HTTP Vary:User-Agent Server or Page Level?
-
Looking for any insights regarding the usage of the Vary HTTP Header. Mainly around the idea that search engines will not like having a Vary HTTP Header on pages that don't have a mobile version, which means the header will be to be implemented on a page-by-page basis.
Additionally, does anyone has experience with the usage of the Vary HTTP Header and CDNs like Akamai?Google still recommends using the header, even though it can present some challenges with CDNs.
Thanks!
-
hey burnseo - if you're still getting notifications from this thread, would you happen to recall where you ended up finding info. that google recommends placing the vary header at page level? running into the same question myself. if you have links you could post to where you found the answer, that'd be great. thanks!
-
I would go by what Google recommends I cannot imagine Akamai being something bad for website or overwhelming it anyway. You may try using a C name with your www. straight to the CDN & if you're using a mobile subdomain like m. also having that go directly into your content delivery network.
I hope this is better help.
sincerely,
Thomas
-
I found some information that suggests that it is recommended to avoid using the Vary HTTP Header by User-Agent site-wide because search engines and (and this is Google) would assume the other version simply hadn't yet been discovered and perhaps keep looking for it. There is also a recommendation to implement the Vary Header on a page-level only when there is a mobile version. This only applies to sites that are serving mobile HTML content dynamically based in the user-agent. Additionally, there is some controversy around using the header when a CDN network like Akamai is in place because it can overload the site. Despite this controversy Google still recommends using the header. These seem to be two important points to consider before implementing the Vary HTTP Header.
-
Very true I shoud have compleated it woun't use a cell phone to Q&A
-
Thomas, it appears that this is taken from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1975416/trying-to-understand-the-vary-http-header. Q&A is for original answers; if you are referring to another blog post, it's best to just put a link into the blog post and let people go there rather than copy work (that may be copyright) and use that as your answer. Thanks for understanding!
-
-
The
cache-control
header is the primary mechanism for an HTTP server to tell a caching proxy the "freshness" of a response. (i.e., how/if long to store the response in the cache) -
In some situations,
cache-control
directives are insufficient. A discussion from the HTTP working group is archived here, describing a page that changes only with language. This is not the correct use case for the vary header, but the context is valuable for our discussion. (Although I believe the Vary header would solve the problem in that case, there is a Better Way.) From that page:
Vary
is strictly for those cases where it's hopeless or excessively complicated for a proxy to replicate what the server would do.- This page describes the header usage from the server perspective, this one from a caching proxy perspective. It's intended to specify a set of HTTP request headers that determine uniqueness of a request.
A contrived example:
Your HTTP server has a large landing page. You have two slightly different pages with the same URL, depending if the user has been there before. You distinguish between requests and a user's "visit count" based on Cookies. But -- since your server's landing page is so large, you want intermediary proxies to cache the response if possible.
The URL, Last-Modified and Cache-Control headers are insufficient to give this insight to a caching proxy, but if you add
Vary: Cookie
, the cache engine will add the Cookie header to it's caching decisions.Finally, for small traffic, dynamic web sites -- I have always found the simple
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
andPragma: no-cache
sufficient.Edit -- to more precisely answer your question: the HTTP request header 'Accept' defines the Content-Types a client can process. If you have two copies of the same content at the same URL, differing only in Content-Type, then using
Vary: Accept
could be appropriate.Update 11 Sep 12:
I'm including a couple links that have appeared in the comments since this comment was originally posted. They're both excellent resources for real-world examples (and problems) with Vary: Accept; Iif you're reading this answer you need to read those links as well.
The first, from the outstanding EricLaw, on Internet Explorer's behavior with the Vary header and some of the challenges it presents to developers: Vary Header Prevents Caching in IE. In short, IE (pre IE9) does not cache any content that uses the Vary header because the request cache does not include HTTP Request headers. EricLaw (Eric Lawrence in the real world) is a Program Manager on the IE team.
The second is from Eran Medan, and is an on-going discussion of Vary-related unexpected behavior in Chrome:Backing doesn't handle Vary header correctly. It's related to IE's behavior, except the Chrome devs took a different approach -- though it doesn't appear to have been a deliberate choice.
