How to avoid using large png files in your WSOs and websites.

33 replies
I've been on a campaign against the use of MASSIVE png files for a while now but given that some people still insist on loading MASSIVE png files anyway (without thinking) here's a quick solution.

https://compressor.io/

It's a free service, just load your MASSIVE png files in and it spits out a lighter version, you can choose between lossless and lossy but the better alternative (for images that don't require both millions of colours AND a transparent background) is to use fairly high quality jpegs. If you use photoshop always use File --> Save for web - jpg high (alt+shift+ctrl+s for you shortcut addicts). You'll almost always end up with a much smaller image which will not only keep google happy thereby earning a higher spot on the SERPs but it will also provide a MUCH better experience for your visitors.

I just tested it (again) on an image I found that someone was using for a normal banner image. It took ages to load so I suspected MASSIVE png syndrome and I was right so I tested it. Here are the results (please forgive the wide images - which is a whole other thread)...

The original as found image was 1,014px -- 161px no transparency used.

1) As found on site - 459.42 KB png
2) After compression using compressor.io using lossless compression - 255kb (46% smaller - no loss in quality)
3) After compression using compressor.io allowing for some loss in quality - 255kb (46% smaller- identical to the lossless - interesting.)
4) After saving in photoshop on "jpeg - high" 42kb!! (almost 90% size reduction! and it looks identical to the original image).

Here are the 4 images...can you tell which one is which?









...I didn't think so and if you can then you're being pedantic and it's not going to affect your visitor's experience one tiny little bit as far as quality goes.

All you guys who think it's clever to slam MASSIVE images into your WSOs might want to consider that you're also totally eliminating any chance that google has of understanding what your WSO is about (can you afford to give up your number 1 spot on google?) and it makes it impossible for any sight impaired warriors (yes there are a few) from being able to "read" what your WSO is about and don't even think about saying "who cares about blind people?" because I can tell you I know of one very active vision impaired warrior who buys WSOs and I'm sure there are many more.

Using MASSIVE pngs is dumb and using MASSIVE pngs in WSOs is even dumber. Warrior forum has extreme power to propel your thread straight to the front page of google if you let google read it (i.e. USE REAL TEXT!) and often straight to the number 1 position. If you can afford to ignore Google then good luck to ya but think before you decide to wow us all with your fancy MASSIVE png graphics.

I have mental issues (clearly) so I always take a look at MASSIVE pngs used in WSOs and here's the current world record holder...



...correct, that's 6.9MBs (WTF?!!) and a WHOPPING 12,000 pixels high! Twelve thousand pixels high! I almost passed out - people in the room asked me if I was ok.

Insanity...pure insanity. Think people, think, think THINK!

I can think of only excuse and that's ignorance but now that you've read this post that's no longer an excuse.

Thank you for listening. [/rant]

P.S. In case you doubt the immense power of the Warrior Forum on google take a look at this thread which went straight to number 1 on google within 11 minutes and this was on merger day when everyone was talking about it and also note that I did not use quotes in the search. I also did NOT use MASSIVE pngs in my sales copy - I just used plain google-readable text and a few light jpgs and look at the result. Can you afford to NOT get to google in 11 minutes? If so, good luck to ya, for the rest of us, an instantly high ranking on page 1 of google is fairly desirable.

#massive #pngs #stop #websites #wsos
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    I've brought up similar things before and have been told wso sellers don't care. They rely on affiliates.

    I do agree with you.

    George Wright
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552327].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
      Originally Posted by George Wright View Post

      I've brought up similar things before and have been told wso sellers don't care. They rely on affiliates.

      I do agree with you.

      George Wright
      Here here.

      Well, now they know better and for those vendors who are making these MASSIVE pngs for WSO sellers - smarten up dudes, you're not doing them any favours and in fact doing them (and us all) a MASSIVE dis-service. Structure your graphics in a way that they add to the feel of the offer without killing their chances of allowing google and the power of this amazing forum to help them sell more.

      ...and besides, not all of us have trillion terabit fibre optic cable connections. Some of these WSOs are taking ages to load even on ADSL (I have a 5Mbit connection). I do come from a time of 28.8 modems and when we were taught to keep our images minimal and trim and when a page that was a bigger than 100kb was a huge no-no and a sure sign and dead giveaway of a newbie back-yarder.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552347].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author M3C
    I would presume the amount of traffic generated by Google to a WSO even if it's text plays a relatively small part in the overall sales of the WSO , hence a decent looking/converting page with great copy in image format is the reason you see it.

