Page size and loading speed - SEO benefits?

[mryang]

Hi,

Does the size in kb of a page give any benefit to search engine ranking? The reason I ask is that I am in the process of re-designing my site using CSS and this has much smaller page sizes than I had before, obviously I am keeping my content but whereas a page in my site would have been perhaps 100k before - it is now 30k with the same content - I was worried that google would see this as a dramatic change but having poped up this week on page 2 of google for a term that I only built the page for two weeks ago I am quite pleased with the initial results...

The term in question was "acard duplicators"

If any of you guys on here can give me any more tips on CSS or analyse that page to see if I have made any obvious mistakes then I would be very greatful..

My original question stands though that does the page size have any weight - OK I understand a page with very little content would be small in size but I am more talking about a high content page - like 1000 words but with a small size - i.e. a small size to content ratio if you see what I mean.

[AcmeSEO]

Yes, page size, load time and converting from tables to CSS are all helpful. It makes the job of the search bots easier. If you have a lot of elements, you can also try using absolute positioning to push the programs down and the text and links up in the code.

Congratulations.

Robert
SEO Expert Search Engine Optimization Marketing Specialist

[chowell]

Originally Posted by AcmeSEO

Yes, page size, load time and converting from tables to CSS are all helpful. It makes the job of the search bots easier. If you have a lot of elements, you can also try using absolute positioning to push the programs down and the text and links up in the code.

What you're doing is great! The pages will be smaller, load faster & get indexed more easily by the search engines.

Just be sure that you're keeping the Titles/Meta Tags and the optimized content from the old pages.

[morestar]

well! i don't think it matters in the end.

i think links to the site and interlinking with proper header/meta tagging <-(debatable) will boost your competitor much more than reducing the size of your file. If your content kicks his, if your backlinks are more and better than you have a chance but if he does just simple off and on page optimization (besides reducing his file size) he will defeat you. ; )

[copywriter39]

The lower page size will have a definite benefit. It will make your page faster and I've experience with sits whose bloated copy hurt their chances of ranking. A site resign, with less code to wade through, helped these sites gain rankings.

[noel_x99]

While it's always good to make your page sizes smaller, I don't think there is any SEO benefit. I've seen many large, bloated pages that rank very well.

[edhan]

I believe the advantage will be that you will be able to draw more visitors with faster loading as I will be the one leaving the site if it takes too long to load.

[copywriter39]

Originally Posted by noel_x99

While it's always good to make your page sizes smaller, I don't think there is any SEO benefit. I've seen many large, bloated pages that rank very well.

Yes, there are bloated web sites that rank very well. But if there are less lines of code on your site it can only help matters. One site I worked on originally had 500 lines of computer code and text. Even with linking it showed little improvement. But when we redesigned the site and had one fifth as much code, things improved dramatically.

[deepsand]

Google already includes page load time as a factor in determining an AdWord listing's Quality. Some have speculated that such may be extended to the organic listings in the foreseeable future.

At the very least, smaller files will result in faster downloads and rendering, which will serve to reduce your bounce rate, as well as reducing the server bandwidth consumed.

[smo]

No direct relation with ranking but It helps in visitor experience

[copywriter39]

Originally Posted by smo

No direct relation with ranking

This is based on what?

[ami_iss]

As long as you are reducing junk and leaving content, you are certainly improving SEO value of the page, because search engines supposedly take the ratio of readable text to code into account. Large pages with messy code may also have one or more search engine spider traps that the spiders cannot parse, and which stop the crawling.

However, be aware that it is certainly untrue that there is a small optimum page size like 20 KB or 250 words or 1200 words. I have had very successful pages of 20,000 and 40,000 words, some with file sizes over 100 KB. Whenever I heeded the advice of optimization "experts" and broke them into several smaller pages, the result was catastrophic in terms of visitor traffic, if not in terms of positioning. Don't do it. Even pruning an 80 KB page to 70 KB can be bad for positioning. Google doesn't like it when you remove content.

<please add your link to your signature CD>

[cbosleeds]

The great thing about pure CSS is it makes the job of the search engines so much easier. Sites with mountains of extraneous code are liable to fayre less well - although of course there are dozens of other factors in play.

