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
-
Google Search Console Site Map Anomalies (HTTP vs HTTPS)
Hi I've just done my usual Monday morning review of clients Google Search Console (previously Webmaster Tools) dashboard and disturbed to see that for 1 client the Site Map section is reporting 95 pages submitted yet only 2 indexed (last time i looked last week it was reporting an expected level of indexed pages) here. It says the sitemap was submitted on the 10th March and processed yesterday. However in the 'Index Status' its showing a graph of growing indexed pages up to & including yesterday where they numbered 112 (so looks like all pages are indexed after all). Also the 'Crawl Stats' section is showing 186 pages crawled on the 26th. Then its listing sub site-maps all of which are non HTTPS (http) which seems very strange since the site is HTTPS and has been for a few months now and the main sitemap index url is an HTTPS: https://www.domain.com/sitemap_index.xml The sub sitemaps are:http://www.domain.com/marketing-sitemap.xmlhttp://www.domain.com/page-sitemap.xmlhttp://www.domain.com/post-sitemap.xmlThere are no 'Sitemap Errors' reported but there are 'Index Error' warnings for the above post-sitemap, copied below:_"When we tested a sample of the URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some of the URLs were unreachable. Please check your webserver for possible misconfiguration, as these errors may be caused by a server error (such as a 5xx error) or a network error between Googlebot and your server. All reachable URLs will still be submitted." _
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence
Also for the below site map URL's: "Some URLs listed in this Sitemap have a high response time. This may indicate a problem with your server or with the content of the page" for:http://domain.com/en/post-sitemap.xmlANDhttps://www.domain.com/page-sitemap.xmlAND https://www.domain.com/post-sitemap.xmlI take it from all the above that the HTTPS sitemap is mainly fine and despite the reported 0 pages indexed in GSC sitemap section that they are in fact indexed as per the main 'Index Status' graph and that somehow some HTTP sitemap elements have been accidentally attached to the main HTTPS sitemap and the are causing these problems.What's best way forward to clean up this mess ? Resubmitting the HTTPS site map sounds like right option but seeing as the master url indexed is an https url cant see it making any difference until the http aspects are deleted/removed but how do you do that or even check that's what's needed ? Or should Google just sort this out eventually ? I see the graph in 'Crawl > Sitemaps > WebPages' is showing a consistent blue line of submitted pages but the red line of indexed pages drops to 0 for 3 - 5 days every 5 days or so. So fully indexed pages being reported for 5 day stretches then zero for a few days then indexed for another 5 days and so on ! ? Many ThanksDan0 -
Fetching & Rendering a non ranking page in GWT to look for issues
Hi I have a clients nicely optimised webpage not ranking for its target keyword so just did a fetch & render in GWT to look for probs and could only do a partial fetch with the below robots.text related messages: Googlebot couldn't get all resources for this page Some boiler plate js plugins not found & some js comments reply blocked by robots (file below): User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence
Disallow: /wp-admin/
Disallow: /wp-includes/ As far as i understand it the above is how it should be but just posting here to ask if anyone can confirm whether this could be causing any prrobs or not so i can rule it out or not. Pages targeting other more competitive keywords are ranking well and are almost identically optimised so cant think why this one is not ranking. Does fetch and render get Google to re-crawl the page ? so if i do this then press submit to index should know within a few days if still problem or not ? All Best Dan0 -
Duplicate website with http & https
I have a website that only in a specific state in the USA we had to add a certificate for it to appear with https. my question is how to prevent from the website to be penalized on duplicate content with the http version on that specific state. please advise. thanks!
Technical SEO | | taly0 -
302 Redirect from HTTP to HTTPS
Hi Guys One of our client's website is having 586 linking unique domains to http://www.XYZ.com.au (to home page only). They have migrated their site to https://www.XYZ.com.au so all of their site pages are on HTTPS now instead of HTTP. The HTTP version of the home page is 302 redirected to HTTPS therefore we think they are not getting all the link juice of 586 linking domains and would like to recommend to change their 302 to 301. However we have not seen any ranking drop due to this migration and redirect in place. The new HTTPS site/redirect is live from last 2 months now. So not sure its worth recommending 301 or not? Does this mean Google is picking up this 302 redirect as normal and attributing all link value to HTTPS version? Please can anyone share their thoughts on recent Google interpretation of 302 from HTTP to HTTPS? Thanks
Technical SEO | | JamesDixon700 -
An odd duplicate content issue...
Hi all, my developers have just assured me that nothing has changed form last week but in the today's crawl I see all the website duplicated: and the difference on the url is the '/' so basically the duplicated urls are: htts://blabla.bla/crop htts://blabla.bla/crop/ Any help in understanding why is much appreciated. thanks
Technical SEO | | LeadGenerator0 -
RegEx help needed for robots.txt potential conflict
I've created a robots.txt file for a new Magento install and used an existing site-map that was on the Magento help forums but the trouble is I can't decipher something. It seems that I am allowing and disallowing access to the same expression for pagination. My robots.txt file (and a lot of other Magento site-maps it seems) includes both: Allow: /*?p= and Disallow: /?p=& I've searched for help on RegEx and I can't see what "&" does but it seems to me that I'm allowing crawler access to all pagination URLs, but then possibly disallowing access to all pagination URLs that include anything other than just the page number? I've looked at several resources and there is practically no reference to what "&" does... Can anyone shed any light on this, to ensure I am allowing suitable access to a shop? Thanks in advance for any assistance
Technical SEO | | MSTJames0 -
Duplicate Content Issue: Google/Moz Crawler recognize Chinese?
Hi! I am using Wordpress multisite and my Chinese version of the website is in www.mysite.com/cn Problem: I keep getting duplicate content errors within www.mysite.com/cn (NOT between www.mysite.com and www.mysite.com/cn) I have downloaded and checked the SEOmoz report and duplicate_page_content list in CSV file. I have no idea why it says they have the same content., they have nothing in common in content . www.mysite.com is the English version of the website,and the structure is the same for www.mysite.com/cn *I don't have any duplicate content issues within www.mysite.com Question: Does google Crawler properly recognizes chinese content??
Technical SEO | | joony20080 -
Rel = author display issue
I want to enter some products as blog posts. I don't want users to see the post info, but do want SE's to see rel="author". I can do this by setting display to "none" in a CSS style. The post info does not appear in the browser but is still in the page source. Will search engines be able to see the post info?
Technical SEO | | waynekolenchuk0