please review my website
I have started a hosting company and have had great success with finding people to visit my site via google adwords. The problem I have is that the bounce rate is very high. It say people stay for 30 secs then leave. My website is www.Cloudsurph.com. What can I do to get people to stay longer?
Are you directing all of your ads to the homepage, or some ads go to different pages within your website? How much is your daily budget? Are you changing your ads and what they say and where they target? You should keep testing different ads in different areas, keep switching it up to see what works best. Adwords is a trial and error situation. Change it up every day and check your bounce rate on a day by day basis to see if it gets lower or higher.
A high bounce rate is quite common especially in hosting providers, i would not worry about bounce until you get more established.
First thing I notice your website is taking way too long to load[I have a decent internet connection.If the internet connection is a bit slower than mine It would take even longer to load]. I see that you have designed the very creatively and It's very eye catching but during this processes you have used too many images. So the size of your website increases and so does the download time. People do not like to wait. I may be wrong but I think that's the major factor turning the audience away. If you want to see how long your website takes to load just clear your browser data and open your website.
I have tried opening it with different browsers and different computers and overall the wait time isn't too long. I have a lot of customers that come to my site that I get mostly from google adwords(daily budget $25) through many different types of ads. Even though I get a lot of visitors I don;t get many buyers. Last week I got around 500 new visitors and only 3 customers. How do I convert my visitors to customers? I get them from all around the world.
Now don't take this the wrong way, but it reeks of some PSD jockey and scripttard pissing all over the page -- the annoying pointless screen-space wasting animation, relative lack of actual content (only 3.6k of plaintext), all the useful information pushed "below the fold" by the giant artsy-fartsy crap at the top, layout that falls apart if set narrower than what it was designed for, gibberish use of numbered headings making alternative navigation a pain, and the inaccessible fixed metric fonts (aka declared in PX) make the entire page a train wreck before I even look under the hood.
It's bloated and slow loading at a completely ridiculous two megabytes in 51 files -- to deliver less than 4k of plaintext and NOTHING I'd even consider to be a content image? What on EARTH does that need 1.3 megabytes of images for?!? (other than PSD jockey bull with bloated alpha transparencies that have no business on a website in the first place?)
Of course that 51 files is the real hiccup, and why it took about 30 seconds to load here; in terms of handshaking 'best case' and what a lot of people will see is around 5 seconds of overhead due to the number of file requests, but worst case that could easily reach a minute or more; one of the very first things I'd try to do is get that down to 24 files or less; and really looking at that page I doubt it really should have more than 12 files. Naturally this is where the nitwits will pipe in "but it's fast here" -- well great for you! Guess what? it isn't here! Congratulations for sitting atop the same backbone as the hosting - not everyone is and that's why techniques like CSS sprites and combining CSS/JS files down to single requests are good development practice.
... and that's before we pop the bonnet. Taking a look at the actual code, it's a train-wreck of how not to write HTML; but to be fair entirely what I expect the moment I see the HTML 5 lip-service doctype since 5 seems carefully crafted for the folks who never extracted their cranium from 1997's rectum.
Though it is nice to see someone NOT abusing the keywords and description META -- thumbs up for that at least!
But like that stupid 'opengraph' garbage? Get rid of it, it's just code bloat that NOBODY actually gives a flying purple fish about....
The CSS <LINK>? media="all" is just as bad as not having a media target, and shows that whoever coded this doesn't know enough about CSS to be building websites yet. I'm pretty sure your screen layout style is meaningless to print, aural, braille, teletype... Those should ALL have media="screen,projection,tv" on them... NOT that there should be more than ONE <link rel="stylesheet"> given what you have for style so far.
For something that's allegedly loading google fonts, that looks a HELL of a lot like arial or helvetica to me -- I'd suggest you axe the stupid bloated slow loading webfonts.
Then we get to the actual document body and... well... endless pointless holy hannah what are you doing DIV, ID and classes for NOTHING. Presentational images in the markup (like the logo), on top of the pointless HTML 5 code bloat nonsense like HEADER, NAV and ARTICLE (all of which are redundant to numbered headings and horizontal rules BTW). Likewise there seems to be scripting only DIV and anchors in the markup, part of the whole "JS for nothing and your scripts for free, that ain't working, that's not how you do it"
I mean, just as an example where you have:
I'm not sure there's a legitimate reason to have much more than:
<a href="feedback/ideas" title="Got an Idea?"></a>
<div class="main zerogrid">
<!-- header -->
<div class="wrapper row">
<h1><a href="http://www.cloudsurph.com/" id="logo"><img src="images/cloudsurph.png" alt="CloudSurph" title="CloudSurph" /></a></h1>
<li id="nav1" class="active"><a href="http://www.cloudsurph.com/" title="CloudSurph">Home</a></li>
<li id="nav2"><a href="services">Services</a></li>
<li id="nav3"><a href="faq">FAQ</a></li>
<li id="nav4"><a href="http://hosting.cloudsurph.com/clientarea.php">Login</a></li>
<!-- header end-->
Which ends up less than half the code... the entire page is filled with that type of code bloat. You're wasting almost 40k of markup on 3.6k of plaintext -- easily three to five times as much markup as needed!
