Printable View
Not sure if much has been said here about page speed and it's effect on rankings, but as I'm led to believe, faster pages will generally be preferred by Google:
http://blog.ninanet.com/2010/04/16/s...tor-for-google
Check out the Firefox Page Speed plugin from google. Quite handy with some good advice to help optimise sites.
I have been working on page speed using the tool for several months. Amazing how you can pick up page speed with just a few slight tweaks.
I look at page speed a little, but I will not use compression to fix it.
Normally I take a closer look at the images and cut them in size as much as I can.
In some cases if the images are just so big that they can not be cut without loosing too much quality, I try to find another one that can be used and in a few cases I have changed to other properties.
Some programs just don't understand that a 120x600 is not supposed to be over 100k, and although it may look nice has no business having 40 or 50 frames in it.
I also run the pages through the validator to make sure some of the speed isn't lost due to bad code etc....
Rick
Universal4
I've not used compression either. I like the simple way it will allow you to compress an image though, it tells you what images can be compressed (reduced in kb) and a link to save.
Also if you have broken links it will tell you with "Avoid bad requests".
For aff programs using Income Access, the banners have your tracker but actually cause a re-direct to the actual banner, I have gone as far as displaying the end product instead of the banner code that counts impressions.
About images sizes, I did not notice any speed difference from a 100k banner to a 50k banner. But like Rick, I hate heavy graphics and use the Ulead gif Animator to remove frames that are redundant.
The one thing I can't seem to get my head around is "Leverage browser caching"
I serve all of my own images so image sizes mean a lot.
If you have 2 or 3 100k images on your page and you reduce them by 50% that page WILL load faster there is no doubt.
Gif Animator is a beautiful thing isn't it? lol
Rick
Universal4
from what i've read, google is placing more emphasis on this metric.
it makes sense; fast loading pages = better user experience (generally).
that said, I see plenty of sites with sub 80 ps scores doing well, so no need to over-emphasive.
loading external resources and not handling css / js compression well seem to be two major culprits for poor page speed.
Interesting article but does page speed really have that much of an impact on page ranking?
I'm going through the same issue now. Google's recommendation is to use gzip compression for the page. I can see how that would be helpful, but I don't know if it will impact my dynamic pages that are database driven. I realize that the compression is between the stored file on the server to serving up the requested page on the same server, which theoretically should not affect the browser at all. So, cross browser compatibility is not an issue.
This is compression and not caching, which means that if your site is database driven (dynamic) then you should not get much benefit of using compression.
I can see how using gzip compression for css files and javascript would be helpful.
I agree with Universal, image sizes for me are my limiting factor. I also have some videos I host myself. Does Google take into consideration videos when calculating the load times? If so then I will have to remove the "auto Play" function on the video player.
I use gzip, and noticed quite a difference in my page speed load time. Maybe it's just me. But as most big interactive sites use js, there is a good saving to be had.
You can also gzip the output (html) even if your site is dynamic. Easily done via the .htaccess
According to the SEO community, and comments made by Matt Cuss, it will have a higher emphasis given to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss B
As maxpot said, better user experience. And as more mobile devices become web enabled, they don't all benefit from the lightning fast speeds of broadband, so if I had two bits of content and one took 10 seconds to load, the other 5, i know which one i'd serve to a user
Matt CUTTS 100 % good to follow. J Todd and Matt are the only 2 things I watch now on youtube.Quote:
Originally Posted by clearlyportals
Is a huge factor nowadays.