Page loading speed & Google?

[Clodbuster]

"Over the course of 2009, a consistent theme that Google has been involved with is that of speed. In announcement after announcement, Google has talked about the importance of speed on the web, and how the company wants to do everything it can to make the web a faster place. Has it occurred to you that how fast your page loads may have a direct effect on how your site ranks in Google? " http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/ ... or-in-2010

Any opinions? I currently use higher res Jpegs as I want the pictures to be as sharp as possible - the punter is buying on the evidence provided in pictures and text on the premise when people search, their interest is in the content of a site, not the speed.

Right or wrong?

 

[Ali-v-8]

Yes your are right. Google also checks your website for malware and other errors (or a third party does).

 

[edmondscommerce]

AFAIK google doesn't download your pictures, just the textual HTML content.

 

[fisicx]

AFAIK google doesn't download your pictures, just the textual HTML content.

Where do google images get there stuff from then?

 

[eukhost]

Google has always preferred user friendly websites. I am sure adding website's load speed in their algorithm will help them to analyze websites more efficiently.

 

[Ali-v-8]

Yep your are right, But i think he was on about google cant see the images just reads the tags to determine what they are.
But another point is that google does a a quick read then a thorough one after.
This is why sometimes you are up at the top pages then eventually you drop.
Inexperienced seo's start to panic and make changes instead of waiting for it to stagnate.

Where do google images get there stuff from then?

 

[Clodbuster]

Am I right that loading speed is affected by the resolution of the pictures involved?
I think text is loaded first ?? then pictures?? - if so then It may not be an issue but if not, it becomes a balancing act - better resolutions for the punter, lower res for Google.

 

[reggiemental]

Any opinions? I currently use higher res Jpegs as I want the pictures to be as sharp as possible

What resolution are you using for your pics?

 

[Clodbuster]

Thumbnail - 5kB
Expanded view - 20 kB

 

[edmondscommerce]

my point was that i dont think the google spider actually downloads the images - it simply doesn't need to in order to do its job

what is an issue though is how quickly your server spits out the HTML content which the spider does need

if you server is taking over 1 second to render and serve the HTML content then I suspect that will act against you. I would not be concerned about images though, especially with those filesizes, they are perfectly reasonable

 

[clickthrough_seo]

Google has always been very determined that a) no attempts are made to con Google by serving one page to users and a different version to the spider and b) the user gets the best results for their search. Therefore, speed of page load *is* important. Not to the spider per se in doing its job, but as an indication of whether the site is the best site to be ranking at the position in terms of user experience.

If the No 1 link in the SERPs was an image intensive site on a poor host with no bandwidth that took ages to load, would you as a searcher be impressed? Especially if the sites at #2-10 were faster and had similar content or value to you as a searcher?

This announcement that page load times will form part of the ever-increasingly complex algorithms should be a heads up anyway to any site owner/website designer etc to check that they are building sleek, fast sites to satisfy their users.

There is so much unnecessary code in many websites, which bloats the page load and slows everything down. The worst offenders are those who grab a template then amend it until it looks the way they want it, without removing all the code for the unrequired elements.

If you need to use photos to show off your products etc, then better to have thumbnails to capture interest, and then larger photos (1 or 2 to a page) that will help you also to analyse your traffic in more detail and relate clicks to sales/enquiries etc. However, 20k photos are nothing to be worried about - it's the loons who put 25 videos per page who need to think again!

 

[Eagle]

From what I'm hearing, fast servers will also be a requirement. One more nail in the small business' coffin as big corporations can more easily afford them.

 

[clickthrough_seo]

From what I'm hearing, fast servers will also be a requirement. One more nail in the small business' coffin as big corporations can more easily afford them.

Decent hosting in telehouse isn't that expensive. The problem is small businesses don't often know what they don't know and get the cheapest hosting they can lay their hands on, believing it is all the same. And site designers often have hosting deals to offer, but they don't always provide the best advice about SEO, do they?!

<ducks out of inevitable incoming line of fire!!!>