    5MB connection should still load any image relatively fast, few seconds max, you experiencing issues past that?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552445].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
    They do load relatively fast but some don't load even after waiting a reasonable amount of time and it's just unnecessary, bad practice and I don't think anyone can afford to thumb their nose at Google regardless of how much traffic affiliates might be sending. It's just bad practice and not everyone has a high speed connection. Why make MASSIVE images? Why use PNGs? Why ignore google? Why annoy people? Anyway, compressor.io is a good free service.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552455].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author M3C
    Compressor tool looks useful Bill, I would always presume anybody uploading images ensures they are the smallest size possible whilst retaining image quality.

    If not, they are as you point out really being a bit daft, it's bad practise.

    That said, I just don't think Google accounts for any sales on the huge majority of WSOs text or otherwise so it's not so much a case of thumbing the nose at it, as opposed to it really being moot.

    If images aren't loading in a reasonable time frame, ie 3-5 seconds, on a 5MB connection. then that's as you say very poorly implemented graphics .

    What they should be doing if the page is that heavy is not just ensuring they have their image size as small as possible but splitting super long images up into a series of smaller height images so the first one loads instantly and the others follow in time for the scroll.

    I don't WSO , I'm not an expert but I would think most of the traffic past affiliates, comes from simply people browsing and WSO sellers bumping or running banners. I don't think they suffer much from SEO issues either way.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552461].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
    Yes, good point, A WF post allows up to 10 images (last I checked) so at least load some text for people to read while the images load. I've seen completely blank WSOs because massive images just failed to load at all. Other times (when using split images) bits have been missing and if people are ignoring google then maybe they just haven't considered how much power this forum has.

    With all the angst people are experiencing about how to get onto google I'd think that anything that can land you on page one in 10 minutes might be worth considering - seriously.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552471].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author M3C
      That's another good idea, Bill, agreed.

      Add some text at the top , an intro, give the user something to feed on. Then split the never ending scrolling image up unto a few smaller images as well.

      Best of both worlds.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552477].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 1stargeneral
    Banned
    What i do is after i am done with the PNG file, I load the export wizard which at the end of the day, I will have a 4MB image to be 400KB+

    It makes the page load faster too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gene Pimentel
    It would be nice if the forum had a max image size cap.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552697].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
      Originally Posted by Gene Pimentel View Post

      It would be nice if the forum had a max image size cap.
      That is a great solution!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552741].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        I remember the day I went from 9600 baud to a spanking new 28.8 modem. Seeing some of these monster images, not just in the WSO forum, gives me flashbacks to those days.

        I remember when it was common practice to make graphic files as small as possible, and then slice the image for display. Back then Dreamweaver came with a graphics program which would do both.

        I still have the habit...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552948].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          I remember the day I went from 9600 baud to a spanking new 28.8 modem. Seeing some of these monster images, not just in the WSO forum, gives me flashbacks to those days.

          I remember when it was common practice to make graphic files as small as possible, and then slice the image for display. Back then Dreamweaver came with a graphics program which would do both.

          I still have the habit...
          John! Baud rate...wow - you win. I can remember looking at the brand new 33.6k modems in the windows of the computer shops and wishing I could afford one. I saw a massive board with heaps of chips on it one day and was told it was an old baud modem and I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere. When I finally got a 56k I was blown away by the incredible speed.

          I can remember being told that the top 10 websites were all under 100kb and that no website should ever be bigger than that. If anyone knows who Jakob Nielsen is but he'd have a mental fit if he saw some of the massive pages getting around these days. It's like we're giving the finger to anyone who's not "rich enough" to have cable or fibre optic broadband. I'm like you, I still think "small and fast is better. I still wince when I have to use a 500kb background image.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9553129].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author RobinInTexas
            Originally Posted by Mr Bill View Post

            John! Baud rate...wow - you win. I can remember looking at the brand new 33.6k modems in the windows of the computer shops and wishing I could afford one. I saw a massive board with heaps of chips on it one day and was told it was an old baud modem and I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere. When I finally got a 56k I was blown away by the incredible speed.

