BST - Rule for maximum infographic size (dimensions/file size)

[Sephrata]

I've noticed a number of BSTs where they are quite laggy in loading and the reason is the infographics are too large.

One recent example is this BST (I'm not singling the owner out, it's just an example) - https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/offering-professional-and-creative-graphic-design-services-to-inspire-your-design-with-flat-50-discounted-price.1257216 There are two infographics in this BST:

Image One: 975 x 8514 (4.8 MB)
Image Two: 1024 x 23314 (3.2 MB)

The image dimensions and file sizes are huge and they are being scaled down by the responsive forum. However, the full file still loads and it appears laggy when loading the page even for me on a fibre connection.

I'm sure that there will be maximum dimensions that can be displayed in a thread based on the forum's coding, so could there be some maximum dimension requirements for the actual infographics in BSTs that are externally hosted?

I also think there should be some general rule about maximum dimensions (mainly in terms of height). Image two above is 23314 pixels in height, which is the equivalent of more than 6 metres. There are lots of BSTs where people 'flood' these massively tall images and it makes browsing the BST slow, unsightly and just annoying.

Finally, I think there should also be some best practice to optimising images (e.g. https://tinypng.com) to ensure they load quickly in BSTs. The two images above can be easily reduced:

Image One: From 4.8 MB to 869.9 KB
Image Two: From 3.2 MB to 2.8 MB

I'm sure the golden two-second rule applies to BSTs as it does to websites generally.

 

[Visual Eagle]

I always say less is more... But I get those massive sales threads anyways because of the "copy". I personally wouldnt use image compression sites as optimization should have been done from the start on the designers end. Using image compression sites could significantly change how the thread looks and it might not be the way designer intended it because of loss of quality... And you know one could then judge the designer not doing "their job" by providing them a blurry image which in most cases is from those "reduce img file size" compressions.

 

[Sephrata]

And you know one could then judge the designer not doing "their job" by providing them a blurry image which in most cases is from those "reduce img file size" compressions.

Lossy compression you're not really going to notice the difference unless you're dealing with high quality photographic images though - https://www.keycdn.com/support/lossy-vs-lossless

Most BSTs here aren't graphic related and I hope that people are deciding which services to buy based on more than how pretty the infographic looks.

There are a lot of BSTs for SEO services with mega pages. Take this one for example - https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/serpbulls-presents-dexters-ranking-laboratory-2020-secret-formula-to-1-rankings-flat-40-off.1102468/page-94

According to Chrome Developer, the page loading details for me are:

416 requests
84.0 MB transferred
84.9 MB resources
Finish: 11.14 s

84.9 MB for just one page of a BST is huge.

 

[reuse]

Good thoughts in principle.

In practice, the first quoted thread shows why it is not a good idea to limit it. It is a thread offering design services. You need to show the best images there.

Why not let mother nature do her job? If the theory holds, the slow loading BSTs should be losing business. The faster loading ones will be getting more business. As to the casual surfers: Why do they care if they don't intend to buy?
Laissez-faire


BST idea for anyone reading this:
Start with a journey thread showing how much business you (or someone else) were losing because of slow loading images. Funnel that into your own BST service, offering to optimize the images for all BST sellers.

 

[Sephrata]

In practice, the first quoted thread shows why it is not a good idea to limit it. It is a thread offering design services. You need to show the best images there.

Even Behance compresses images. You're really not going to notice the difference.

It's the actual image sizes though that are the biggest issue. An image which is 23314 pixels tall is way too large to be displayed on a forum.

 

[Visual Eagle]

Even Behance compresses images. You're really not going to notice the difference.

It's the actual image sizes though that are the biggest issue. An image which is 23314 pixels tall is way too large to be displayed on a forum.

Why is that? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not "displayable" or "way too large" as you say. This is just your personal opinion.

 

[Sephrata]

Why is that? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not "displayable" or "way too large" as you say. This is just your personal opinion.

How long do you think it takes someone on a mobile phone to scroll down a 23314 pixel tall image?

 

[Visual Eagle]

How long do you think it takes someone on a mobile phone to scroll down a 23314 pixel tall image?

Quiet long.. same as on desktop though. I persoanlly dont read everything on those long sales threads.

 

[nichexposure]

I persoanlly dont read everything on those long sales threads.

Same here. I tried to figure out the main features and cost along with any discount available or not. But end of the day has to scroll down all of it. To follow up on the trend I put a long image and details in my BST in the past as well.

 

[Sephrata]

Quiet long.. same as on desktop though. I persoanlly dont read everything on those long sales threads.

Some BSTs are extremely difficult to read - and when I say read, I'm usually more interested to see what others have to say rather than the original poster.

We have rules about signature banners dimensions so I don't see why there cannot be a maximum dimension for infographics in BSTs.

I also think posting nearly 200 images as part of a 72 hour update in a BST is kind of taking the biscuit.

 

[yakuzaemme]

This was discussed earlier here:
https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/bhw-suggestion-hide-images-in-spoilers-by-default.1164678/
It was probably up for discussion with staff and is something I would guess is in the timeline now with 2.0

 

[Sephrata]

It was probably up for discussion with staff and is something I would guess is in the timeline now with 2.0

Thanks. I had a quick browse and noticed that very few people with BSTs actually responded.

I would assume that images hidden in spoilers by default would still need to be loaded by the browser when you open the page they are on. This must impact load times and general browsing performance on BHW when viewing BSTs.

 

[reuse]

Even Behance compresses images. You're really not going to notice the difference.

It's the actual image sizes though that are the biggest issue. An image which is 23314 pixels tall is way too large to be displayed on a forum.

Tangential to the main point, but since we are discussing this: Behance lets you upload 50 MB images, and also provides the option to expand the images.

About the main point:

BHW doesn't lose any money (unless they are on a linearly increasing plan for bandwidth - which I doubt).
The seller paid for the thread. Their money, their loss or gain.
The prospective buyer has the choice of not buying, if they don't like the thread, whether the reason be image size, or something else.

This was discussed earlier here:
https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/bhw-suggestion-hide-images-in-spoilers-by-default.1164678/
It was probably up for discussion with staff and is something I would guess is in the timeline now with 2.0

As @Sephrata said, the image will still be loaded, unless you write custom JS to fetch the image at the time of spoiler expansion.


My experience:

I tried loading both pages and they didn't take much time to load for me. The second one definitely took a few seconds, but the load time was on par with sales threads on other forums.