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.
Image Height/Width attributes, how important are they and should a best practice site include this as std
- 
					
					
					
					
Hi
How important are the image height/width attributes and would you expect a best practice site to have them included ?
I hear not having them can slow down a page load time is that correct ?
Any other issues from not having them ?
I know some re social sharing (i know bufferapp prefers images with h/w attributes to draw into their selection of image options when you post)
Most importantly though would you expect them to be intrinsic to sites that have been designed according to best practice guidelines ?
Thanks
 - 
					
					
					
					
Thanks for confirming that Paul !
Ive also noticed that when using services like Buffer etc, to post socially, that the articles image is not being displayed as an option in the images to choose from, to display as the image in the post, Instead its only showing options like the site logo etc which we don't want. I asked Buffer tech support and they said that if the images had height/width attributes then they should then be presented as image options to accompany the post
All Best
Dan
 - 
					
					
					
					
Image h x w attributes don't affect the actual speed of your page load much, Dan. They do strongly affect the perceived speed to the user.
If the size attributes are included, the browser can leave a correctly-sized space for each image as the page gets rendered, even if the images haven't started to download yet. Then the rest of the page content flows in around the image "placeholders". (Images are always slower than text.)
If no image size attributes are present, the browser essentially ignores the placing of the images until the image files actually download, then redraws the whole page to add the space back in for the images.
This redrawing for the images means that text and other elements will move around on the page until all the images have downloaded and it has finished rendering. This gives the user an impression of a much slower page, since they can't start to read the content until it has stopped moving around. Done properly, the visitor can start reading the top of the page even while all the images lower on the page are still downloading.
So yes, obviously including height and width attributes for images is standard best practice for designing an effective on-page user experience.
Hope that helps?
Paul
P.S. As proof, Google thinks they're such a standard requirement that they have included a check for them as part of the scoring algorithm of their Google Page Speed tool.
 - 
					
					
					
					
"How important are the image height/width attributes and would you expect a best practice site to have them included ?"
This is not the most important SEO thing in the world BUT according to your 2nd question
"I hear not having them can slow down a page load time is that correct ?"
That`s the point! The question related to this issue is how relevant the whole thing might be?
Modern browsers and broadband connections seem to make this insignificant but just in case there are some visitors which are not using the right settings they might get pictures unscaled and your whole site will be shown non-responsive... by the way, use responsive designs if you can to avoid that...
I
ve always been told to use these parameters . even if you dont need it it ensures that your code is a little bit more perfect
 