            33.6 was the speed demon that made me feel like an idiot having spent a fortune, on a US Robotics Dual Standard 14.4k Modem
            Signature

            Robin



            ...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9553259].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
              Originally Posted by Mr Bill View Post

              John! Baud rate...wow - you win. I can remember looking at the brand new 33.6k modems in the windows of the computer shops and wishing I could afford one. I saw a massive board with heaps of chips on it one day and was told it was an old baud modem and I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere. When I finally got a 56k I was blown away by the incredible speed.
              Even the 9600 was a huge improvement over the old handset modems, along with loading software via cassette tape.

              At one time, I had a "power system" - 64K (yes, K) memory, two floppy drives so I could run software and save data without having to switch, and then upgraded to a 20MB hard drive. I couldn't imagine being able to fill that monster...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9553753].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author OnlineStoreHelp
                Just to add to this, there are tons of places online you can do this.

                Load it into Pixlr, save and reduce the quality
                Photoshop/photoshop elements - Save for web, reduce the quality and it reduces the size

                Simplest thing for Warrior Forum to do is reduce the size allowed so they would be forced to reduce it. It would reduce their bandwidth and storage cost to so there is a reason for it.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556123].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by OnlineStoreHelp View Post

                  Simplest thing for Warrior Forum to do is reduce the size allowed so they would be forced to reduce it. It would reduce their bandwidth and storage cost to so there is a reason for it.
                  WF isn't storing it. The images are stored on the seller's host of choice.

                  You are allowed 10 or 11 images in a thread. It's pure insanity to make one enormous image and not slice it up. In my experience, converting them to png also increases the size. I use jpg and they load much faster, but I also slice mine into 10 images.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556196].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    At least chop it up into 3 parts. That's what I do with my WFH ads.
    Signature
    People who say it can't be done should not interrupt those who are MAKING IT HAPPEN
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552714].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zakclayton
    Good shout! nothing more annoying than a slow squeeze page...
    Signature
    >>>> You can't beat free traffic! Check out my 5 Ultimate Free Traffic Sources <<<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9552950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author waterotter
    Maybe start a thread in the Suggestion Forum.

    I also like Gene's suggestion.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9553095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
    Yeah, I thought about that but let's see if suggestions and education works first. I've had a few people PM me thanking me for the explanation (they had no idea) so maybe if us old wolves can nudge the new pups into doing the sensible thing it might improve. I've had my growl and snap, it might have the desired effect.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9553104].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jemacb
    Thanks for that link Mr. Bill. I agree with you 100%. I personally reduce my png files because of the exact reason that you presented.

    And John, you brought back some memories. I remember building my first Zenith PC and hearing the sound of the modem trying to connect . Oh how irritating that sound was (and still is mind you. :-) )

    I also remember the apple ... The only Apple around was the one in our refrigerator at home.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9553238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NickNimmin
    Very nice! I have been guilty of that myself...but these days I try to avoid it and love tools that help reduce file sizes.

    A great squisher for jpegs is JPEGmini - Your Photos on a Diet!, it's lossless to the naked eye. I have some projects that are very photo heavy and that has saved me tons of server storage and transfer space...yours will help me with pngs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556211].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
    I'm epidemically guilty of oversized images.

    My images are all like 1 MB in size (lolz).

    I use Photoshop but am too lazy to crop smaller or fuss with minimizing and quality issues.

    Really good share though. Will definitely use it in the future.



    EDIT: I just ran a few of my images through here and they shrunk like 60% without any noticeable loss in quality.

    Very cool
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      I'm epidemically guilty of oversized images.

      My images are all like 1 MB in size (lolz).

      I use Photoshop but am too lazy to crop smaller or fuss with minimizing and quality issues.

      Really good share though. Will definitely use it in the future.

      Please do. There's really no reason for 1mb images anywhere on the web except on a photographer's website and even then only as a click through - never as the unrequested main image. If you're not sure of the best ways to do this, just ask and we'll guide you through.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556247].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    I aint gon lie... i do use mainly PNGs on my sales pages - and blogs. But they're relatively small images. But it's the only way i can get the image quality to the level that i want it at. On my download pages though, i use a JPG banner header - that actually loads good and fast. But i had to tweak and modify it through Gimp several times. From Microsoft Paint straight to the Web though... not a good look.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556379].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
    Most people don't know how to save jpegs of high quality. That's where quality programs like Photoshop and Gimp come into their own. Unless you require millions of colours (as in a jpeg) AND have see through (transparent) areas then you should not be using PNGs.

