Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Social Sharing - Reducing Button Size
-
I'm looking at implementing social sharing buttons throughout a site that I'm working on.
I've souced the icons from one of the well known providers however when I test the pages with Firebug I get this:
<colgroup><col width="303"> <col width="58"> <col width="86"></colgroup>
| Version | File Size | Transfer Size |
| | | |
| Home Page With Social Media Buttons | 1.02MB | 487.7kB |
| Home Page Without Social Media Buttons | 238.3kB | 218.8kB |As you can see the buttons alone have a rather alarming impact on the file/transfer size.
I want to reduce the size, has anyone got any ideas/been here before?
Justin
-
JMarch
Not sure which provider you are using, but I just pulled up a client site and with four buttons (Twit. FB like, FB share,Plus one) we are pulling 112.8 after gzip. Before gzip we get 354.5kb.
If you could provide a bit more info, we will try to assist.
Best
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
-
Google Indexed Images: Website Vs Social Media
I use Pinterest, Twitter and Instagram to post images that are already featured on my website. I have been following a routine of uploading the images to these social media platforms only after I can see Google has indexed the image from my original site. My website is ecommerce and the product images drive sales more than any other factor. The thinking behind my method was that when these images are posted on Pinterest, Twitter and the various Instagram crawler sites (I realise Instagram images aren’t indexed directly), Google would recognise that the image was already attributed to my website. The ‘duplicate’ image would not therefore be indexed and the originally uploaded website image would remain in ‘Google Images’. After completing various searches and reviewing other Q&A’s on Moz, it seems as though this is in no way guaranteed and images reposted on social media platforms may still replace the already indexed image from the website. I am assuming this is because Google views these platforms as more authoritative than mine. I usually change the image by adding logos, text, backgrounds, borders etc before posting on Pinterest and this seems to have worked most of the time (both the original and ‘amended for Pinterest’ versions are often indexed) but images posted on other platforms are usually identical. Does it make sense to continue with my method or am I shooting myself in the foot by reposting these images on social media at all? I obviously want customers searching for products, who then click on an image, to be directed to my site rather than one of my social media pages or worse, an image reposting site. Additionally, If I post images on social media before they are uploaded to my website (for example to tease a product launch), would Google likely class these images as the ‘original’ and therefore be less likely to index the website version of the image once it is uploaded? Any thoughts are appreciated.
Social Media | | g3mmab2 -
How to see who shared my link on twitter
I post many blog posts on twitter, but How to see who shared my link on twitter? What I need to search to find out this?
Social Media | | varunrupal0 -
Do you think that Content Locking (force to share to unlock content) is manipulative and will eventually be penalised by Google?
There is a tactic called content locking which requires a user to share a post or homepage URL in order to unlock content (either a video, a full post or downloadable ebook). Do you think this is manipulating signals to increase search rankings? Argument Against Using Content Locking Social signals and links from Google Plus shares clearly correlate to increased search engine visibility. Requiring a user to pay for content with social sharing is only used to improve search rankings. According to the webmaster guidelines: "Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee. Another useful test is to ask, 'Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?'" Argument For Using Content Locker Users tend to value their social profiles and won't share something unless they believe it is valuable. Requiring a share is just a push to motivate them to share something they value. Additionally, it is similar to an email opt-in in that the publisher now has a social media lead they can follow up on. It's not just about SEO, it's about tapping into social network traffic and engagement on social networks.
Social Media | | designquotes1 -
What does the Pinterest [Love] button do?
I see a Pinterest button with a heart on it. What does it do? What benefit do I get when someone clicks on the [Love] button on my board?
Social Media | | lbohen0 -
Deleting Poor Performing Social Media Accounts for Businesses?
I'm the Internet Marketing Manager for an ad agency and in charge of not only our social media and SEO but advising and hooking up clients with successful campaigns. I've taken the liberty of signing us up for almost every major social media account. Some are very successful (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, LinkedIn, Vimeo is ok (we use it over YouTube), Vine is picking up) and others are very not doing well (Flickr, Foursquare, YouTube really is low, Google+ is very mediocre). I’ve been wondering if it would be more beneficial to just delete certain accounts. I think I need to keep Google+ (Google values it and we are not doing terribly on it) but all the others listed in the bad column I think are really cancerous to our SEO (and make us look bad b/c we are doing poorly on them) but I really don’t know. I used them kind of to see if they would work for us and to demonstrate that we knew what we were doing in these social networks, but I think they may be doing us more harm than good both from a PR standpoint and SEO. Doesn't it hurt your website for Google to see poor performing social media accounts, just as the opposite would be true (good sm accounts and mention/activity would give you klout & SEO...)? What do you think? I'm no novice but no master either. Love this forum. Thanks in advance.
Social Media | | JCunningham0 -
Facebook Open Graph Buttons
Any knows how to or where to find instructions on how to create custom buttons using Facebook Open Graph? I.e. "Want it" Example can be found here: http://www.debshops.com/character-stick-on-mustaches/1000039148,default,pd.html?cgid=3657 Thanks
Social Media | | Carlos-R0 -
How can you bulk search by email for social networks?
Hello Everyone! We're trying to launch a Social Media campaign for our website and in order to reach more people and follow/invite them to our social profiles we thought of finding them by their email addresses (i read a post somewhere - maybe seomoz, maybe not can't remember). Can anyone suggest a tool or best way of researching ~20.000 email addresses to find out / filter what social networks have this email registered? Much appreciated! Alex
Social Media | | pwpaneuro0 -
Social Media Adult Websites
Hello, Do you recommend using the buttons (facebook, twitter and google +1) on pages with adult content? For adult seo marketing google uses this metric? Thanks, Stroke
Social Media | | stroke2