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.
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
-
Issue with GA tracking and Native AMP
Hi everyone, We recently pushed a new version of our site (winefolly.com), which is completely AMP native on WordPress (using the official AMP for WordPress plugin). As part of the update, we also switched over to https. In hindsight we probably should have pushed the AMP version and HTTPS changes in separate updates. As a result of the update, the traffic in GA has dropped significantly despite the tracking code being added properly. I'm also having a hard time getting the previous views in GA working properly. The three views are: Sitewide (shop.winefolly.com and winefolly.com) Content only (winefolly.com) Shop only (shop.winefolly.com) The sitewide view seems to be working, though it's hard to know for sure, as the traffic seems pretty low (like 10 users at any given time) and I think that it's more that it's just picking up the shop traffic. The content only view shows maybe one or two users and often none at all. I tried a bunch of different filters to only track to the main sites content views, but in one instance the filter would work, then half an hour later it would revert to no traffic. The filter is set to custom > exclude > request uri with the following regex pattern: ^shop.winefolly.com$|^checkout.shopify.com$|/products/.|/account/.|/checkout/.|/collections/.|./orders/.|/cart|/account|/pages/.|/poll/.|/?mc_cid=.|/profile?.|/?u=.|/webstore/. Testing the filter it strips out anything not related to the main sites content, but when I save the filter and view the updated results, the changes aren't reflected. I did read that there is a delay in the filters being applied and only a subset of the available data is used, but I just want to be sure I'm adding the filters correctly. I also tried setting the filter to predefined, exclude host equal to shop.winefolly.com, but that didn't work either. The shop view seems to be working, but the tracking code is added via Shopify, so it makes sense that it would continue working as before. The first thing I noticed when I checked the views is that they were still set to http, so I updated the urls to https. I then checked the GA tracking code (which is added as a json object in the Analytics setting in the WordPress plugin. Unfortunately, while GA seems to be recording traffic, none of the GA validators seem to pickup the AMP tracking code (adding using the amp-analytics tag), despite the json being confirmed as valid by the plugin. This morning I decided to try a different approach and add the tracking code via Googles Tag Manager, as well as adding the new https domain to the Google Search Console, but alas no change. I spent the whole day yesterday reading every post I could on the topic, but was not able to find any a solution, so I'm really hoping someone on Moz will be able to shed some light as to what I'm doing wrong. Any suggestions or input would be very much appreciated. Cheers,
Technical SEO | | winefolly
Chris (on behalf of WineFolly.com)0 -
Duplicate Content Issues with Pagination
Hi Moz Community, We're an eCommerce site so we have a lot of pagination issues but we were able to fix them using the rel=next and rel=prev tags. However, our pages have an option to view 60 items or 180 items at a time. This is now causing duplicate content problems when for example page 2 of the 180 item view is the same as page 4 of the 60 item view. (URL examples below) Wondering if we should just add a canonical tag going to the the main view all page to every page in the paginated series to get ride of this issue. https://www.example.com/gifts/for-the-couple?view=all&n=180&p=2 https://www.example.com/gifts/for-the-couple?view=all&n=60&p=4 Thoughts, ideas or suggestions are welcome. Thanks
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Using http: shorthand inside canonical tag ("//" instead of "http:") can cause harm?
HI, I am planning to launch a new site, and shortly after to move to HTTPS. to save the need to change over 5,000 canonical tags in pages the webmaster suggested we implement inside the rel canonical "//" instead of the absolute path, would that do any damage or be a problem? oranges-south-dakota" />
Technical SEO | | Kung_fu_Panda0 -
Secure HTTP Change - No Links in WMT
Website was changed over to secure HTTP about twp months ago. Just looked in Google Webmaster Tools and it only shows about 8 inbound links. We did a permanent 301 redirect for all URLs. There are over 800 links according to Open Site Explorer. Is it just that they are showing only the HTTPS inbound links? Should I add the HTTPS version in WMT? Thanks for any assistance
Technical SEO | | EBI0 -
Google Crawling Issues! How Can I Get Google to Crawl My Website Regularly?
Hi Everyone! My website is not being crawled regularly by Google - there are weeks when it's regular but for the past month or so it does not get crawled for seven to eight days. There are some specific pages, that I want to get ranked but they of late are not being crawled AT ALL unless I use the 'Fetch As Google' tool! That's not normal, right? I have checked and re-checked the on-page metrics for these pages (and the website as a whole, backlinking is a regular and ongoing process as well! Sitemap is in place too! Resubmitted it once too! This issue is detrimental to website traffic and rankings! Would really appreciate insights from you guys! Thanks a lot!
Technical SEO | | farhanm1 -
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 -
Url canonicalization: www. to http://
Hey there. Sorry for the simple question but I recently redesigned a site and published with WordPress, in the process the domain structure changed from being www. to http:// . My question is does this change affect the value we get from links pointing to the old www. domain structure? The reason I ask is that the old site had a domain authority of 36 with OSE and a couple of hundred links but the new site address shows as having zero domain authority and zero links. Is there some best practise I should be following to retain link value?
Technical SEO | | Luia0 -
Anyone having issues using Keyword Analysis and Rank tracking lately?
Seems it works once, maybe, then replies with a message that it can't complete the process when trying another keyword. _Cindy Barnard
Technical SEO | | CeCeBar0