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
-
Google webcache of product page redirects back to product page
Hi all– I've legitimately never seen this before, in any circumstance. I just went to check the google webcache of a product page on our site (was just grabbing the last indexation date) and was immediately redirected away from google's cached version BACK to the site's standard product page. I ran a status check on the product page itself and it was 200, then ran a status check on the webcache version and sure enough, it registered as redirected. It looks like this is happening for ALL indexed product pages across the site (several thousand), and though organic traffic has not been affected it is starting to worry me a little bit. Has anyone ever encountered this situation before? Why would a google webcache possibly have any reason to redirect? Is there anything to be done on our side? Thanks as always for the help and opinions, y'all!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TukTown1 -
Old pages STILL indexed...
Our new website has been live for around 3 months and the URL structure has completely changed. We weren't able to dynamically create 301 redirects for over 5,000 of our products because of how different the URL's were so we've been redirecting them as and when. 3 months on and we're still getting hundreds of 404 errors daily in our Webmaster Tools account. I've checked the server logs and it looks like Bing Bot still seems to want to crawl our old /product/ URL's. Also, if I perform a "site:example.co.uk/product" on Google or Bing - lots of results are still returned, indicating the both still haven't dropped them from their index. Should I ignore the 404 errors and continue to wait for them to drop off or should I just block /product/ in my robots.txt? After 3 months I'd have thought they'd have naturally dropped off by now! I'm half-debating this: User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LiamMcArthur
Disallow: /some-directory-for-all/* User-agent: Bingbot
User-agent: MSNBot
Disallow: /product/ Sitemap: http://www.example.co.uk/sitemap.xml0 -
I have 2 keywords I want to target, should I make one page for both keywords or two separate pages?
My team sells sailboats and pontoon boats all over the country. So while they are both boats, the target market is two different types of people... I want to make a landing page for each state so if someone types in "Pontoon Boats for sale in Michigan" or "Pontoon boats for sale in Tennessee," my website will come up. But I also want to come up if someone is searching for sailboats for sale in Michigan or Tennessee (or any other state for that matter). So my question is, should I make 1 page for each state that targets both pontoon boats and sailboats (total of 50 landing pages), or should I make two pages for each state, one targeting pontoon boats and the other sailboats (total of 100 landing pages). My team has seen success targeting each state individually for a single keyword, but have not had a situation like this come up yet.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanMaster0 -
Does Google make continued attempts to crawl an old page one it has followed a 301 to the new page?
I am curious about this for a couple of reasons. We have all dealt with a site who switched platforms and didn't plan properly and now have 1,000's of crawl errors. Many of the developers I have talked to have stated very clearly that the HTacccess file should not be used for 1,000's of singe redirects. I figured If I only needed them in their temporarily it wouldn't be an issue. I am curious if once Google follows a 301 from an old page to a new page, will they stop crawling the old page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RossFruin0 -
Incorrect cached page indexing in Google while correct page indexes intermittently
Hi, we are a South African insurance company. We have a page http://www.miway.co.za/midrivestyle which has a 301 redirect to http://www.miway.co.za/car-insurance. Problem is that the former page is ranking in the index rather than the latter. The latter page does index occasionally in the same position, but rarely. This is primarily for search phrases like "car insurance" and "car insurance quotes". The ranking was knocked down the index with Penquin 2.0. It was not ranking at all but we have managed to recover to 12/13. This abnormally has only been occurring since the recovery. The correct page does index for other search terms like "insurance for car". Your help would be appreciated, thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | miway0 -
Why Would This Old Page Be Penalized?
Here's an old page on a trustworthy domain with no apparent negative SEO activity according to OSE and ahrefs: http://www.gptours.com/Monaco-Grand-Prix They went from page 1 to page 13 for "monaco grand prix" within about 4 weeks. Week 2 we pulled out all the duplicate content in the history section. When rank slipped further, we put it back. Yet it's still moving down, while other pages on the website are holding strong. Next steps will be to add some schema.org/Event microformats, but beyond that, do you have any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stevewiideman0 -
How do you transition a keyword rank from a home page to a sub-page on the site?
We're currently ranking #1 for a valuable keyword, but the result on the SERP is our home page. We're creating a new product page focused on this keyword to provide a better user experience and create more relevant content. What is the best way to make a smooth transition to make the product page rank #1 for the keyword instead of the home page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | buildasign0 -
How long until Sitemap pages index
I recently submitted an XML sitemap on Webmaster tools: http://www.uncommongoods.com/sitemap.xml Once Webmaster tools downloads it, how long do you typically have to wait until the pages index ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | znotes0