In extreme cases bad code can render a site almost invisible to the search engines as in the before and after example of a website that we re-coded for a customer shown here: Under the bonnet search engine marketing


I do have sites that do very well without being coded in pure CSS and its not the 'be all and end all' - however, it pays to grab whatever advantage you can.

[NetProwler]

Page size and loading speed matters. As again it depends on other factors as well. If your server is "slow" reducing the file size improves the rate of crawling. Moving page positioning into CSS which is cached helps the page loading time. People who are not affected by large file size probably has a faster server. Check your Google Webmaster control panel account to get your baseline crawl time. I have seen considerable improvement in ranking after the pages underwent caching and some changes in server response time for many sites.

[mryang]

Many thanks for all of your input - I will continue with the upgrade of the site and move it all over to CSS which to be honest is taking me ages as I keep tinkering with each page as I go along and taking out little errors etc, I'm sure you all know what I mean!

Will report back if this work does result in a serious improvement.

[Tony_V]

Absolutely page size matters in this case. for different factors. by using css you are eliminating more code the bots have to sift through. Usually pages have a lot of code junk at the top that gets skipped through, since there is a mechenism in place to skip through this stuff, if you are putting what the bots would normaly have to look through for useful indexing info into a css file, then it can cut right to your meat, and start indexing the relevent stuff it is looking for in the first place.

If you have good statistics on your site, you might have a look at time spent on your pages by the bots. I am confident that you will find, if you are able to go back in time, that they spend much less time now. So, you are now ultimately shrinking the amount of bandwidth used up by the crawls even. This in itself should be an indication that it is a benefit... In some cases if the crawl takes too long, it can actually time out.

There are many more reasons that you will benefit from this as well. Many have already been mentioned here.

[CKarsting]

If something make sense, it is very likely to effect your search ranking. Please remember that not everyone has a high speed connection and Google must cater to every market. Your homepage load time should be as streamlined as possible or offer the option for a text only version of a website if you plan on having allot of flash or video material. I have witnessed page load speed to be a significant factor in how your page ranks under competitive categories. Google takes a very pure approach to what they value in a website as a front page that consists of nearly all boring, ugly text has a much better chance to rank high in the search engines than a beautifully done website with tons of pictures, flash and high quality graphics without any text. I am sure Google has a table of acceptable load times for a given industry and as long as your site is below that threshold, you shouldn't receive a lower score. We are a time focused society (fast food, speedy oil change, instant approval), so if time is important to us, why wouldn't Google include it as an important factor? Chad aka Magoo Webmaster

<please add your link to your signature CD>

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by mryang

Hi,

Does the size in kb of a page give any benefit to search engine ranking? The reason I ask is that I am in the process of re-designing my site using CSS and this has much smaller page sizes than I had before, obviously I am keeping my content but whereas a page in my site would have been perhaps 100k before - it is now 30k with the same content - I was worried that google would see this as a dramatic change but having poped up this week on page 2 of google for a term that I only built the page for two weeks ago I am quite pleased with the initial results...

The term in question was "acard duplicators"

If any of you guys on here can give me any more tips on CSS or analyse that page to see if I have made any obvious mistakes then I would be very greatful..

My original question stands though that does the page size have any weight - OK I understand a page with very little content would be small in size but I am more talking about a high content page - like 1000 words but with a small size - i.e. a small size to content ratio if you see what I mean.

There's no direct reason for the actual size in kb to be a real factor in the ranking algorithm. But indirectly there is a connection between page size and positioning. Usually not really a concern.

[dominoman]

For adwords page quality yes it helps. However, for organic SERPS, all else being equal, I dont believe it makes any difference.

For users and your own ease of maintenance it is a definite good thing to do. Do it and good luck!

[morestar]

Originally Posted by copywriter39

The lower page size will have a definite benefit. It will make your page faster and I've experience with sits whose bloated copy hurt their chances of ranking. A site resign, with less code to wade through, helped these sites gain rankings.

sorry copy but it's so not true, i have at least two sites that are bogged with copy, tons of tables and rank #1 for various related keyword clusters of mine ; )

tons more matters...

