Results 1 to 25 of 25
April 1st, 2011, 06:59 AM #1
Page Speed Tool from Google!
- Join Date
- February 8th, 2011
- Hyderabad, India
Hello Forum members,
Today, I have found a brilliant, awesome tool from Google! It is called Page Speed Online tool. This tool is absolutely FREE and it analyzes any website for its speed and gives suggestions on how to improve it.
Page load Time is one of the most important factor for a website to rank in Google search engines. And with the help of this tool you can find whether you webpage is loading faster and how to improve it to make it faster!
Hurry up and Check your website's pages speed from Page Speed Online !
April 1st, 2011, 07:31 AM #2
Nice tool, I wasn't aware of that one. Thanks for posting.
I just took time to check one of my main site home pages: I was presented with two small "tips" and then the statement, "good job." But that was one of my pet sites and I will immediately fix one problem that was uncovered. But I have a lot of other sites than [I am sure] will need attention.
April 1st, 2011, 07:57 AM #3
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
Nice tool but I don't understand:
gif (expiration not specified) Why do you need an expiration date on an image?
I need some time to understand how it works.
It must be linked to their new "Webmaster Tools" site performance trend.
webmaster tools - labs - site performance - Performance overview
April 1st, 2011, 07:59 AM #4
April 1st, 2011, 10:05 AM #5
I have been using the PageSpeed for Firefox
Using Page Speed for Firefox
Little user friendly and seems like they are the same thing.
The explanations given seem easier to read than the Google version and you can right click your mouse on the icon in your bottom window to analyze instead of typing in each page.
As I understand, expiration on images is for the bots to know when to recheck the images to see if they have changed or not. Otherwise they will use cache and save on resources.
April 1st, 2011, 12:32 PM #6
The tool has been around since late 2009. Pretty nifty especially when you don't consider things like compacting your css files into one and removing excess white spaces in your lines of code (makes for a pain in the butt to edit things, though)...Salty kisses, Sandy toes, and a Pirate's heart...
April 1st, 2011, 12:42 PM #7
Page load Time is one of the most important factor for a website to rank in Google search engines.
- Join Date
- March 14th, 2011
"Reducing page load times can reduce bounce rates and increase conversion rates." but, it doesn't talks about ranking in search engines?
Why do you need an expiration date on an image?
Last edited by Prodigal; April 1st, 2011 at 12:42 PM.
April 1st, 2011, 12:47 PM #8Salty kisses, Sandy toes, and a Pirate's heart...
April 1st, 2011, 01:00 PM #9
Looks good, this is one of the things they suggested:
The following images are resized in HTML or CSS. Serving scaled images could save 97.1KiB (36% reduction).
MyPhoto.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 200x312 to 160x249. Serving a scaled image could save 12.8KiB (36% reduction).
resized in HTML or CSS from 200x312 to 160x249 ??????MERCHANTS: Start showing your coupons directly on your site, that way your shoppers will stop leaving your site looking for them!! If not then remove your Coupon Box!!
April 1st, 2011, 01:43 PM #10
Don't resize your images using css or html. Create the image in the size you intend to use. When you reduce a displayed image via css or html you are actually still calling the full size image...Salty kisses, Sandy toes, and a Pirate's heart...
April 1st, 2011, 01:49 PM #11
Thats what I thought, I do not understand them saying that by resizing my images by using HTML or CSS will speed up my page??????MERCHANTS: Start showing your coupons directly on your site, that way your shoppers will stop leaving your site looking for them!! If not then remove your Coupon Box!!
April 1st, 2011, 01:51 PM #12
Changing the dimensions of an image in the HTML does not reduce the filesize that needs to be downloaded to view it, just the dimensions that get shown. It may be only 160x249 on the browser, but the full size image is loaded before it gets artificially resized. Several merchants have this problem of including full sized unoptimized images in their feeds. Browsers generally can't "see" full res images so why waste bandwidth and slow down the pageload time?
The message is telling you to really resize the image and not use CSS or HTML to resize it. That would save bandwidth.
Last edited by 2busy; April 1st, 2011 at 01:52 PM. Reason: took too long..
April 1st, 2011, 08:06 PM #13
Google have said they like faster sites. If you are using WordPress, you could use W3 Total Cache plugin to improve the speed and user experience of your site.
April 1st, 2011, 09:10 PM #14
There is a WP site in Site/Logo Review right now that has that plugin and it takes close to a full minute to load. Not saying that plugin is the reason but it isn't doing anything beneficial for that deals tracker site.
Just checked again, wrong plugin, it is using WP-Super-Cache. I'm not impressed with the performance of WP-Super-Cache.
Last edited by 2busy; April 1st, 2011 at 09:27 PM. Reason: checked the plugin name
April 5th, 2011, 10:19 AM #15
fewer than 1% of search queries will change as a result of incorporating site speed into our ranking
However, I've been obsessing over page speed lately... probably not a good thing, as there's more important things to do, but caching images is killing me.