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
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		
Best Web-site Structure/ SEO Strategy for an online travel agency?
Dear Experts! I need your help with pointing me in the right direction. So far I have found scattered tips around the Internet but it's hard to make a full picture with all these bits and pieces of information without a professional advice. My primary goal is to understand how I should build my online travel agency web-site’s (https://qualistay.com) structure, so that I target my keywords on correct pages and do not create a duplicate content. In my particular case I have very similar properties in similar locations in Tenerife. Many of them are located in the same villa or apartment complex, thus, it is very hard to come up with the unique description for each of them. Not speaking of amenities and pricing blocks, which are standard and almost identical (I don’t know if Google sees it as a duplicate content). From what I have read so far, it’s better to target archive pages rather than every single property. At the moment my archive pages are: all properties (includes all property types and locations), a page for each location (includes all property types). Does it make sense adding archive pages by property type in addition OR in stead of the location ones if I, for instance, target separate keywords like 'villas costa adeje' and 'apartments costa adeje'? At the moment, the title of the respective archive page "Properties to rent in costa adeje: villas, apartments" in principle targets both keywords... Does using the same keyword in a single property listing cannibalize archive page ranking it is linking back to? Or not, unless Google specifically identifies this as a duplicate content, which one can see in Google Search Console under HTML Improvements and/or archive page has more incoming links than a single property? If targeting only archive pages, how should I optimize them in such a way that they stay user-friendly. I have created (though, not yet fully optimized) descriptions for each archive page just below the main header. But I have them partially hidden (collapsible) using a JS in order to keep visitors’ focus on the properties. I know that Google does not rank hidden content high, at least at the moment, but since there is a new algorithm Mobile First coming up in the near future, they promise not to punish mobile sites for a collapsible content and will use mobile version to rate desktop one. Does this mean I should not worry about hidden content anymore or should I move the descirption to the bottom of the page and make it fully visible? Your feedback will be highly appreciated! Thank you! Dmitry
Technical SEO | | qualistay1 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
How to Delete the slug /category/ from wordpress category pages
Hi all, I would like to ask you what's the better way to eliminate the slug /category/ form the wordpress category pages. I need to delete the slug /category/ to make the url seo frendly. The problem is that my site is an old site with the page indexed by Google for a long time. Thanks for your advice.
Technical SEO | | salvyy0 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
Staging site and "live" site have both been indexed by Google
While creating a site we forgot to password protect the staging site while it was being built. Now that the site has been moved to the new domain, it has come to my attention that both the staging site (site.staging.com) and the "live" site (site.com) are both being indexed. What is the best way to solve this problem? I was thinking about adding a 301 redirect from the staging site to the live site via HTACCESS. Any recommendations?
Technical SEO | | melen0 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
Correct linking to the /index of a site and subfolders: what's the best practice? link to: domain.com/ or domain.com/index.html ?
Dear all, starting with my .htaccess file: RewriteEngine On
Technical SEO | | inlinear
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.inlinear.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://inlinear.com/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.html
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html$ http://inlinear.com/ [R=301,L] 1. I redirect all URL-requests with www. to the non www-version...
2. all requests with "index.html" will be redirected to "domain.com/" My questions are: A) When linking from a page to my frontpage (home) the best practice is?: "http://domain.com/" the best and NOT: "http://domain.com/index.php" B) When linking to the index of a subfolder "http://domain.com/products/index.php" I should link also to: "http://domain.com/products/" and not put also the index.php..., right? C) When I define the canonical ULR, should I also define it just: "http://domain.com/products/" or in this case I should link to the definite file: "http://domain.com/products**/index.php**" Is A) B) the best practice? and C) ? Thanks for all replies! 🙂
Holger0 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
OK to block /js/ folder using robots.txt?
I know Matt Cutts suggestions we allow bots to crawl css and javascript folders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNEipHjsEPU) But what if you have lots and lots of JS and you dont want to waste precious crawl resources? Also, as we update and improve the javascript on our site, we iterate the version number ?v=1.1... 1.2... 1.3... etc. And the legacy versions show up in Google Webmaster Tools as 404s. For example: http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global_functions.js?v=1.1
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.cookie.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global.js?v=1.2
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.validate.min.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/json2.js?v=1.1 Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent Googlebot from crawling the js folder altogether? Isn't that what robots.txt was made for? Just to be clear - we are NOT doing any sneaky redirects or other dodgy javascript hacks. We're just trying to power our content and UX elegantly with javascript. What do you guys say: Obey Matt? Or run the javascript gauntlet?0 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
Video Sitemaps <video:content_loc>and<video:player_loc></video:player_loc></video:content_loc>
Hi guys, If I'm creating a video sitemap do I need to use both: video:content_locandvideo:player_loc</video:player_loc></video:content_loc> Or could I just use video:content_loc?</video:content_loc> Thanks
Technical SEO | | Tug-Agency0 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
Delete old site but redirect domain to a new domain and site
I just have a quick query and I have a feeling about what the answer is so just wanted to see what you guys thought... Basically I am working on a client site. This client has a few other websites that are divisions of their company. However these divisions/websites are no longer used. They are wanting to delete the websites but redirect the domains to their name main website. They believe this will pass on SEO benefits as these old division sites are old and have a good PR and history. I'm unsure for DEFINITE, which way is correct?
Technical SEO | | Weerdboil0 - 
		
		
		
		
		
		
Google.ca is showing our US site instead of our Canada Site
When our Canadian users who search on google.ca for our brand (e.g. Travelocity, Travelocity hotels, etc.), the first few results our from our US site (travelocity.com) rather than our Canadian site (travelocity.ca). In Google Webmaster Tools, we've adjusted the geotargeting settings to focus on the appropriate locale, but the wrong country TLD is still coming up at the top via google.ca. What's the best way to ensure our Canadian site comes up instead of the US site on google.ca? Thanks, Tory Smith
Technical SEO | | travelocitysearch
Travelocity0