers is something worth paying attention to? Or, perhaps they are right, and it's information I should ignore?
Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions!
Dana
-
Yes, very helpful guys. I appreciate it!
-
Thanks Igal and hopefully you have some info to work with Dana!
-
Many thanks to both Vadim and Igal for such great information and also a really great thread on the subject. I really, really appreciate your answers.!
-
Honestly, I don't know. I don't think TTFB was ever comparatively tested - at least no to the best of my knowledge.
For security, these are some of the resources I can point to.
I understand that this is not the main issue
Still, I wanted to provide some factual context to my previous statements.
http://zeroscience.mk/files/wafreport2013.pdf http://ddos-protection-services-review.toptenreviews.com/ http://tonyonsecurity.com/2012/11/13/protecting-your-website-cloudflare-or-incapsula/
(This last one is interesting since Tony is a COO of Sucuri. Some would call his our competitor. I prefer 'colleague' )
-
security wise it seems both of you guys have stellar options. for me the issue is performance, caching for dynamic sites, CDN performance, and in this case TTFB response. I was not sure with your response do you have faster TTFB to CF?
Thanks
-
Hi Vadim
Thanks.
Yep, I work for Incapsula but no, we are not the said "Mod".As for CF comparison... Generally speaking, we are more business oriented and security focused. I know that our security offering is more comprehensive, especially because both WAFs were comparatively pen-tested on several occasions and we always came out as consistently (and significantly) better option.We also have addition security features - like 2FA support and backdoor shell protection - which CF simply doesn't offer and we do more in way of ddos mitigation, especially against smart application layer attacks which require security capabilities, besides network muscle.
Still, speed wise, I always considered us to be pretty much on the same level. However, until few days ago I never considered TTFB to be such core SEO factor, so maybe we have better performance there...
But again, to be fair, I`m only speculating - mostly based on the CF blog you've shared.
(if TTFB is considered un-important, it might also be under developed...)Might be an interesting thing to test and document.
-
Hi Igal,
Do you work for incapsula, you are mentioned as a Mod on the blog?
I have heard great things about incapsula from others, but in terms of TTFB is it better than cloudflare? If so, how so?
Also any other ways that it excels Cloudflare? any ways its inferior to Cloudflare in your opinion?
Thanks I am really looking for more info, as I had great results with Cloudflares features and offering, wondering if I should give Incapsula a run
Thanks
-
I absolutely agree with Vadim. (+1)
Google is the best source for Google facts. Everything else is just speculation.
And yes, generally speaking, the best answer is to use a CDN....
The reason is simple. CNDs proxy technology, which was designed to minimize "physical" distances between the site's content and browsers, directly influences TTFB.Being an in-house SEO for a CDN company I get a lot of questions about this from our support and clients. I have to admit, until recent Moz post, I wasn't aware of full implications of TTFB and considered it to be one of few page load speed related metrics. (http://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-actually-impacts-search-ranking)
This post really helped me get a better grasp on things. Interestingly enough, few month ago one of our clients Guest Posted in our blog about speed improvement gained by our free plan. Among other things, he mentioned 70% improvement in TTFB (grade going from F to A)
(http://www.incapsula.com/the-incapsula-blog/item/718-what-incapsula-free-did-for-my-site)At the time I didn't give it much attention. Because, like many others, I was focusing on overall load speeds....
Now I can't help but feel that this was a missed opportunity.
This post could be even better with the added SEO angle...
If anyone here is interested in giving this a try and guest posting about it, I`ll be happy to provide all resources needed on our end. -
Yea this makes sense as others have said that Cloudflare is trying to say that TTFB is not the most important metric, and so they published this study, as it aids their business model.
I would do just that listen to Google dev vs Cloudflare. Also the way I think about it even if their studies are true, where for the overall benefit TTFB would have to increase if you are using some compression, you still need to work and decrease your TTFB either way, that is just intuition. I apologize if I made it seem that TTFB is to be ignored, because Cloudflare state's that quite boldly,
Again some things that affect TTFB:
- Move your website to a faster/better server (If an option)
- Use a CDN or something similar to reduce the load on the server (repeated requests to a server will increase the TTFB)
- Reduce the time the server spends processing the request for information (sent above) and more here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10938682/how-to-reduce-server-wait-time
-
Thanks Vadim. Yes, this Cloudflare post is exactly the one I was referencing in my question. As I mentioned, Ilya Gregorik posted a rebuttal to their experiment here: post in Google+
It seems to me that if a Google developer says TTFB absolutely does matter that this would take precedence over anything Cloudflare might say.
What do you think?
