Comment · Thu, December 10, 2020 · ND Owner
ND Website feedback
Original post in this thread
blxxdstxned · 23 points
ND team, first, thank you for all that you do!
Not sure if it has been brought to your attention, but the images on your website have been compressed to the point they are virtually illegible. Here is the label preview for lemon balm: https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-cebedmpn/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/329/3557/Lemon-Balm-Extract-250g-2x6-LA\_\_27304.1584724761.jpg. The label for micromag powder is equally poor. This effect does not appear to be consistent, as bacopa's label preview seems perfectly fine.
It was a bit annoying, but not a huge deal. I know you guys run a tight ship, so I figured you would like to know.
What they were answering
rao-blackwell-ized · 2 points
Page speed being a ranking factor under the UX umbrella does not mean uncompressed images result in a "penalty." Regardless, losslessly compressing your images is never a bad idea.
Specifically, all things being equal, a faster-loading page will outrank a slower page, but that doesn't mean the slower page is being "penalized." In SEO terms, a penalty refers to things like duplicate content, excessive ads, not being mobile-friendly, cloaking, etc. for which the website would experience drastic rankings drops or deindexing.
JPEG format shouldn't be used for images with text.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
Got it. You are just saying it's not a direct penalty per se, but a faster loading page will rank higher. Ergo, a page with uncompressed images will rank lower. So while not being penalized directly because images are uncompressed, compressing images will result in higher rankings. I suppose that is just semantics, then. Compressing images is a good idea. However, the level to which they are compressed is a compromise between image quality and page speed loading times. We just need to find the appropriate compression level that strikes the right balance between readability and loading times.