Google WebMaster says my site is slower than 86% of sites

Is anyone else looking at the performance information provided by Google Webmaster tools and seeing something similar?

I've recently made several changes to my blog thanks to Google's Page Speed utility and my current score is 82/100.

I see slowness myself when I click through on posts on my blog and Google's Webmaster tools is proving this out.

I'd be interested to know what other people's performance.

Btw, I plan on upgrading to IIS7 to leverage some additional caching features but I'm not sure how much that's going to improve things.

-Steve

 

Btw, Google's webmaster tools state "On average, pages in your site take 7.7 seconds to load..." which I agree is really slow. I've made a few more changes and improved my Page Speed rating from 82/100 to 85/100. Over the past two weeks I can see a marked improvement in the graph on Google but still the performance is way over the 20th percentile.

 

Is you site really busy or really slack? Is 7 seconds about how long it takes to JIT your app code when the servers' application pool has auto-recycled after a period of inactivity?

 

My site is http://www.stevetrefethen.com/blog/

It's running blogengine.net v1.5.

YSlow says: "The page has a total of 37 HTTP requests and a total weight of 331.2K bytes with empty cache"

There's a bunch of stuff (css and images) I hope to start caching with an upgrade to IIS7 this weekend.

Are there any easy options for caching these on IIS6? I can't find anything and I don't want to use an HttpHandler as it's something the server can do.

 

Thanks for the reply Bruce. I've been planning to migrate for some time so I went ahead with it today (probably not the best for support reasons but it's a blog so I'm not overly concerned either). The migration failed and I need to wait for support but I'll be interested to see if/how it affects performance.

 

I'll have to admit the click-and-pray migration is not exactly the best customer experience. It errored out with no details but to contact support. The reply to my ticket was that there was a "problem in the site moving automation system" but unfortunately, it still left my site offline. The tech requested that I retry the process but my migration page still displays the original failure message with no option to retry.

It seems better fail-over support should be in place such that if the system itself fails at least the customer's site isn't left disabled/offline.

 

My site is up and running once again. Thanks DASP!

You guys are responsive and always helpful.

Party on!

 

We didn't put a lot of development time into the user interface, granted. It's a backend tool for the most part.

We do schedule the migrations when someone is actually here in the office so that we can address any problems, as in your case. We don't let them run unattended in the middle of the night.

Which is to say there's a little more hands-on action with the IIS migration than there is with a lot of our other more automated things.

 

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, DASP rocks! Please take my feedback as constructive as the black box nature of the migration makes it a bit intimidating though I can understand why there wasn't lots of dev time dedicated to it.

 

;-)

(Thanks for posting feedback, it is important.)

 

Made some major improvements to my site's performance and will be interested to see how this impacts Google's WebMaster Tools perf data.

http://www.stevetrefethen.com/blog/ImprovingSitePerformance.aspx

 

Wow...Nice writeup ;-)

 

Hmm, interesting timing:

http://searchengineland.com/google-now-counts-site-speed-as-ranking-factor-39708

 

I've now revisited Google's webmaster tools to review my sites performance after several months. While I was able to make some significant improvements it's still reporting load times for my site as "slower than 70% of sites".

I upgraded to IIS7 and made numerous adjustments to my BlogEngine.NET site but the times reported back are still quite slow reporting that pages take on average 4.5 seconds to load.

My personal experience is it's much faster than what's being reported but I do wonder if that's true for anyone who visits my site. Here is a link to a page where the load time is reported to be 7.2 seconds yet it loads very quickly for me:

http://www.stevetrefethen.com/blog/DevelopingFacebookapplicationsinCwithASPNET.aspx

I'd be interested to hear what others have found.

-Steve

 

So is mine. Load is very fast.

 

Comcast upgraded me to 10MB today so that page loaded before I clicked the link. ;-)