Need help with image resizing (re: slow site)
-
I'm trying to figure out why I'm having speed issues with my site, and using google speed test to help me knock out some of the issues.
One of issues deals with image resizing. I have a responsive design and so even though on the home page the normal width is 580 of the blog area, the full post can go up to 1170. So I size all of my images to 1170 wide and let CSS resize them depending on the size of the browser. (The images on the most recent post are a little bigger than this because I was testing something.)
I was wondering what the best practice was in regard to what I'm trying to do.
Also feel free to check out my site and let me know of any other feedback / advice you have. Thanks !:)
-
Thanks a lot Keri,
These days with the online competition being so strong we should pay more attention to the website architecture, usability, visual impact, speed and technical problems. SEO it's so complex that you'll find yourself overwhelmed by the number of critical issues that needs to be addressed and fixed. Don't focus just on the content try to enhance every aspect of your page from to . Optimizing pictures takes only a few moments and you can use automated functions in Photoshop.
-
Another area to help with the images is to host them on a content distribution network.
Amazon is not the cheapest, but its the easiest for low volume.
A few stats:
I host about 4000 images on Amazon S3.
My bill is about 4 bucks a month.
You can put your images in a few areas (west coast vs east coast etc)....
This will help get your images closer to your audience, but it will not help you with the "last mile"
I had a customer uploading 7 MB images in Wisconsin using dial up....
can't help them...
I'm alos moving to Cloud Front, amazon Content Distribution Network...
Also, you use chrome to determine what's causing the delay.. many times, images are just part of a larger problem...
-
Hi Rick,
To the best of my knowledge, smushit compresses what it can while keeping the quality exactly the same. Saving for the web will lower the quality to "looking good on screen" from "good enough to print and hang on your wall". I also looked at the most recent post about Noah standing, and saw that the original size was 1900 pixels wide -- you certainly want to resize that to the 1170 wide before uploading it.
Being a photographer with a portfolio, Coltaire can give you a lot more details than I can, and help guide you with settings to use in Photoshop to get pictures that still look great on the web but aren't bigger than they need to be.
-
Thanks for the kind words.
As I mentioned sometimes I like to do full width posts which are 1170 wide so if I use 800x600 the images won't show up correctly on full screen. -
Rick, you have a wonderful son and the story of your website left me without words and I don't know if I can give you a good response at this moment... Try resizing them to 800x600, the size accommodates a lot of user screens / mobile traffic.
Have a wonderful day
-
Yes, i use catching. But like I said, saving it for 640 wouldn't work for me since I want image to show up bigger than that if the screen is 1170. I'm assuming the images wouldn't be able to be resized any bigger than 640 without looking stretched.
-
I never used that tool and I think it's ok to use it in some situations but you have a lot more control of the file saving for web in PS, lot more options and the quality loss is insignifiant.
Take a look at my Portfolio page. All of my files are 640x480px/72dpi/50-60quality/jpegs.
Also are you using any caching / minifing plugins?
-
I'm using smushit to make the file size smaller, but I need to be able to at least have 1170 for full width posts (like this one.) I don't think I need to use save for web if I'm using smush it do I?
Does having css resize the images cause a site to slow down a lot?
-
I think that your images are very big and are slowing down your page speed and affect your rankings. Why don't you try to scale and reduce the quality using the "Save for web" feature in PS, it's fast and you have the option to compare with the original file when saving? 800x600 , 640x480 px are large enough to be properly visualized, Think about the different screen resolutions your visitors have. I avoid using pictures larger than 100kb and my average picture quality when saved for web is 60%. Hope it helps.
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
-
Why Is Google Showing My Images Upside Down in the Index?
Hi, My client has PDFs of their catalog on the site which google is indexing. However, it seems that google is taking an image from the catalog and then showing it upside in the index for images/search results. The images are not upside down on the site. Has anyone heard of this happening before or does anyone know a way to fix it? Thanks
Web Design | | AliMac260 -
404's and a drop in Rank - Site maps? Data Highlighter?
