| 5:28 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's highly unlikely. Does the GIF have an alt attibute with a lot of words in it, and is it just an image, or used as a link?
| 5:45 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It shouldn't be a problem with that as long as your page is below 100k, but it's better to keep the max at 75k.
How differences of your ranking before and after? If it's not much, then, it's normal for all of us because my ranking is moving a bit up and down all the time.
| 6:01 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|My html size went from 24k to 30k after I added a gif image. |
I can't believe that your HTML size went 6k up only for adding gif image. It doesn't mater what is actual image size in kB. What does matter is just HTML code size in kB.
| 6:10 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>My html size went from 24k to 30k after I added a gif image.
Wow - a 6k image tag? Are you sure you mean the html size and not the overall size of the page (html + images)? A 6k image tag would mean, 6.000 characters used to specify the image.
This is a 0.059k image tag:
<img src="mygif.gif" alt="my gif" width="100" height="100">
Imagine a 6k tag ...
So if you mean the overall size of your page increased by 6k (including image sizes) this wouldn't influence anything at google. Googlebot indexes just code + text.
| 6:17 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|So if you mean the overall size of your page increased by 6k (including image sizes) |
yes...I mean the overall size of the page increased by 6k. I did add some new text so some of this is included. The gif itself is only 4kb. I didn't mean to say html size. It was the overall page size. Google shows the actual page size in SERPS.
I had read in places that Google prefers smaller pages. I didnt know if this just meant text or overall page size.
| 6:36 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I didnt know if this just meant text or overall page size. |
Now you know ;)
|Googlebot indexes just code + text. |
| 6:57 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think anyone said definitively if Google prefers smaller pages. It seems that even if Google does not index images, they surely affect load time--which could adversely impact rankings.
| 7:04 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If a page is so slow it times out, it could be passed over but the load time would be more likely to affect buyer conversions than rankings.
| 7:05 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I don't think anyone said definitively if Google prefers smaller pages.
crobb305, it's allways problematic to say something definitively about google.
The smaller pages issue has been discussed in the past - controversial.
- Is There A Contradiction In What Google Likes? [webmasterworld.com]
- Content Density Observation [webmasterworld.com]
What i know for sure though is that my visitors prefer smaller pages.
| 7:21 am on Oct 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I mean the overall size of the page increased by 6k. I did add some new text so some of this is included. The gif itself is only 4kb. |
So you didn't just add an image.
In adding that text you've probably effectively changed the whole balance of your page on a lot of factors.
Density. Prominence. Proximity. Distribution. Code/text ratio. Stop/Key word ratio.
Any number of things.
The image will be the least of it.
| 5:32 am on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I do not think so page size is related to ranking. My sitemap size is 140 k. There are no images in my sitemap. Yet my sitemap gets good rankings on Google and MSN.
| 9:19 am on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Crobb305 (and others),
images are called seperately from the html so they have no effect on search engine spiders, which don't bother with the images.
i.e.a normal browser downloads the html and then downloads the images listed. A spider doesn't call for the images so they're never downloaded and don't affect download times or anything else as far as the spider is concerned.
| 10:18 am on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Forget the spiders and consider me.
I have a 56k modem. I want to get down to the content I want without having to wait an age for page loads.
I'm your average internet user.
| 12:00 pm on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am a programmer just like the boys and girls at Google. It is likely that we think much alike.
I am sure many other scheduling priorities also exist such as PR.
| 12:04 pm on Oct 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The size of the page only becomes a problem if the pages is so large that it either takes a long time to load or it times out and nothing is displayed. Google doesnt like pages that randomly vanish however a page size of 30kb is very small. A lot of pages maybe perhaps 200kb or even more than that and Google will index them with no problem at all.