Google pagespeed / lazy image load
-
Hi,
we are using the apache module of google pagespeed. It works really great, helps a lot. But today I've asked me one question:
Does the "lazy load" feature for images harm the ranking?
The module reworks the page to load the images only if the are visible at the screen. Is this behavior also triggered by the google bot? Or are the images invisible for google?
Any expirience about that?
Best wishes,
Georg.
-
this does a pretty good job of explaining lazy load
http://www.thesempost.com/lazy-loading-images-likely-will-indexed-google/
-
hey that was a fast response i usually dont get that response from google lol .. anyway post an update, ok? would like to know the answer aswell..
-
Yesterday, I've written a support mail to bing webmastertools. Surprisingly I got a very comprehensive answer within hours! Thumbs up!
The answer: "Yes, you are right. Since this lazy load feature is a 3<sup>rd</sup> party application, as initial troubleshooting steps and to isolate the issue, please try to turn off this feature on your end."
Well, I try to turn off the lazy load for the specific page and see what's happening.
Best wishes,
Georg. -
i think i already answered this question
" what i know is that anything generated by javascript is unreadable by any search engine robot"
so probably thats the reason why its not found on image search engine .. anyway ill wait for other answers too
-
Hi,
test google versus bing:
I am searching results for
site:schicksal.com Freitag, der 13.
Bing, organic: http://goo.gl/bfXAU0 - article found on 1st position
Bing, image search: http://goo.gl/EXDSdv - no search resultsGoogle, organic: http://goo.gl/VIi5C6 - article found on 1st position
Google, image: http://goo.gl/m5SRjA - main article image is found on 1st positionI've done some other quick checks with Bing: The big images are NOT found at the image search, only the teaser images which are on the overview pages.
So, can anybody confirm this behavior? Do Bing have a problem with the lazy load of google.pagespeed?
Best wishes,
Georg.
-
im curious too what i know is that anything generated by javascript is unreadable by any search engine robot.. they just dont know that language its client side .. but the thing with lazy load is that the content is there just the image is not loaded until its shown on screen.. i mean the tags wrapping up the image.. if webmaster tool "fetch as googlebot" could fetch it then you dont have to worry anything.. but still i wanna know others opinion too
-
Just tried to use the Google Webmaster Tool "fetch as googlebot" - the lazy loaded images where shown on the screenshot.
But the question remains: Is it possible that the google bot is not seeing the images for the ranking because the are loaded with javascript?
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Have Your Thoughts Changed Regarding Canonical Tag Best Practice for Pagination? - Google Ignoring rel= Next/Prev Tagging
Hi there, We have a good-sized eCommerce client that is gearing up for a relaunch. At this point, the staging site follows the previous best practice for pagination (self-referencing canonical tags on each page; rel=next & prev tags referencing the last and next page within the category). Knowing that Google does not support rel=next/prev tags, does that change your thoughts for how to set up canonical tags within a paginated product category? We have some categories that have 500-600 products so creating and canonicalizing to a 'view all' page is not ideal for us. That leaves us with the following options (feel it is worth noting that we are leaving rel=next / prev tags in place): Leave canonical tags as-is, page 2 of the product category will have a canonical tag referencing ?page=2 URL Reference Page 1 of product category on all pages within the category series, page 2 of product category would have canonical tag referencing page 1 (/category/) - this is admittedly what I am leaning toward. Any and all thoughts are appreciated! If this were in relation to an existing website that is not experiencing indexing issues, I wouldn't worry about these. Given we are launching a new site, now is the time to make such a change. Thank you! Joe
Web Design | | Joe_Stoffel1 -
Including key words in alt image attributes - stuffing etc?
I'm pretty new to all this but seem to have been getting good result by adjusting our sit to meet the seomoz on page analysis factors. I'm currently adjusting the alt image attributes for this page: www.katalysticevents.com The copy I'm writing is aimed at targeting "luxury marquee hire". It's quite hard to get the keyword into a readable image attribute which properly relates to the image. So my question is if I add say " | Luxury Marquee" onto the end of each image attribute would this get penalised and seen as keyword stuffing or something like that? My image attributes would be:
Web Design | | EdoubleD
Cocktail bar inside Giant Tipi at night | Luxury Marquee Hire Live Band on stage | Luxury Marquee Hire and so on. Thanks!!!!0 -
Comparing the site structure/design of my live site to my new design
Hi SEOmoz team, for the last few months I've been working on a new design for my website, the old, live design can be viewed at http://www.concerthotels.com - it is primarily focused on helping users find hotels close to concert venues throughout North America. The old structure was built in such a way that each concert venue had a number of different pages associated with it (all connected via tabs) - a page with information about the venue, a page with nearby hotels to the venue, a page of upcoming events, a page of venue reviews. An example of these pages can be seen at: http://www.concerthotels.com/venue/madison-square-garden/304484 http://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/madison-square-garden-hotels/304484 http://www.concerthotels.com/venue-events/madison-square-garden-events/304484 http://www.concerthotels.com/venue-reviews/madison-square-garden-reviews/304484 The /venue-hotels/ pages are the most important pages on my website - and there is one of these pages for each concert venue - they are the landing pages for about 90% of the traffic on the website. I decided that having four pages for each venue was probably a poor design, since many of the pages ended up having little or no useful, unique content. So my new design attempts to bring a lot of the venue information together into fewer pages. My new website redesign is temporarily situated at: (not currently launched to the public) http://www.concerthotels.com/frontend The equivalent pages for Madison Square Garden are now: http://www.concerthotels.com/frontend/venue/madison-square-garden/304484 (the page above contains venue information, events and reviews) and http://www.concerthotels.com/frontend/venue-hotels/madison-square-garden-hotels/304484 I would really appreciate any feedback from you guys, based on what you think of the new site design compared to the old design from an SEO point of view. Of course, any feedback on site speed, easy of use etc compared to the old design would also be greatly appreciated. 🙂 My main fear is that when I launch the new design (the new URLs will be identical to the old ones), Google will take a dislike to it - I currently receive a large percentage of my traffic through Google organic search, so I don't want to launch a design that might damage that traffic. My gut instinct tells me that Google should prefer the new design - vastly reduced number of pages, each page now contains more unique content, and it's very much designed for users, so I'm hoping bounce rate, conversion etc will improve too. But my gut has been wrong in the past! 🙂 But I'd love to hear your thoughts, and thanks in advance for any feedback, Cheers Mike
Web Design | | mjk260 -
SEO Issues From Image Hotlinking?
