2

In order to try and get to a resolution about web page compression, I'd like to pose the question to you 'gurus' here in the hope that I can arrive at some kind of clear answer.

The website in question: http://yoginiyogabahrain.com

I recently developed this site and am hosting it with Hostmonster in Utah.

My reasons for constructing it as a one page scrollable site was based around the amount of content that does not get updated - literally everything outside of the 'schedule' which is updated once a month. I realise that the 'departments' could have been displayed on separate pages, but felt that the content didn't warrant whole pages devoted to their own containers which also requires further server requests.

I have minimised the HTML, CSS and JS components of the site in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations from Google Page Speed and Yahoo YSlow. I have also applied server and browser caching directives to the .htaccess file to complete further recommendations.

Currently Pingdom Tools rates the site at 98/100 which pleases me. Google and Yahoo are hammering the site on the lack of GZIP compression and, in the case of Yahoo, the lack of CDN usage. I'm not so much worried about the CDN as this site simply doesn't warrant a CDN. But the compression bothers me in that it was initially being applied.

For about a week, the site was being GZipped and then it stopped. I contacted Hostmonster about this and they said that if it was determined that there were not enough resources to serve a compressed version of the site, it would not do so. But that doesn't answer the question about whether it would do so if the resources detrmined it could. To date, the site has no longer been compressed.

Having done a lot of online research to find an answer about whether this is such a major issue, I have come across a plethora of differing opinions. Some say we should be compressing, and some say it's not worth the strain on resources to do so.

If Hostmonster have determined that the site doesn't warrant being compressed, why do Google and Yahoo nail it for the lack of compression? Why does Pingdom Tools not even take that aspect into account?

Forgive the lengthy post, but I wanted to be as clear as possible about what I'm trying to establish.

So in summary, is the lack of compression on this a major issue or would it be necessary to perhaps look at a hosting provider who will apply compression without question on a shared hosting plan?

Many thanks!

brendanlynch
  • 21
  • 2
  • 2
    Sorry to tell you, but the world simply is not black-and-white. There are millions situations and reasons, and none of them is wrong or right just like that. If google and yahoo state that the sites content is not compressed, then that is all they say. Not more, not less. If it makes sense is nothing they can decide. They just appl some stupid rules they "measure" each and every page against. Just because applying rules is easy. Not more, not less. So the real question is: does compression of the site make sense _in your case_, so for _this_ site. – arkascha Mar 01 '14 at 14:32
  • Hostmonster may have determined that compressing files on the fly and serve them make take longer than serving them uncompressed - but due to server restrictions, not because your particular site would benefit from it or not. Theoretically, regardless of what your host does, you can nonetheless precompress your static files, serve them compressed and check if it's worth the trouble. – juanrpozo Mar 01 '14 at 14:54
  • Thanks for the replies. It's not a major issue - just really trying to get clarification on its value in terms of page score and ranking. Clearly it will not be compressed on this server, and that's OK. Ultimately the client will need to decide what they feel is best for them. – brendanlynch Mar 01 '14 at 16:19

0 Answers0