[morestar]

Originally Posted by copywriter39

Yes, there are bloated web sites that rank very well. But if there are less lines of code on your site it can only help matters. One site I worked on originally had 500 lines of computer code and text. Even with linking it showed little improvement. But when we redesigned the site and had one fifth as much code, things improved dramatically.

that was probably cause you re-designed it and google thought you were updating the site, google likes lots of updating...it had nothing to do with the amount of code, i'll put cash on it...

[cbosleeds]

Code/text ratio and the cleanness of the code does count for something in my experience, but you wont notice it much or at all if you're doing a lot of other things right, or if you're relying almost soley on inbound links for keyword relevance. I have sites like this that rank well as well.

However, if you clean up a webpage with very messy code that relies less on links and more on onsite optimisation then you probably will notice something. Changes might include moving from tables to div, taking style out of the html and using external CSS or even internal CSS in the head section and putting javascript in external .js files, and quite a bit else.

To be honest though for older sites that have grown big, its more trouble than its worth to do this comprehensively, and there's plenty of other things that can be done to make more of a difference with less work. For something new, or straightforward to improve, I'd usually get in there and do it, if I could see any advantage at all. Mostly, if something is obviously risk free and not too much work, I'd do it even if there's only a rumour of an advantage - often takes less time just to get stuck in there and do it than to disprove it.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by morestar

sorry copy but it's so not true, i have at least two sites that are bogged with copy, tons of tables and rank #1 for various related keyword clusters of mine ; )

tons more matters...

While "tons" may help in the SERPs, users may not wait around for "tons" to be downloaded & rendered.

Remember the advice to "design for the user, not the SE."

[Peter (IMC)]

Usually when you clean the HTML code up, you are already optimizing without realizing it. For example, you kill all those font tags and start using h1 and p and b tags. That's why page size seems to be a factor. But it isn't. It's the actual optimizing you do that's responsible for better results.

[mryang]

So, reporting back after my first big success -

I have seen a steady increase in overall traffic on my site (nothing seasonal) and I am having to put this down purely to the css inclusion and redesign - ok a factor may be the FRESHNESS of these new pages but I am certainly not seeing the negative effects that some warned of.

The major benefits to users have been -

Faster load times, content nearer to the top of the pages and easier navigation.

Benefits to me have been -

More pages viewed by users = more orders!
Better search engine rankings = more visitors!

This simple conversion to css has nearly doubled my business in the space of a few weeks - hope it is not just a flash in the pan!

Thanks all for your advice.

[cbosleeds]

Sounds promising, but freshness may contribute if you have added new content. I have one page in particular for a service that I really don't have capacity to offer much of and I add fresh content to the page or change a few pars round whenever I want to pull some business in for it - usually the page will move up from page 2 to page 1 on google.co.uk for a day or two when I do this and then drop back down. For this page its probably a good indication that it doesn't need much to get past the competition permanently, and I imagine that if there were a serious defecit between this page and competitior websites the content changes wouldn't have any real effect.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by mryang

So, reporting back after my first big success -

I have seen a steady increase in overall traffic on my site (nothing seasonal) and I am having to put this down purely to the css inclusion and redesign - ok a factor may be the FRESHNESS of these new pages but I am certainly not seeing the negative effects that some warned of.

While redesign using CSS may have contributed to an increase in number of page views, it will have had no effect on the number of unique visitors.

Style is not a factor in determining SERP; and, users' behavior cannot be influenced until they 1st become a visitor.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

While redesign using CSS may have contributed to an increase in number of page views, it will have had no effect on the number of unique visitors.

Style is not a factor in determining SERP; and, users' behavior cannot be influenced until they 1st become a visitor.

What kind of crappy simplistic logic is that? Ofcourse the use of CSS has contributed to more visitors. Not directly, but most certainly indirectly. Using CSS you start creating HTML code that search engines like better. The result of using CSS correctly is exactly that you present your pages better to the search engines, which in turn results in higher positions in the SERP's. And THAT gets you more visitors.

This is 90% of SEO and works perfectly for 99% of websites!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

What kind of crappy simplistic logic is that? Ofcourse the use of CSS has contributed to more visitors. Not directly, but most certainly indirectly. Using CSS you start creating HTML code that search engines like better. The result of using CSS correctly is exactly that you present your pages better to the search engines, which in turn results in higher positions in the SERP's. And THAT gets you more visitors.

