Using a third party server to host site elements
-
Hi guys -
I have a client who are recently experiencing a great deal of more traffic to their site. As a result, their web development agency have given them a server upgrade to cope with the new demand.
One thing they have also done is put all website scripts, CSS files, images, downloadable content (such as PDFs) - onto a 3rd party server (Amazon S3). Apparently this was done so that my clients server just handles the page requests now - and all other elements are then grabbed from the Amazon s3 server. So basically, this means any HTML content and web pages are still hosted through my clients domain - but all other content is accessible through an Amazon s3 server URL.
I'm wondering what SEO implications this will have for my clients domain? While all pages and HTML content is still accessible thorugh their domain name, each page is of course now making many server calls to the Amazon s3 server through external URLs (s3.amazonaws.com).
I imagine this will mean any elements sitting on the Amazon S3 server can no longer contribute value to the clients SEO profile - because that actual content is not physically part of their domain anymore. However what I am more concerned about is whether all of these external server calls are going to have a negative effect on the web pages value overall. Should I be advising my client to ensure all site elements are hosted on their own server, and therefore all elements are accessible through their domain?
Hope this makes sense (I'm not the best at explaining things!)
-
Hello Zeal Digital,
I use a CDN (Content Delivery Network) for images, CSS and javascript.
Doing that adds only about $10 to cost per month for a site that had around 800,000 pageviews per month.
You have complete control over the images. If there is a problem, you can force the CDN to flush a file and reload it from the source. You add code to your .htaccess file that tells the CDN how long to store images before fluching them and getting a new copy. It is all automated, there is generally no work for you to do. I host with softlayer.com and this is part of their service.
The change from self-sourced images, css and scripts had a massive improvement on the server.
- it is a 16-processor linux box with twin 15,000rpm SCSI drives and 12Gb RAM - it is quite fast!
Page delivery times improved by 1-2 seconds.
The server now is so lightly loaded that it could be downgraded to save more money.
It has zero effect on SEO. The CDN is accessed using a CNAME.
- static.domain.com - so don't worry about it looking like components are from other places.
The CDN has servers all over the world, so no matter where the visitors are, it is only a few hops for them to get most of the content, making it much faster for someone in Australia who would normally pull images from a server in the USA.
Your only problem with Amazon S3 is that they have crashed it a few times, but other than that, it is a good thing to do.
I wouldn't advise them to self-host, unless you want to increase their costs, server loading and page delivery times.
-
Great advice, cheers Jeffery!
-
I work with a number of high traffic sites (TB's of data each day, 10's millions page views/month). With many of these sites, we have offloaded static content to either dedicated static content servers (typically cloud based so we can scale up and down) or to content deliver networks. I've not had anyone report any SEO impact.
In contrast, they often see user engagement (page views/user), repeat visitors, and other traffic metrics improve. Users like fast sites. Also, Google apparently likes fast sites too, so while I've not seen it, you could actually get a boost in your SERPs due to faster loading pages.
If you break down a modern web page, you will find numerous elements required. Dozens of images, CSS, javascript as well as the page itself. All of these items require a request to the web server.
With some graphic intensive sites, I've seen as much as 95% of all web server requests (HTTP requests) be attributable to static content. By moving these HTTP requests to other systems, you free your primary server to handle the application. This provides a better user experience and improves scalability.
Content Delivery Networks
I do not use Amazon's Web Services so I do not know specifically what they offer. But here are two CDN's Ihave used with good success:
Internap:
http://www.internap.com/cdn-services-content-delivery-network/
Edgecast:
One method I look for is called "origin pull." With this method, you do not have to upload files to the CDN. The CDN will fetch them automatically from your site as needed. I found this is much easier to manage on sites that have frequent content updates.
-
Hosting images externally never had any impact on cases I had a chance to observe. The only problem I can think of is that you lose control over loading times or if somebody takes an image and links (credits) the image hosting domain instead of your domain.
-
Couple of notes for you
- There isn't any SEO impact on WHERE the data is loaded from. Look at any major website (especially one that ranks well) and they're openly using content delivery (like Akamai, Amazon S3/Cloudfront, etc) for static content. This is good business practice because it takes that load off your web server and often places the content closer to where the client is. Faster content delivery can help SEO if you have a slow server.
- If they're using the raw S3 buckets I would HIGHLY suggest signing up for Cloudfront. There's two benefits to doing this. First, you put the content into Amazon's cloud, where it is more readily available. Second, you can use domain aliasing to help obscure the source. For instance, let's say you have an images bucket. You could add a CNAME DNS record for images.yourdomain.com and then put that into your source code. You can still see where the DNS takes you, but it's not obvious to the general public. The cost difference between raw S3 delivery and Cloudfront is negligible.
Oh, and I use Amazon Cloudfront for my delivery. Never had any SEO issues with doing so.
-
I don't recomend to have the resources and database to other server than files, it makes some flood traffic between servers, the resources are harder to load and the site optimum speed is decreased. Also you can't compress this content so they are downloaded independently.
