Site Re-designed | Need feedback on Design, SEO and Performance

Hello there,

We have recently completely re-designed our brand website.
Site URL: http://esbe.in

The old site was not eCommerce enabled so we added the same using WooCommerce.
Would love to see your feedback & suggestions on the new site.
For all the webmasters and geeks out here, could you please also review the site from SEO and Performance side? I have implemented what all things I have learned during the years from this forum.

Thanks,
Pratik

 

All things are looking fine but stop Popup to irritating users every time .... Set it to 1 times ..... If user browser your site (Any page) then he will see first time and then its should not appear on another page ..... you can handle it with cookies ...... see online about code ..... Only your popup is irritating .... remaining all things are looking fine for me.

 

Th

Thanks for your feedback!
Yes indeed, the pop-up is too much. Will get this sorted.
How was the load time at your end, that's my only fear, since the website uses lots of images.

 

Loading smoothly .... No issue with load time here.

 

Thanks! I did some tests and GTMatrix gave good ratings but the Google Page Insights is giving a very bad score on mobile I have caching activated, but still the ratings won't improve. Hence I was worried if the site loads slow for any potential customer.

 

I think google page speed rating for mobile is bad for about more than 70% to 80% site while they are performing good in Google. So if good for desktop then also not bad. Having not more ideas but I think Google need completely different css and js file for small device site.
If we can get good ranking for mobile also then its our additional award from google.

 

The first thing I see is a goofy annoying popup. If it's that damned important it should be a natural part of the page, not some garbage scripted modal.

Next up is the inaccessible use of text over images. The white text for most of your images disappears and or is illegibile. This is common to artsy-fartsy useless layouts where an artist under the DELUSION they're a "designer" pisses all over the place with irrelevant stock images that are too large to belong on a website in the first blasted place, whilst being utterly ignorant of both accessibility and user experience. It's why as a rule I advise site owners -- particularly businesses -- to avoid even having those massive splash images with ZERO legitimate content as the first thing the user sees on a page.

Likewise the light blue on white text has issues, as do many sections of uselessly undersized text. This stems mostly from the use of fixed metric (aka measured in px) fonts. The moment you see a font-size, width, or media query in px, you're telling large swaths of users to go plow themselves. The whole layout needs to be redone in EM instead of PX.

The choice of font -- which looks to be montserrat? -- is the typical broken inaccessible artsy-fartsy "thin glyph" that artists under the DELUSION they are designers (I may end up saying that a lot) seem to get wood for, even as it tells a lot of users "Oh you wanted to read this? Bugger off".

You combine the hard to read (on anything other than Mac) webfont, use of grey and light blue on white, and fixed metric fonts makes the content very hard to digest, as does the inconsistent over-use of whitespace.

It was painful to watch load as well even with my high speed connection. Since I'm pretty far from the nearest backbone I often see high ping/request times, which is where the raw number of file counts can have a heavy impact. Even so, the 800ms request times -- doubly my usual worst-case -- indicates that your hosting is probably as big a pile of garbage as my ISP. It takes the 51 separate files of your site, and lags them out to 33 seconds of overhead. Combine this with the ten megabyte (7mb gzipped) page size, and it's hardly a shock it takes around 40 seconds to load here. When 3/4ths the load time is handshaking, you've got too many separate files and something wrong with how your server is handling requests.

That 1.37 megabytes of that in 8 files is CSS? Not good. Whilst around 120k of that in three files is essential offsite stuff like font-awesome, and it's being send gzipped greatly reducing the file transfer, there is no reason for the rest of the site -- the whole site -- to need more than 48k of CSS in one file per media target. Since you only seem to have one target (screen) implemented -- and are pissing on things by sending that screen layout to "all" -- you basically have a thousand K of CSS doing 48k's job.

The same goes for the batshit insane amount of outright scripttardery. 3.23 megabytes of JavaScript in 25 separate files means something is WRONG... Again, some things like recaptcha and google fonts are fine, but your 2.4 megabytes of on-site scripting I don't see the site doing anything I'd waste more than 64k of scripting in two files on.