-
Databases? Optimize any database queries that are slow This should help: http://www.techfounder.net/2011/03/25/database-profiling-and-optimizing-your-database-the-generic-version/
Now before you pass anything over to the IT this issue is a heated one in some cases where you have people saying that TTFB is not might not be the key metric to go after, here is more food for thought:
http://blog.cloudflare.com/ttfb-time-to-first-byte-considered-meaningles
"At CloudFlare we make extensive use of nginx and while investigating TTFB came across a significant difference in TTFB from nginx when compression is or is not used. Gzip compression of web pages greatly reduces the time it takes a web page to download, but the compression itself has a cost. That cost causes TTFB to be greater even though the complete download is quicker."
-
Thanks Vadim. This is helpful. In the first article the author writes:
"The only thing that is controllable is the server you are on." He suggests optimizing the database. What specific & measurable directive might I give to our IT manager that would accomplish this goal?
The second post looks very helpful indeed. I am downloading Microsoft's VRTA right now. It's a bit technically over my head, but I get the concepts. This should be something I can pass on to IT...however, it seems the info could be a bit dated (it repeatedly references IE 7)...Is there anything additional that might be more current?
Thanks again!
-
Hi Dana,
Yes TTFB is something you can control with the type of server you use. And where that server is in relation to your visitors. You cannot control the browsers they use, but hear are some thoughts on possible optimizations:
Server side: http://createdevelop.blog.com/2010/10/12/how-to-reduce-time-to-first-byte/
Location (plus other suggestions): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd188562.aspx
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
-
Video Hosting & Embedding
Hi Does anyone have experience with Wistia and does it still hold try embedding a video from Wistia is better for SEO? Or is there no difference with this compared with YouTube if embedding a product video on your product page? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Can't support IE 7,8,9, 10\. Can we redirect them to another page that's optimized for those browsers so that we can have our site work on modern browers while still providing a destination of IE browsers?
Hi, Our site can't support IE 7,8,9, 10. Can we redirect them to another page that's optimized for those browsers so that we can have our site work on modern broswers while still providing a destination of IE browsers? Would their be an SEO penalty? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dspete0 -
Using rel cannonical to host a blog as a path on our e-commerce website
There has been recent suggestion (from Rand) that hosting your blog as a folder rather than a subdomain is much better from an SEO point of view. Unfortunately, our blog is hosted on a subdomain with a different technology stack to the main e-commerce site. We are finding it quite tricky to migrate to a folder given the different technologies. Is the following a suitable solution? - 301 redirect from mysite.com/blog/cool-blog-post to blog.mysite.com/cool-blog-post - And then put mysite.com/blog/cool-blog-post" /> on blog.mysite.com/cool-blog-post Would be great to have your thoughts on this guys - I can't figure out if it will work or be an SEO fail.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HireSpace0 -
Leverage Browser Caching: Do I need Last-Modified?
Per Page Speed recommendations I specified the Expires header in my .htaccess file. Do I need to add code for Last-Modified too? I thought I read somewhere that it will put the date next to the meta description in the SERPS, which might cause the result to seem outdated after a while. Are there any problems that could crop up if these aren't implemented correctly.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kimmiedawn0 -
What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know What is the difference between link rel="canonical" and meta name="canonical"? and is it dangerous to have both of these elements combined together? One of my client's page has the these two elements and kind of bothers me because I only know link rel="canonical" to be relevant to remove duplicates. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Are there different tactics to optimize for Bing vs. Google?
We are ranking very well in Google SERPS, but lackluster for the most part in Bing SERPS. i haven't seen anything that clearly lays out how to optimize for Bing, but my concern is that if we make changes to opt for Bing that we might lose Google ranking. Any insight as to what we might do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NaHoku0 -
Can a Hosting provider that also hosts adult content sites negatively affect our SEO rankings on a non-adult site hosted on same platform?
We're considering moving a site to a host that also offers hosting for adult websites. Can this have a negative affect on SEO, if our hosting company is in any way associated with adult websites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | grapevinemktg0 -
SEO Penalties for Splitting Page for Two Store Locations
Hello fellow SEO'ers! I have a question regarding the overall SEO implications of using a single page to describe the services/products offered at two different locations. The locations are in two different states/cities. I have tried to explain to the client that I working with that this is essentially splitting the page in two from a search ranking perspective. I have a feeling that Google sees this page as partially dedicated to one city, and partly to another... meaning that it won't rank as well as it could for either city. Is my thinking correct? Seems logical. The client has done this site-wide for every service/product that they offer in their facilities. I'm offering some title/description recommendations for the entire site right now, and I'm going back and forth with myself whether to include the city names in the titles and descriptions at all. Let me know what you smart folks think. I appreciate it. Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theBREWROOM0