I managed an old (2006 design) ticket site that was hosted and run by the same company that handled our point of sale. (Think, really crappy, customer had to click through three pages to get to the tickets, etc.) In Mid February, we migrated that old site to a new, more powerful site, built by a company that handles sites exclusively for ticket brokers. (My site: TheTicketKing. - dot - com) Before migration, I set up 301's for all the pages that we had currently ranked for, and had inbound links pointing to, etc. The CMS allowed me to set every one of those landing pages up with fresh content, so I created unique content for all of them, ran them through the Moz grader before launch, etc. We launched the site in Mid February, and it seemed like Google responded well. All the pages that we had 301's set up for stayed up fairly well in rank, and some even reached higher positions, while some took a few weeks to get back up to where they were before. Google was also giving us an average of 8-10K impressions per day, compared to 3000 per day with the old site. I started to notice a slow drop in impressions in mid April (after two months of love from Google,) and we lost rank on all our non branded pages around 4/23. Our branded terms are still fine, we didn't get a message from Google, and I reached out to the company that manages our site, asking if they had any issues with their other clients. They suggested that I resubmit our sitemaps. I did, and saw everything bump back up (impressions and rank) for just one week. Now we're back in the basement with all the non branded terms once again. I realize that Google could have penalized us without giving us a message, but what got me somewhat optimistic was the fact that resubmitting our sitemaps did bring us back up for around a week. One other thing that I was working on with the site just before the drop was Google's data highlighter. I submitted a set of pages that now come back with errors, after Google seemed to be fine with the data set before I submitted it. So now I'm looking at over 300 data highlighter errors when I'm in WMT. I deleted that set, but I still get the error listings in WMT, as if Google is still trying to understand those pages. Would that have an effect on our rank? Finally I do see that our 404's have risen steadily since the migration, to over 1000 now, and the people who manage the CMS tell me that it would have no effect on rank overall. And we're going to continue to get 404's as the nature of a ticket site would dictate? (Not sure on that, but that's what I was told.) Would anyone care to chime in on these thoughts, or any other clues as to my drop?
Web Design | | Ticket_King0 -
Responsive Design vs Mobile For This Site?
They are going to do an entire website redesign for http://gaport.com/ and I think they should adhere to responsive design best practices. However, I'm just saying that because everything I have read says that's the "way of the future" if not the way of the present already. Any reason, they shouldn't do that and keep the desktop/mobile sites? Thanks, Ruben
Web Design | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Is there something fundamentally wrong with our site architecture?
Hi everyone! Could a few of you brilliant people take a look at the architecture of this site http://www.ccisolutions.com, and let me know if you see any obvious problems? I have run the site through XENU, and all of our most important pages, including categories and products, are no deeper than level 3. Everything deeper than that is, in most cases, an image, a pdf or an orphaned page (of which we have thousands). Could having thousands upon thousands of orphaned pages be having a more hurtful effect on our rankings than our site architecture? I have made loud noises and suggested that duplicate content, site speed and dilution of page authority due to all those orphaned pages are some of the primary reasons we don't rank as well as we could. But, I think those suggestions just aren't sexy or dramatic enough, so there is much shaking of heads and discussion that it must be something fundamentally wrong with site architecture. I know re-arranging the furniture is more fun than scrubbing the floors, but I think our problems are more about fundamental cleanup than moving things around What do you think?
Web Design | | danatanseo0 -
Question re. crawlable textual content
I have a client who is struggling to fit crawlable textual content on their pages. I'm wondering if we can add a "Learn More..." feature that works as a mouse over pop up. When a page visitor runs their curser over the link or button, a window bubble pops up and textual content about the page will show. Not knowing much about code, can text in this format be crawlable by search engines and count as unique and relevant content? Thanks, Dino
Web Design | | Dino640 -
Question About Site Redesign and Nav / Page Structure
Hey guys, i am currently redesigning our company's site, and have come across some things that I'm not quite sure of. We used to have individual service pages in our main navigation (design, video, marketing) before the redesign. In this new design, i had the idea of making just one "services" or "capabilities" page, where these three services would each be outlined, and each service would have a list of links to more specific landing pages. Obviously, breaking it up correctly with HTML5 using the andtags. What I'm wondering is that if i'm going to be penalized for having those three services that aren't necessarily related too closely on the same page as opposed to having the one page for each service (like we have now). Any help would be greatly appreciated, and let me know if i need to elaborate more. Thanks in advance!
Web Design | | RenderPerfect0 -
Aged .com domain or brand new .co.uk for UK site?
Should i buy a 2 year old .com domain or brand new .co.uk domain for a site i am making for UK (google.co.uk optimisation). I am struggling to find good aged .co.uk domains, there are loads of nice .com's that are old, any thoughts? thanks
Web Design | | SamBuck0 -
Why is site not being indexed by Google, and not showing on a crawl test??
On a site we developed of which .com is forwarded to .net domain, we quit getting crawled by google on about the 20th of Feb. Now when we try to run a crawl test on either url, we get There was an error fetching this page. Error description For some reason the page returned did not describe itself as an html page. It could be possible that the url is serving an image, rss feed, pdf, or xml file of some sort. The crawl tool does not currently report metrics on this type of data. Our other sites are fine and this was up to this date. We took out noodp, noydir today as the only thing we could think of. Site is on WP cms.
Web Design | | RobertFisher0