Two thirds of the JavaScript and 90% of the CSS belongs in the trash. You'd almost think it was turdpress.

So, looking at the code... oh, it's turdpress plus wooTheF***Commerce. Well, you said that at the start, didn't you. As such the non-semantic markup telling non-visual accessibility to go f*** itself mated to the massive scripting and style bloat is just is par for the course. There is a reason systems like turdpress are a monument to the "three 'i' of web development" -- ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude.

Static scripting in the markup, static style in the markup, non-semantic markup, non-existant document structure thanks to gibberish markup telling non-visual UA's -- like braille readers, screen readers, and search enignes -- where to stick it. Blocking scripts in the HEAD, endless pointless DIV for nothing, endless pointless classes for nothing, presentational images in the markup, figure around images that are not mathematical/scientific figures, presentational use of classes, clearfix like it's still 2003... whoever built that template has ZERO business making templates for business.

But again, that's the norm for the train wreck laundry list of how NOT to build websites that is turdpress. A crappy blogging system for grandma where anyone telling you to use it for business is either utterly ignorant, or outright scamming you.

Hence the home page wasting 158k of HTML on delivering 940 bytes of plaintext and around a dozen content images, not even 6k of HTML's flipping job.

So from top to bottom it has around 16 times the code and five times the number of separate files needed to do the job.

... and since you have non-semantic gibberish markup and a relative lack of actual content (text) on the home page, it's an epic failure at SEO.

Whoever told you these technologies should be used this way has saddled you up and taken you for a ride.

 

Too damn hard to read. My head aches just looking at it.

There is no such word as "shinning" in my lexicon.

 

Why not make the text and menu on the top easier to read? I think your site is good, loading is OK. I like the zoom feature.

 

Firstly, thanks a lot of taking out the time and sharing a detailed review.
Now getting to your feedback in details. I have tried using W3 Cache and few other plugins to reduce load time. Also I am using a plugin to optimise the image size (this is 50% done as of now).
I would try and address the improvements pointed out by you as much as possible.

 

Thanks! Let me work on the layout tweaks a bit more.

 

Thanks Dani! Will work on the over fonts again.

 

I liked your store, as well as the short domain name.

But loading the site is ugly.
First I see this text: 'Hi! My name is Srishti Bagaria ... '
I have not had time to read it yet, as at this place they show me a picture.
I am trying to understand what is shown in the picture, but a pop-up window is already displayed at the place of the picture.
After that, I think half of your potential buyers will leave your site.

 

I think you will lose all your google ranks with this seo. Earlier one was good, why did you removed all that? (I checked homepage only)
Use contrast in text colors, don't use light shades of any color on white background.
Don't prompt for a newsletter signup, you are not that kind of business. Put a query form instead, where interested people can quickly send a message to you.
Put this small form in a corner somewhere, not in a popup.

If you want to showcase something in sliding/fading images, put a slideshow in a corner, don't overlap anything existing, don't put it on top of anything else.
By the way, those sliding kind of things, they become impossible on mobile browsers.

Try to understand this, caching is meant to save MySQL overload, not speed up image loading time.
No matter what caching you implement, when the site is opened in browser, browser will make 50 requests for 50 images that you are trying to load.
Fortunately, each request is not treated as a completely new HTTP connection (assuming that keepAlive is on on your server, so SSL etc need not be verified again and again), but still data of each of those 50 images needs to be transferred to the client browser.
This is what is causing slow speed in mobile speed test.
For a slideshow, load 3-5 images in slideshow, keep rotating those.
On next page, show 5 different images. Not a very good idea, but is better than loading 50 images on 1 page itself.

Even after fixing all those, I think your previous SEO was lot better than this.
It had your good keywords spread naturally, gave a nice idea of what the website was about to human readers, and was easy to navigate also.
Now I cannot find your original keywords anywhere for which I saw your site ranking...