-
-
Hey Thomas, thank you for your interest in answering my question. However, the question isn't really about using a CDN. It is more around how using the Vary HTTP Header can affect the CDN performance. In addition, I wanted to find guidance on where to implement the Vary HTTP Header as it was brought to my attention that search engines don't like it when this is implemented site wide even on pages that don't have a mobile version.
-
Hi Keri,
Thank you for the heads up on that. I definitely was having some technical issues. I have cleaned it up let me know if you think it is a need any more work.
Thank you for letting me know.
Sincerely,
Thomas
-
Thomas, I think the voice recognition software botched some of your reply. Could you go through and edit it a little? There are some words that seem to be missing. Thanks!
-
Hi,
For insights regarding the usage of the Vary HTTP Header.
I would check out this blog post right here
As far as using a content delivery network. I love them and have used quite a few. Depending on your budget there is a wide range
Use Anycast DNS with CDN's here is what I think of them.
#1 DNS DynECT (my fav)
#2 DNS Made Easy (great deal $25 for 10 domains for the YEAR)
#3 UltraDNS
#4 VerisignDNS
CDN's many have anycast DNS built in already
Check out this website it will give you a good view of what's going on this site
http://www.cdnplanet.com/cdns/
I don't know what you want for data however if you want a great CDN with support & killer price Max CDN it's only $39 for the first terabyte performs Amazon's cloudflaire Rackspace clouldfiles
My list of CDN's I would use the cost is anywhere form $39 a year to $4,000 a month if you said you where going to use video it will cost more as data adds up fast.
#1 Level 3 personal favorite content delivery network
http://www.level3.com/en/products-and-services/data-and-internet/cdn-content-delivery-network/
http://www.edgecast.com/free-trial/
http://mediatemple.net/webhosting/procdn/ You get 200 gb's a month for $20 it is 100% EdgeCast (just a reseller)
https://presscdn.com/ PRESSCDN is 50GB's for $10 month & gives you FOUR CDN's it has Max CDN, Edgecast, Akamai & cloudfront price for 150GB a month is $19
http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/files/
http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/
Look a thttp://cloudharmony.com/speedtest for speed testing
However please remember that coding makes a huge difference on websites and it is not really a fair depiction of speed.
You could use CloudFlare it is free I don't like it for for anything other than site protection it's not very fast and my opinion and is simply a proxy reverse proxy server
You get CloudFlare with Railgun already on
https://www.cloudflare.com/railgun cost is now $200 a month (Use Level 3 if paying that much)
Edge cast is a great content delivery network. However,you will have to buy it through a third-party that you want a full enterprise version. You can buy to media temple that you must use their DNS and it is only $20 a month.
However if you're going to spend over $20 a month I would strongly consider talking to Level 3. There notoriously high-priced however they just lowered their prices and you can negotiate some very sweet deals.
I would simply sign up for DNS made easy and MaxCDN if you don't have a content delivery network already & just convenient fast
It's also faster. It is faster than AWS cloudfront & rack space cloudfiles.
Max CDN is faster than anything else I have compared to the it's price range for almost double
But inexpensive service you will get Anycast DNS for $25 and the CDN would be $39 and that's for the year not the month
I hope this is been of help to you,and it answers your question. Please let me know if I could be of any more help.
Sincerely,
Thomas
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
-
[Organization schema] Which Facebook page should be put in "sameAs" if our organization has separate Facebook pages for different countries?
We operate in several countries and have this kind of domain structure:
Technical SEO | | Telsenome
example.com/us
example.com/gb
example.com/au For our schemas we've planned to add an Organization schema on our top domain, and let all pages point to it. This introduces a problem and that is that we have a separate Facebook page for every country. Should we put one Facebook page in the "sameAs" array? Or all of our Facebook pages? Or should we skip it altogether? Only one Facebook page:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example.com/org/#organization",
"name": "Org name",
"url": "https://example.com/org/",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/xxx",
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_us"
], All Facebook pages:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example.com/org/#organization",
"name": "Org name",
"url": "https://example.com/org/",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/xxx",
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_us"
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_gb"
"https://www.facebook.com/xxx_au"
], Bonus question: This reasoning springs from the thought that we only should have one Organization schema? Or can we have a multiple sub organizations?0 -
Canonicalisation and Dynamic Pages
We have an e-commerce single page app hosted at https://www.whichledlight.com and part of this site is our search results page (http://www.whichledlight.com/t/gu10-led-bulbs?fitting_eq=GU10). To narrow down products on the results we make heavy use of query parameters. From an SEO perspective we are telling GoogleBot to not index pages that include these query parameters to prevent duplicate content issues and to not index pages where the combination of query parameters has resulted in no results being returned. The only exception to this is the page parameter. We are posting here to check our homework so to speak. Does the above sound sensible? Although we have told GoogleBot to not index these pages, Moz will still crawl them (to the best of my knowledge), so we will continue to see crawl errors within our Moz reports where in fact these issues don't exist. Is this true? Is there anyway to make Moz ignore pages with certain query parameters? Any other suggestions to improve the SEO of our results pages is most appreciated. Thanks
Technical SEO | | TrueluxGroup0 -
Are image pages considered 'thin' content pages?