    PNGs have some exceptional properties (most of which are not understood by mere mortals) but using them in place of a JPEG just adds massive bulk to your website for absolutely no benefit. It annoys your visitors and probably leads to reduced sales. Making an image 10 times larger for no benefit only makes the webmaster look lazy.

    Learn how to save quality jpegs and (as in my clear demonstration above) you'll get excellent results with no loss in quality. It only takes one thing to annoy a visitor for them to click away.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9556386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
    Ok folks we have a new Warrior Forum record (as far as I know). This was forwarded onto me by "WF Member X" (not their real name...lol) who received an email from the Warrior Forum for a recommended WSO. When I was informed of it's gargantuan size I thought they were joking because it couldn't possibly be true - no one could be that silly - but it's true (pm me for the link if you want to see for yourself). At a measured broadband speed of 5.40MBs it took a full 9 minutes to load!!

    I landed on the page at 8:36pm and it had finally finished loading at 8:45pm. It loaded 1cm of image per 20 seconds.



    Are you kidding me?! And this was a JPEG! Imagine how massive it would have been if it had been a PNG.

    Over TEN MEGABYTES and TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND pixels high!


    This is pure insanity. I'm stunned.

    Now, of course it's not such a huge deal on a global issues level and it's the definition of a first world problem but...seriously? Honk if you're as stunned as I am.


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559216].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nicheblogger75
    I highly doubt that the new ".png sales pages" used in forums and even on sites that offer to host your sales page like JVZoo is going to change. As far as WSOs go, I don't think ignoring Google is going to hurt your sales very much, if at all.

    The sellers are relying on affiliates and organic views from the forum to sell their products, and rightly so. Honestly, I could care less if Google likes my sales pages, or even indexes them at all, for that matter. I learned a long time ago as an Internet Marketer it's often best to ignore Google, since it's common knowledge that they don't really care for IMers anyway.

    Personally, I find the new image based sales pages to be much more attractive and more importantly, they convert WAY better than the old school sales pages which are loaded with tons of fancy & expensive sales copy that 99% of people don't even take the time to read. I think many IMers have figured out that visually attractive sales pages sell much better than text based or even video based sales pages.

    Honestly, I think time could be much better spent on more constructive activities (like product creation, traffic generation, content creation, networking, building your list, etc) than going on a rant against using large .pngs in sales pages. Just my two cents.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559308].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
      Originally Posted by nicheblogger75 View Post

      I highly doubt that the new ".png sales pages" used in forums and even on sites that offer to host your sales page like JVZoo is going to change. As far as WSOs go, I don't think ignoring Google is going to hurt your sales very much, if at all.

      The sellers are relying on affiliates and organic views from the forum to sell their products, and rightly so. Honestly, I could care less if Google likes my sales pages, or even indexes them at all, for that matter. I learned a long time ago as an Internet Marketer it's often best to ignore Google, since it's common knowledge that they don't really care for IMers anyway.

      Personally, I find the new image based sales pages to be much more attractive and more importantly, they convert WAY better than the old school sales pages which are loaded with tons of fancy & expensive sales copy that 99% of people don't even take the time to read. I think many IMers have figured out that visually attractive sales pages sell much better than text based or even video based sales pages.

      Honestlty, I think time could be much better spent on more constructive activities (like product creation, traffic generation, content creation, networking, building your list, etc) than going on a rant against using large .pngs in sales pages. Just my two cents.
      Thank you for your advice on what I should be doing with my time but I have plenty of time to do all the things I have to do plus spread education for the newbies. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to improve the internet instead of watching mindless sitcoms after a 12 hour day working on my other stuff.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559317].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mb7861
        If there is no loss in quality why should anybody don't compress it? It's just that obvious now. Good advice thanks
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559639].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author test11223344
    I AM GUILTY OF THIS

    Sorry!

    I now use TinyPNG.com!

    It compresses PNGs down by 99% and the quality of the image doesn't suffer at all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559861].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mr Bill
    99% is a bit unbelievable but I'm glad I could help and it's good to hear you've adjusted your methods and made your part of the internet a better place. Mission accomplished.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author o3man
    I do agree. These PNG files are massive. Also, they load up... however, it t-takes forever and a year. Most of us do not have connections that are super and machines that have been around a few years.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9559909].message }}

Trending Topics