This is 90% of SEO and works perfectly for 99% of websites!

Style is not a ranking criterion.

SEs judge a page based on its content, not its form.

[Peter (IMC)]

I guess it is difficult to see indirect relations in the form of:

If A Then B
If B Then C
If C Then D
IF D Then E

Therefore

If A Then E


Style doesn't have to be a ranking criterion. But if you use CSS (A) Then your HTML quality goes up (B)

If your HTML quality goes up (B) Then search engines can understand your pages better (C)

If search engines can understand your pages better (C) Then you get higher positions (D)

If you have higher positions (D) then you get more visitors (E)

Therefore:

If you use CSS (A) Then you get more visitors (E)


It doesn't matter that Style isn't a ranking criteria.

It shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

[deepsand]

1) Define "HTML quality."

2) Provide citation(s) re. claim that "HTML quality" is used by SEs as a ranking criterion.

[Peter (IMC)]

1) Define "HTML quality."

2) Provide citation(s) re. claim that "HTML quality" is used by SEs as a ranking criterion.

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what HTML quality would mean here. If you just don't want to get it, you'll come up with something that breaks the logic. If you do want to get it, you'll come up with something that make sense.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what HTML quality would mean here. If you just don't want to get it, you'll come up with something that breaks the logic. If you do want to get it, you'll come up with something that make sense.

That's a cop-out. And, you didn't even acknowledge the 2nd item, i.e the providing of citation(s) in support of your claim.

Sorry, but simply repeating an unsubstantiated claim will not make it so.

The facts are that 1) the only objective measure of "HTML quality" is standards compliance; and 2) there is no evidence that SEs include the level of such compliance among their ranking criteria.

Why do the CSS zealots keep dragging out this dead horse?

[cbosleeds]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

I guess it is difficult to see indirect relations in the form of:

If A Then B
If B Then C
If C Then D
IF D Then E

Therefore

If A Then E


Style doesn't have to be a ranking criterion. But if you use CSS (A) Then your HTML quality goes up (B)

If your HTML quality goes up (B) Then search engines can understand your pages better (C)

If search engines can understand your pages better (C) Then you get higher positions (D)

If you have higher positions (D) then you get more visitors (E)

Therefore:

If you use CSS (A) Then you get more visitors (E)


It doesn't matter that Style isn't a ranking criteria.

It shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

Well said Peter. With so many different factors contributing to search engine performance sometimes its difficult to see the woods from the trees and the use of pure CSS, is often difficult to test as a performance indicator unless you do a full website re-design and compare, so its sometimes difficult for people to see the benefit. Even then, I only usually recommend a redesign for customers if their website is utter html spaghetti and such extreme cases can't be used as emprical evidence really, because cleaning up the code would also help. However, in one recent redesign the code wsn't so bad - it was the fact that the design restricted content addition. In this instance, most results moved up from not being on the first ten pages to page 1 or 2 mostly on the back of the redesign and a bit of onsite optimisation. Now that the site is in pure CSS it needs a lot less link building that it would have done if we had just stayed with the previous website.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by cbosleeds

Well said Peter. With so many different factors contributing to search engine performance sometimes its difficult to see the woods from the trees and the use of pure CSS, is often difficult to test as a performance indicator unless you do a full website re-design and compare, so its sometimes difficult for people to see the benefit. Even then, I only usually recommend a redesign for customers if their website is utter html spaghetti and such extreme cases can't be used as emprical evidence really, because cleaning up the code would also help. However, in one recent redesign the code wsn't so bad - it was the fact that the design restricted content addition. In this instance, most results moved up from not being on the first ten pages to page 1 or 2 mostly on the back of the redesign and a bit of onsite optimisation. Now that the site is in pure CSS it needs a lot less link building that it would have done if we had just stayed with the previous website.

Though it's a nice theory, it remains unsubstantiated.

I put to you the same items set forth for, and evaded by, Peter.

1) Define "HTML quality."

2) Provide citation(s) re. claim that "HTML quality" is used by SEs as a ranking criterion.

[Peter (IMC)]

Alright,..


HTML quality obviously means that it is clean. In it's very basic form it means that you use h1 and p tags. When you decide to go tableless it usually means you´re automatically cleaning up the html code, and are following the standards. That helps search engines better understand your pages. That basically means you´re optimizing a website.