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
-
The use of Markup language
Hi, We were thinking of adding markup language to our site. We have been reading about it to understand the actual benefits of doing so (we have seen many brands are not using it, including moz.com). So I have two questions: 1- Would you recommend using it for our site? www.memoq.com 2- If yes, would it be better to create a snippet of code for our home page as an "organization" and then different snippets for our product pages as "products". Looking forward to your comments,
Technical SEO | | Kilgray0 -
Site structure headache
Hello all, I'm struggling to get to grips with a websites site structure. I appreciate that quality content is key etc, and the more content the better, but then I have issues with regards to doorway pages. For example im now starting to develop a lot of ecommerce websites and want to promote this service. should we have pages that detail all of the ins and outs of ecommerce - or should we simplify it to a couple of pages. what is best practice? Also isn't a content hub similar to having doorway pages? let me know what you think! William
Technical SEO | | wseabrook0 -
301 redirect from sites closing down
Hi We have around 10 supplementary sites that have links to our site which are now closing down but are out of our control. We could have access to their domains so how could we maintain the link juice from these old sites which are going to our new site? However there will be no websites left on these old supplementary just domain names
Technical SEO | | ocelot0 -
Excessive use of KeyWord?
Hey I have an Immigration website in South Africa
Technical SEO | | NikitaG
MigrationLawyers.co.za and the website used to be divided in to two categories:
1st part - South African Immigration
2nd part - United Kingdom Immigration Because of that we made all the pages include the word "South Africa" in the titles. eg.
...ers.co.za/work-permit-south-africa
...ers.co.za/spousal-visa-south-africa
...ers.co.za/retirement-permit-south-africa
...ers.co.za/permanent-residence-south-africa I'm sure you get the idea.
we since, removed the UK part of the website and now are left only with the SA part. Now my question is: Is it bad? will google see this as spammy, as I'm targeting "South Africa" in almost every link of the website. Should I stick to the structure for new pages, or try to avoid any more use of "South Africa". Perhaps I can change something as it currently stands? Kind Regards
Nikita0 -
What can we do to improve our site
Hi. I am hoping that some of you can help me with the in2town site www.in2town.co.uk The site is a news/lifestyle magazine site. The site is a cross between, huffington post, digital spy, female first and the sun newspaper. Basically the site is a news site as well as covering showbiz news, travel news, health news and advice etc What i would like is for people to look at the site and let me know what they feel i should do to improve the site to make it better for our readers and to gain more readership. I would also like to hear from people on how they find moving around the site as well as the speed of the site. At the moment the site is with an american hosting company and i am in the process of talking to UK hosting companies to move the site. The site is currently on a dedicated server. It would mean a lot if people could give me their advice on how to improve the site and make it a beter experience for our readers while at the same time being able to generate income with the site. Just a quick note, all content is original and we have a number of people who write for the site. many thanks
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Trying to get google to know my site is a magazine site is this wrong
Hi, i have put a line to describe what my site is at the top of my site and i want to know if this is wrong or not. We have dropped frok being number one in google for lifestyle magazine to now number seven. Before we had to redo our site we were number one and then we dropepd to around number four when we finished the site and now we are number seven and i need to try and get back up there. To help google know we are a lifestyle magazine i have put a line at the top of the site and i want to know if this looks out of place and if i should take it down. i need advice on how to get google to know we are a lifestyle magazine and get back in the top five of google my site is www.in2town.co.uk any help would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Partial Site Move -- Tell Google Entire Site Moved?
OK this one's a little confusing, please try to follow along. We recently went through a rebranding where we brought a new domain online for one of our brands (we'll call this domain 'B' -- it's also not the site linked to in my profile, not to confuse things). This brand accounted for 90% of the pages and 90% of the e-comm on the existing domain (we'll call the existing domain 'A') . 'A' was also redesigned and it's URL structure has changed. We have 301s in place on A that redirect to B for those 90% of pages and we also have internal 301s on A for the remaining 10% of pages whose URL has changed as a result of the A redesign What I'm wondering is if I should tell Google through webmaster tools that 'A' is now 'B' through the 'Change of Address' form. If I do this, will the existing products that remain on A suffer? I suppose I could just 301 the 10% of URLs on B back to A but I'm wondering if Google would see that as a loop since I just got done telling it that A is now B. I realize there probably isn't a perfect answer here but I'm looking for the "least worst" solution. I also realize that it's not optimal that we moved 90% of the pages from A to B, but it's the situation we're in.
Technical SEO | | badgerdigital0 -
Site Architecture Trade Off
Hi All I'm looking for some feedback regarding a site architecture issue I'm having with a client. They are about to enter a re-design and as such we're restructuring the site URLs and amending/ adding pages. At the moment they have ranked well off the back of original PPC landing pages that were added onto the site, such as www.company.com/service1, www.company.com/service2, etc The developer, from a developer point of view wished to create a logical site architecture with multiple levels of directories etc. I've suggested this probably isn't the best way to go, especially as the site isn't that large (200-300 pages) and that the key pages we're looking to rank should be as high up the architecture as we can make them, and that this amendment could hurt their current high rankings. It looks like the trade off may be that the client is willing to let some pages be restructured so for example, www.company.com/category/sub-category/service would be www.company.com/service. However, although from a page basis this might be a solution, is there a drawback to having this in place for only a few pages rather than sitewide? I'm just wondering if these pages might stick out like a sore thumb to Google.
Technical SEO | | PerchDigital1