I have a client who is hotlinking their images from one of their domains. I'm assuming the images were originally stored on the first domain (let's call it SiteA.com) and when they were putting together SiteB.com, they decided to just link to the images directly on SiteA.com instead of moving the images to Site B. Essentially hotlinking. Site A is not using the images in any way and in essence is just a gateway for their other sites and in this case a storage for their images. It doesn't use those images at all, so it really doesn't get any benefits of the images being referenced since I read that Google sometimes counts that hotlinking as a "vote" for the original image. But again, since ite A doesn't use the images that are being hotlinked at all, there's no benefit for Site A. My concern is that it's affecting their SEO for Site B because it makes it look like Site B is simply scraping data by hotlinking those images from Site A. Their programmer suggested creating a virtual directory so that it "looked" like it was coming from Site B. My guess is that Google can see this, so then not only will it look like Site B is scaping/hotlinking images, but also trying to hide it which may send up red flags to Google. My suggesstion to them was to just upload the images correctly into their own images directory on Site B. They own the images, so there's not any copyright issue, but that if they want proper SEO credit for that content, it all needs to be housed on the correct server and not hotlinked. Am I correct in this or will the virtual directory serve just as well?
Web Design | | GeorgiaSEOServices1 -
Do I need to redirect soft 404s that I got from Google Webmaster Tools?
Hi guys, I got almost 1000+ soft 404s from GWT. All of the soft 404s produce 200 HTTP status code but the URLs are something like the following: http://www.example.com/search/house-for-rent (query used: house for rent) http://www.example.com/search/-----------rent (query used:-------rent) There are no listings that match these queries and there is an advanced search that is visible in these pages. Here are my questions: 1. Do I need to redirect each page to its appropriate landing page? 2. Do I need to add user sitemap or a list of URLs where they can search for other properties? Any suggestions would help. 🙂
Web Design | | esiow20130 -
Wordpress/ Insert Tables/ SEO
I'm using Wordpress to create websites and blogs. I have limited (non-existent) HTML Coding knowledge. I'm looking to insert tables within my pages with information. Inside of these tables I want certain names to link to another page with more specific information about that name. I'm using a plugin called "WP Tables Reloaded" it simple helps you to create aesthetically pleasing tables without needing to know HTML Code or CSS. The issue is... when you create this table and insert it to the post, the only thing that shows on the sites back-end page is the table I.D. and the only thing that shows in the HTML is the tables I.D. It looks like this... [table id=2 /] I don't think search engines will be able to crawl this table, thus I won't be receiving any credit for the links being used within the table. Am I right about this?
Web Design | | AndySolo0 -
Looking for a Static Blog Roll (Directory) plug in / tool
I am looking to add a static page to my site to allow people to add their site to a 'master directory". I'd like to make this as SEO friendly as possible. Here's it what I would really like to be able to do. 1. Someone visits the page and can either browse the blog directory on that page, or 2. Fill out a short from that has their blog name, url, short description of their blog, their state, country, and maybe the option to upload an image as well. This way people can search by the state / country to find people near by. 3. I'd like the links to be no-follow. 4. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to do this (I think I've seen some plug in's that may be able to do it.) 5. I'm also not sure if there is anything I'm missing here that could make this better. What I don't want is just a long list of links like everyone has on their side bar. I'd like to make it better, more user friendly, more seo friendly, and more helpful than that. Any creative input on how I might do this is appreciated. Thanks. 🙂
Web Design | | NoahsDad0 -
What is the new Google SERP highlighting?
My question is with the new Google SERP. I posted a pic of it at http://www.hortonwebdesign.com/images/new-google-page.gif. If you mouse over the arrows to the right of a result on the SERP, it pops up a preview of the page. On some results it also highlights a section of the page with a red box. What does this represent? Does it represent a key area that they are looking at in determining the positioning? I have some clients that are asking me and it doesn't make a lot of sense. In my example above I searched for "seo expert in georgia" and on my result (I'm #2), it shows a preview, but the part it has chosen to highlight with a red box is just, um, ...useless. It's highlighting a Recent Post sidebar on the right halfway down the page. Surely this can't be what they're looking at as what they view as "useful" to that search. This simply can't be what they're using to determine positioning. Or is it? Just please explain what I'm seeing here. new-google-page.gif.
Web Design | | GeorgiaSEOServices0