Page size over 100k

Does that INCLUDE images?

[cheater copperpot]

Hello all, I have heard that Google will not index pages that are over 100k. Is this true? My index.htm file is about 50k but there are a lot of images on there that push the size over 100k. Will this affect my chance of getting decent rankings in google?

Thanks for any help.

[snowfox121]

This is not true at all. i have a page that is 268k, of which only 48k is represented by images, and Google spiders it and lists in in results with a cache.

[xbase234]

I've never heard of this - don't think it should be a problem.

[andreasfriedrich]

[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]

[cheater copperpot]

Great..thanks!

forgot about that darn search function =)

[WebGuerrilla]

>>i have a page that is 268k, of which only 48k is represented by images, and Google spiders it and lists in in results with a cache.

The size limit doesn't include images. If you look at a cached version of a page that is over 100k, you will see that that the page is clipped. Google will crawl pages larger than 100k, but they will only store the first 100k of data.

[caine]

the html aspect of the page should not be over 35k+ that is taking the proverbial, with images as well think about the person on the other end who has a 56k modem, approx download at max off 4.8k and it goes down from there, its not just google's indexing your working against, its the speed of the peoples media and mediums provided by what they can afford in their demographic area's.

Play safe, keep the pages small in HMTL (5-15k) and image size (weight - 5k per image. max 4 images). About 5% of the world is on broadband and that ain't necessarily a big buadband rate at that.

Accessability and usability, are as important as any aspect of a site.
Your site may top the engines, but if it brakes an individual searchers patience, forget them - Whats the point.

[snowfox121]

You are so right, WebGuerilla. When i saw the cache of my 220k of data, i never thought to scroll down to see if it was all there. It cuts off about half way down.

I understand the concept of keeping pages small, but in my case there seems no good way to do it. i tried cutting the info up into smaller chunks of 10k each, but users like to browse through all the info, so eventually they end up waiting the total time anyway, just in smaller bits. My link to the page has a warning about the size. What do you folks think about these "loading" javascripts. Do they make the wait seem shorter? Are they a good idea?

I think in most cases, smaller is better.

[vitaplease]

[webmasterworld.com...]

also keep in mind where in the page you have the links you want to have followed.