Forum Moderators: open
by reducing the weights of the images
reducing the amount of code
Would you say his advice is correct, please say why.
By reducing the image weight you make more easy to navigate your web site for the user: statistics display that if a page require more of 15 seconds to open ,it is abandoned.
So if you reduce the image weight it can be opened more quickly and the user feels better to navigate it.
Not only: Search Engines "prefer" and better index simple pages rich of good contents instead of a lot of images.
The codes in general have a "weight" for the Search Engines;this is out of question: too much codes or their improper codes could result in a penalty or at least in a difficult ranking.
Usually,to make the page "Search Engine friendly" its code have to be validated with purpose made software,that provide to "clean up" and make "slim" the page.
You could have an idea visiting this web site: www.
But is something that you shouldn't do if you don't know well what are you doing.
Off topic but I have it as 8 seconds.
For example, if you utilize source ordered html/xhtml, that 20k left hand navigation menu can be placed at the bottom of the html code. Or, that 30k top navigation menu can be placed down there too.
If for some reason you have pages that cross the 100k mark, source ordered html/xhtml might be in order. If that is not an option, then you should take your SEO's advice and start trimming out the fat. ;)
but it is NOT a seo issue, the 100k limit for pages that is bandied about does NOT include images, a spider does not care how big they are.
having said that smaller pages do often rank better (although this may be for reasons other than the fact the page is 'small'), but the size of the images are not a consideration in ranking
This is true. Image size does not affect spidering. It is the size of the code alone.
however in nearly all cases this can be addressed by compressing the images properly, buying a good compression software such as ulead smartsaver pro (i find it much easier to use than imageready/photoshop) can work wonders.
i often see 200k grafics which could be the same dimensions and quality at a fraction of the overhead if they were compressed properly.
sometimes there are too many on a page ... my favourite competitor has product image galleries showing about 50 a page with each one weighing in at around 100k+ - now thats one hell of a download for a single web page! i can't believe they sell anything from the website
compare the sizes with the size of your pages, if they are significantly smaller, then consider that he may have a point.
... but remember its not just the size its what you do with it that counts.
If you have a page with 200K of text only 100K will be indexed meaning that your site will not be found for any of the keywords or phrases that appear in the "bottom" 100K.
Google normally spiders up to 100K of a web page text. Images are not included so they have no impact on your final position in the SERPs. As has already been stated, large images mean that your page will take longer to load. Any longer than 8 seconds and you risk your vsitors surfing off into the sunset.
I think Specter was referring to image problems WRT page load time as opposed to SE spidering.
Exactly.As I consider to optimize a web site not only for SEs but also for the users;you could have thousands of visitors per day but if your pages are "heavy" to open or the site is complicated or difficult to navigate you fail your goal.
SE's definitely do not care about the size of images on your site.
This is true.As i said:
Search Engines "prefer" and better index simple pages rich of good contents instead of a lot of images.