<div id="top" class="widthWrapper">
<span><!-- image sandbag --></span>
<li><a href="/" class="current">Home</a></li>
<!-- #top, .widthWrapper --></div>
Bottom line? It's slow, bloated, inaccessible, and doped to the gills with "gee ain't it neat" scripttardery and PSD jockey garbage; as I tell a LOT of people I'd throw that entire mess in the trash and start over with semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, with semi-fluid elastic responsive design -- building using progressive enhancement and avoiding all the goofy image nonsense that is a hundred times or more the size of what's REALLY important on your pages: THE CONTENT!
Of which you have very little and it's all 'below the fold'.
does the coding really have an effect on the website? I think main area isn't really the coding but maybe the way how I am placing certain things.
Absolutely. Invalid code can make search engines choke on the page -- search engines like google are now penalizing slow loading and poorly written pages. Bad code can mean massive accessibility failings, and bloated code increases the cost to host it. Poor programming practices that lead to code bloat or broken accessibility can make users bounce before the page even finishes loading; accessibility failings in particular. The lack of graceful degradation thanks to "what it looks like first" design and practices would certainly count me amongst those who would bounce before I ever even got to see your prices; and thanks to the 'tab' scripttardery and illegible font sizes I probably wouldn't have noticed you have 8 more plans hidden in there.
Originally Posted by jaxer600
... and it ALWAYS costs more to maintain bloated poorly written code in the long term. There's way too much "get it looking pretty on the screen in front of me and to hell with the rest" going on right now, and the entire Internet is becoming less and less useful because of it.
This is even more true when you get to forms, which for example your shopping cart? UHG... no LABEL, no FIELDSET, tables for layout on non-tabular data, it's an accessibility mess so unless someone is at the magical combination of screen size and default font sizes you happen to be at, you'd be lucky to be able to complete a form!
Particularly with a lot of crap like INPUT and BUTTON outside of forms, and much of it having zero graceful degradation scripting off. That's bad code, and YES, that can have a major impact your conversions, AND your search rankings.
To be brutally frank (when am I ever anything but?) the cart page on the hosting subdomain is such a mess, it's a miracle it works for anyone anywhere! It reeks of being built by someone who never bothered learning HTML in the first place, and instead being slapped together in some rubbish WYSIWYG or something.
That's certainly part of it too -- like that giant cloud thing circling the planet? I'd swing an axe at that immediately. Nobody's gonna sit there waiting to read the stuff you're sliding in and out either, and of course design elements like that are incompatible with elastic design, which in my book means they have no business on websites in the first place.
Originally Posted by jaxer600
I'd probably swing an axe at that, put all the text that's in it at the bottom or in an about page, get rid of the tabbed nonsense at the bottom, and make the main content your twelve VPS plans; aka THE THING YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL! Think about that, what's actually important on the page, some tiny sliding in and out text that means nothing to anyone, or your products and pricings? You're trying to sell hosting, top and center should be your rates and plans.
Likewise a lot of your sub-pages have color legibility issues too -- yellow on green for example falls way short of accessibility minimums and is likely invisible to a good chunk of the population.
It might be tricky, but I'd consider moving all the 'about us' type stuff to subpages, and getting ALL your services and plans into a 'squeeze' page as the home page, since every single one of them would be a 'call to action'. People land on your site that's the FIRST thing they should be seeing.
NOT some flashy but ultimately useless animated nonsense and photoshop jockey images chewing up the whole screen and making the site painfully slow to load, painfully slow to use, and, well... just painfully slow. Given what you have for CONTENT, I would HIGHLY advise getting your total image sizes down to 48k in 6 images or less; if some visual element that is NOT content cannot fit into those constraints, it doesn't belong on the page.
Also, you might simply try using image optimization and proper formats; JPEG is more efficient even if it's lossy, palettized PNG is great for most mono-hue images in the 17 to 256 color range, and GIF is great if you can get down to 16 colors or less... The 24 bit alpha transparency png files? Well, take this mess:
At half a megabyte that is by itself eight times what I'd allow an entire page template (not counting content or social plugins) HTML+CSS+Scripts+images to ever reach on a site. No, not joking. Generally I consider the ideal size for a page template (again, not counting content and social scripts) to be 72k in 12 files or less; and unless it's something like an image gallery I generally have an upper limit of 144k in 24 files once my content is plugged in. (though again not counting social plugins, they're big, but they are usually also cached).
I mean, I'm looking at your site, and thinking that most of your pages have no excuse to be more than 32k in 8 files or less, other than the "JS for nothing" and artsy template graphics nobody ACTUALLY cares about.
Since again, people visit websites for the content, not the goofy graphics or goofier scripted nonsense you hang on it.
Said image also shoe-horns you into a fixed width layout with fixed height content in that area, which is most always /FAIL/ at web development. It's companion:
... at a quarter megabyte is also disastrously bad, particularly when there's no reason for it to be so big. That latter one if it was precomposited over the white, then made palette transparency for "close enough anti-aliasing" could be dropped to under 90k in size, but even at that size that's larger than I'd ever allow a template image on a site to be, as by itself even optimized it would still be 25% larger than I usually allocate for an entire template!