Page Speed Online is telling me "(expiration not specified)" on my images, when I have set in my .htaccess file:
<IfModule mod_headers.c> # YEAR <FilesMatch "\.(ico|gif|jpg|jpeg|png|flv|pdf)$"> Header set Cache-Control "max-age=29030400" </FilesMatch> # WEEK <FilesMatch "\.(js|css|swf)$"> Header set Cache-Control "max-age=604800" </FilesMatch> </IfModule>
April 5th, 2011, 11:17 AM #16
Nice Tool! I got 88 out of 100. I don't know if that is good or bad?
April 5th, 2011, 11:41 AM #17
I have seen other .htaccess suggestions recently for caching images. However, unless I simply don't understand it or am missing something, I don't see any benefit.
- In order for an image to be cached, doesn't the page have to be visited first?
- Most browsers already cache a page's content and images to load faster on subsequent visits.
- If your page loads slow on a visitor's first visit or after the cache is told to expire in .htaccess, how does using a .htaccess controlled cache help?
On our sites, we just try to keep the page from being bloated.
- Images properly sized
- Limit the number of images per page
- Use the proper image resolution (you're not publishing a print magazine)
While consumers DO shop with their eyes - concentrate more on content than "making pretty". Text loads faster than images.
Also, to increase speed, limit the number of external calls:
- Host your images
- Lose the Google Analytics (excessively slow)
- Combine css files
Also, take a look at your hosting company. If you are on a shared plan with a service that is notorious for shoving hundreds of websites onto a single server, you may want to consider spending a little more. There's a reason some hosting companies offer huge or unlimited storage allotments - it's called overselling. Most users never use much space - however, it only takes one poorly constructed site on the same server you are on to slow down every site on that server.
While it may not be an overwhelming factor in how your site is ranked - it could make the difference of being on page one instead of page two of the SERPs. Check out your competitor's website using a speed tool. What are they doing better than you?Salty kisses, Sandy toes, and a Pirate's heart...
April 6th, 2011, 12:00 PM #18
I made some changes, and now image caching is working as expected:
ExpiresActive On ExpiresDefault A259200 # Set up caching on media files for 1 month <FilesMatch "\.(ico|gif|jpg|jpeg|png|flv|pdf|swf|mov|mp3|wmv|ppt)$"> ExpiresDefault A2419200 Header append Cache-Control "public" </FilesMatch> # Set up 2 Hour caching on commonly updated files <FilesMatch "\.(xml|txt|html|js|css)$"> ExpiresDefault A604800 Header append Cache-Control "private, must-revalidate" </FilesMatch>
April 6th, 2011, 12:27 PM #19
April 6th, 2011, 12:59 PM #20
April 6th, 2011, 01:08 PM #21
Similar to LiveHeaders Extension, it would show whether files are being loaded from cache or the site.
Doesn't caching all those filetypes load a lot more into cache than is required to use the site? I would drop the WMV, PPT, MP3, flv and pdf files from what gets cached at a minimum. That would make a first view take an awful long time, wouldn't it - or is it only caching what is actually used via "GET"?
April 6th, 2011, 01:14 PM #22
Caching isn't pre-loading. It's only if they request one of those files again that the cached version is used.
So if a user requests image.gif and it's not in their cache (first visit), it'll be saved there and tagged to remain cached for 1 month. Then if they go to another page of the site, which also uses image.gif, the browser will look in the cache, and find the file, therefore not making an HTTP request and not re-downloading the image.
April 3rd, 2012, 10:30 AM #23
Has anyone seen Page Speed on an apache server recently? That's the way I'm going. Nice and fast. Even faster after all the load time tweaks! Sweet!Mark (Satchel)
Webmaster / Sales Manager
April 6th, 2012, 01:35 AM #24
The PageSpeed tool doesn't measure the time it takes for your page to load, but it does say if there's anything you can improve on to make your pages faster.
Haven't tried it on an Apache server though.
April 8th, 2012, 11:07 AM #25
- Join Date
- January 13th, 2007
I've been using YSlow and working through changes to my sites. I did a test on one site that YSlow gives me a 83 out of 100. Load time for 1st load (nothing cached) is 2.1 sec, subsequent is 1.58 sec. Considering images, jquery minimized as much as possible, etc - I'm pretty happy with speed.
Same site in Google speed tool is a 53 out of 100. Really?
So, tie this in with recent google updates and speed factoring into rankings. Here's Google saying my site is much worse off than YSlow. It begs the question what are they really looking for to give a site a higher rank? It is really the actual page load speed, or is it whether you follow all their suggestions.
Food for thought...
By John Powell in forum Search Engine OptimizationReplies: 18Last Post: December 11th, 2009, 11:48 AM
By federico09 in forum ShareASale - SASReplies: 3Last Post: May 8th, 2009, 09:49 PM
By Kevin in forum Search Engine OptimizationReplies: 7Last Post: March 6th, 2008, 10:15 AM