You tend to only look at direct relations, but SEO (and life in general) is more about indirect relations. Perhaps it's difficult to look at a sequence of steps and then make the transition of putting that sequence of steps in a box and considder it a single step.

If it helps you... use "optimized html" in stead of "html quality".


In my company I have the simple rule that every website we optimize is to be rebuild from scratch using tableless. It always gets results. Obviously that also includes title, structure, anchor text, etc. optimization. The main reason for going tableless is because it forces naturally to use clean HTML. It takes out the hassle of having to check every page if it has been optimized enough. It just naturally gets done right.

Considering the fact that we have done over 200 websites and we always increase the number of visitors, I can say with 100% certainty that CSS is a very usefull tool to optimize websites and get more visitors from search engines.

How many websites have you optimized?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

HTML quality obviously means that it is clean.

Which is wholly independent of CSS.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

When you decide to go tableless it usually means you´re automatically cleaning up the html code, and are following the standards.

False; eschewing tables is neither necessary nor sufficient for producing compliant code.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

CSS is a very usefull tool ...

The utility value of CSS is irrelevant to the issue of necessity and/or sufficiency for producing compliant code.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

How many websites have you optimized?

Wholly irrelevant. A bad carpenter can quickly produce a lot of trash using a nail gun. On the other hand, a true craftsman will produce a much fewer number of masterpieces in the same amount of time using a hammer.

You are conflating functional elements and presentational ones. SEs do care about the former; however, the latter are of import only to rendering agents.

[Peter (IMC)]

What ever deepsand. You´re just argueing for argument sake. You just want to proof the whole f#%$*# world wrong. Have fun with it.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

What ever deepsand. You´re just argueing for argument sake. You just want to proof the whole f#%$*# world wrong. Have fun with it.

What I want is for others to understand that CSS is simply a tool; and, like all tools, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

Most importantly, employing CSS is no guarantee of either "good quality" code or more favorable review from the SEs. Any appearances to that effect are simply coincidental.

[Peter (IMC)]

Over 200 coincidents in a row? I don't think so.

Ofcourse css is a tool. Ofcourse you have to use it right to get results. But that's the case with all tools, isn't it. Kind of obvious.

[deepsand]

There is a difference between having achieved good results by having used a tool well and having achieved those results simply because that tool was used.

That is the point of import here.

If you read the early posts here you will notice a number of false conclusions re. the effects of having used CSS. Take, for example, "... pages will be smaller, load faster & get indexed more easily by the search engines" or "It makes the job of the search bots easier." Hogwash.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Over 200 coincidents in a row? I don't think so.

That you may be a skilled craftsman does not mean that all are. The danger here is that some may conclude that your results owe, not to your skills, but to the tool(s) you use.

No tool is any better than the hand that wields it.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by deepsand

There is a difference between having achieved good results by having used a tool well and having achieved those results simply because that tool was used.

That is the point of import here.

If you read the early posts here you will notice a number of false conclusions re. the effects of having used CSS. Take, for example, "... pages will be smaller, load faster & get indexed more easily by the search engines" or "It makes the job of the search bots easier." Hogwash.

Using CSS pages will indeed be smaller and therefore they will load faster. The "getting indexed more easily by the search engine" is probably not a real factor. When people say "the job of the search bots" they basically mean the whole search engine, don't be to fanatic on little details like that. It makes you look like a guy that read it all in a book but doesn't have a clue about the real thing.


Many people here know how to use the tools, many other people here are learning. They all know that the tools themselves don't work by themselves.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Using CSS pages will indeed be smaller ... .

Not necessarily true.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

The "getting indexed more easily by the search engine" is probably not a real factor. When people say "the job of the search bots" they basically mean the whole search engine, ...

Either way it's a false belief that presentational code has any effect re. ranking.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

They all know that the tools themselves don't work by themselves.

That does not prevent them from having unrealistic expectations of the tools.

The bottom line is that the success that you've had using CSS is grounded in your own personal knowledge, skills & experience, not CSS, success that you could and quite likely would have had even if CSS did not exist.

[Peter (IMC)]

bla bla bla bla

[deepsand]

Ok, ok, I take it back; you owe your all to CSS.