I am currently doing a site audit. The total number of pages on the website are around 400... 187 of them are image pages and coming up as 'zero' word count in Screaming Frog report. I needed to know if they will be considered 'thin' content by search engines? Should I include them as an issue? An answer would be most appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MTalhaImtiaz0 -
Page Content
Our site is a home to home moving listing portal. Consumers who wants to move his home fills a form so that moving companies can cote prices. We were generating listing page URL’s by using the title submitted by customer. Unfortunately we have understood by now that many customers have entered exactly same title for their listings which has caused us having hundreds of similar page title. We have corrected all the pages which had similar meta tag and duplicate page title tags. We have also inserted controls to our software to prevent generating duplicate page title tags or meta tags. But also the page content quality not very good because page content added by customer.(example: http://www.enakliyat.com.tr/detaylar/evden-eve--6001) What should I do. Please help me.
Technical SEO | | iskq0 -
SEO for User Authenticated Content
Hi Everyone - I have a potential client who is seeking SEO for a site that contains about 95% of content only accessible through user authentication . Does anyone have tips for getting this indexed without having to open it up to the public? I was considering adding "snippets" into the robots.txt or creating an additional page with snippets linking to the login page. I'd appreciate any thoughts! Thanks!
Technical SEO | | manutx0 -
Two Domains for the Same Page
We are creating a website for a client that will have hundreds of geographically driven landing pages. These pages will all have a similar domain structure. For example www.domain.com/georgia-atlanta-fastfood-121 We want the domain to be SEO friendly, however it also needs to be print friendly for a business card. (ex www.domain.com/121) The client has requested that we have two domains for each page. One for the Search Engines and then another shorter one for print/advertising purposes. If we do that will search engines the site for duplicate content? I really appreciate any recommendations. Thanks! Anna
Technical SEO | | TracSoft0 -
Duplicate Page Titles
I had an issue where I was getting duplicate page titles for my index file. The following URLs were being viewed as duplicates: www.calusacrossinganimalhospital.com www.calusacrossinganimalhospital.com/index.html www.calusacrossinganimalhospital.com/ I tried many solutions, and came across the rel="canonical". So i placed the the following in my index.html: I did a crawl, and it seemed to correct the duplicate content. Now I have a new message, and just want to verify if this is bad for search engines, or if it is normal. Please view the attached image. i9G89.png
Technical SEO | | pixel830 -
Consolidate page strength
Hi, Our site has a fair amount of related/similiar content that has been historically placed on seperate pages. Unfortuantely this spreads out our page strength across multiple pages. We are looking to combine this content onto one page so that our page strength will be focused in one location (optimized for search). The content is extensive so placing it all on one page isn't ideal from a user experience (better to separate it out). We are looking into different approaches one main "tabbed" page with query string params to seperate the seperate pages. We'll use an AJAX driven design, but for non js browsers, we'll gracefully degrade to separate pages with querystring params. www.xxx.com/content/?pg=1 www.xxx.com/content/?pg=2 www.xxx.com/content/?pg=3 We'd then rel canonical all three pages to just be www.xxx.com/content/ Same concept but useAJAX crawlable hash tag design (!#). Load everything onto one page, but the page could get quite large so latency will increase. I don't think from an SEO perspective there is much difference between options 1 & 2. We'll mostly be relying on Google using the rel canonical tag. Have others dealt with this issue were you have lots of similiar content. From a UX perspective you want to separate/classifiy it, but from an SEO perspective want to consolidate? It really is very similiar content so using a rel canonical makes sense. What have others done? Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | NicB10