Another Website Optimization Post -...

User 179298 Photo


Trial User
63 posts

I've been helping a friend with her web store. We've been adding quite a bit content, popups (yep!), info and just a truckload of new products. And of course each product has a thumbnail and at least 1 higher quality pic. The thumbs are 3k-5k, the full size up to 38k. Not overly large in my estimation. Even the images with the imagemaps that we can't figure how to rotate on a weekly basis. (hint ... I have another post on that!)

So today we get a call from the shopping cart software dudes saying we're over bandwidth and it's because our pics aren't optimized. Hmmm. So that brought up the question how he could tell they weren't optimized. He couldn't answer that. But insisted we needed to optimize anyway.

The big question: just exactly what is optimized for the web? I told my friend "Optimizing photos means getting them to the absolute lowest acceptable image quality. It's a trade off between what you will accept and what the consumer will wait for to download." How's that sound? And wouldn't you consider a pic 3k-5k or 38k optimized? The site gearzoneproducts.com, if any one would like to take a look and comment. Many thanks, .... Ken
User 42277 Photo


Ambassador
84 posts

I use paint shop pro for my graphics..to optimize the photo..I just have to use the export to jpg/gif/or png..with the wizard..I can optimize them as I see fit..you can also optimize them in coffeecup html editor...optimize = compress...
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
User 179298 Photo


Trial User
63 posts

Hi Lewis,

I actually use Adobe Image Ready to optimize the pics. Does a decent job. Of course, it's all in the parameters you set up. So, just exactly where is the optimization in CC Editor? I've looked; can't find it. Always willing to try something new.

Ken
User 117361 Photo


Ambassador
6,076 posts

peculiarsound wrote:
Hi Lewis,

I actually use Adobe Image Ready to optimize the pics. Does a decent job. Of course, it's all in the parameters you set up. So, just exactly where is the optimization in CC Editor? I've looked; can't find it. Always willing to try something new.

Ken

Hi Ken,
I took a look at your site and certainly the product images, both thumbs and enlargements seem to be a reasonable "size" and "weight"
Is the server talking about other aspects of your site perhaps? Do they limit you to a "weight" per page or item?
I guess you could optimize further and take each enlargement down to about 10k, but I really think they should provide you with something more to work on so as to know if there are limits imposed on you.
Janys
User 179298 Photo


Trial User
63 posts

janwyse wrote:
Hi Ken,
I took a look at your site and certainly the product images, both thumbs and enlargements seem to be a reasonable "size" and "weight"
Is the server talking about other aspects of your site perhaps? Do they limit you to a "weight" per page or item?
I guess you could optimize further and take each enlargement down to about 10k, but I really think they should provide you with something more to work on so as to know if there are limits imposed on you.
Janys

HI Janys,

Thanks for looking at our pages. I'm thinking they're currently upset about the amount of upload we're doing getting that site up to speed. I've done a lot of optimization work over the past couple of months. We did have some image load problems a month back or so. Plus we have programmers in the UK and other sites working on it, too. We asked the host for the stats they were referencing in citing we were over our bandwidth. But couldn't get them. We're hosted by MonsterCommerce. They charge for everything, it seems.

I tried taking some of the images down further but lost too much detail. I know when I'm e-shopping I want to see a good pic of the product. I just don't think I can take the tables down any further and still retain any clarity. Not at my skill level.

Here's the real Catch 22. To get up on Googles pages you need lots of searchable content - copy, images w/alt tags, urls and metas. If you put all that up, then the pages get too heavy and don't load fast. D@mnd if you do ...... etc. :)
User 117361 Photo


Ambassador
6,076 posts

peculiarsound wrote:
janwyse wrote:
Hi Ken,
I took a look at your site and certainly the product images, both thumbs and enlargements seem to be a reasonable "size" and "weight"
Is the server talking about other aspects of your site perhaps? Do they limit you to a "weight" per page or item?
I guess you could optimize further and take each enlargement down to about 10k, but I really think they should provide you with something more to work on so as to know if there are limits imposed on you.
Janys

HI Janys,

Thanks for looking at our pages. I'm thinking they're currently upset about the amount of upload we're doing getting that site up to speed. I've done a lot of optimization work over the past couple of months. We did have some image load problems a month back or so. Plus we have programmers in the UK and other sites working on it, too. We asked the host for the stats they were referencing in citing we were over our bandwidth. But couldn't get them. We're hosted by MonsterCommerce. They charge for everything, it seems.

I tried taking some of the images down further but lost too much detail. I know when I'm e-shopping I want to see a good pic of the product. I just don't think I can take the tables down any further and still retain any clarity. Not at my skill level.

Here's the real Catch 22. To get up on Googles pages you need lots of searchable content - copy, images w/alt tags, urls and metas. If you put all that up, then the pages get too heavy and don't load fast. D@mnd if you do ...... etc. :)

I guess it is out of the question changing your server?
;(
User 179298 Photo


Trial User
63 posts

Oh ....... I'd say probably not. :/
User 117361 Photo


Ambassador
6,076 posts

peculiarsound wrote:
Oh ....... I'd say probably not. :/

Right,
So we solved that one painlessly enough then!! Let's move on to the next issue!!!
Forgive the flippancy.......but it does make my blood boil!!
You're really caught up in a Catch 22 here otherwise..
Janys ;(
User 51909 Photo


Registered User
3,694 posts

I just had a check of your images and I would say that while you may be able to squeeze a k here and there, they are more than fine. Just go check out other stores image sizes to get a real idea of what you should be aiming at. I guess (had a look, not so much of a guess), that your sizes are fine.

Mark
Mark Loves CoffeeCup
User 179298 Photo


Trial User
63 posts

Mark Searson wrote:
I just had a check of your images and I would say that while you may be able to squeeze a k here and there, they are more than fine. Just go check out other stores image sizes to get a real idea of what you should be aiming at. I guess (had a look, not so much of a guess), that your sizes are fine.

Mark

Mark, thanks for taking time to look at my site. Much appreciated. I'd say we're there for size, and as Janys put it - weight. Must admit I'd not heard that term. So for now, it's ever onward!! Which ..... brings me back (onward?) to http://www.coffeecup.com/forums/topic-archives/how-do-i-know-if-a-problem-in-fixed/285. Could sure use some help there. :)

Ken

Have something to add? We’d love to hear it!
You must have an account to participate. Please Sign In Here, then join the conversation.