How big is too big?

what is the consensus on how big is too big of a file for google to index?

[stuntdubl]

I'd love to have all my sites extremely small and fast on a 56k modem, but the simple fact is that a picture still tells 1000 words. I am rolling out a site that is quite image heavy, but in my opinion they are necessary. How big is too big for Google, I've heard 100k, but can someone tell me anything definitive as to how big of a page is too big to be indexed?

[martin]

Google shows 101k as the maximum values on SERPS.

[ikbenhet1]

i think only the html size counts, and not the kb's of all images on the site.

101k means 101k of html code, not total kb's of images etc etc.

[topr8]

i think only the html size counts

absolutely, only the code counts, you can use external .css and .js to keep code size down.

if you call your webpage in a browser, view source and save that file, right click, properties will give you the file size.

[stuntdubl]

Very good....thanks.....any opinion on how big is too big WITH images....more from a user standpoint than from G's?

[ikbenhet1]

mostly when websites load big images i:

-wait 5 seconds
-panic 5 seconds
-go elswhere.

so max 10 seconds, which i think is very long already, but hey that's me.

[Marcia]

Sometimes you just cannot control it. I've got one doing just fine that's 258KB on the homepage with images. It's slow as molasses on 56K but the site converts and I've stopped feuding about it. It might convert more if it loaded faster, but we're not always calling the shots.

I spent 4 hours Sunday dissecting the code and making a template using external CSS for interior pages that I myself do (87 font tags removed) and crunching graphics. Mine are down to about 54KB, but they don't have as much content that's graphics - just more text.

Sometimes with sites there's a balance between lean-ness and good marketing.

[piskie]

I seem to remember stats presented somewhere that said:

"If not enough meaningfull content is displayed within 8 seconds, 30% of visitors abort and go elsewhere".

This 30% increased in stages until at 12 seconds about 50% have aborted.

[stuntdubl]

I am debating this with myself right now, and any more input would be greatly appreciated. Site approx. =
30k template menu (mouseover images)
30k in background image (4 different templates)
30k in per page images.

The background should load quite quickly to show them the have made it to the page. Then the menu (which should only have to load once), then the other images. It looks very nice, but as we all know it is a fine line between speed and quality. I have optimized all the images as best as possible. Does anyone else have input on this? What is the biggest sized pages people have had success with?

The site is going up monday, so I guess I'll see it in action (It is a redesign from a much smaller, crummy looking frames site). This is my first major redesign since reading extensively on this site, so wish me luck:)

[chris_f]

As a guide I always keep my code to under 10k, although 5k is preferrable). However, that's really just to please the search engines (and some click happy surfers).

All in all though. I have never had a page larger than 100k. This includes images, script, code and content. I never get any complaints about the speed of any of my sites unless there is a major problem.

Chris

[stuntdubl]

I have made sure to keep them all under 100k, but just barely. I guess I'll see if it's it's tolerable to surfers.