Automatic Compression of Uploaded Jpg Images

1. 96

   eugbugposted 6 years ago

   When images are uploaded, they get scaled to a max dimension of 1024 pixels wide (the fully zoomed version that is). However are they compressed to any degree? I know this is something we should do ourselves before uploading in order to see the effects, but even a small amount of compression can make a large difference to filesize without any noticeable reduction in image quality.
   Is there any way of compressing all the images on a hub without manually downloading, compressing and re-uploading?

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Christy Kirwanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately we don't offer this capability, so it's something you'll have to do off of HubPages and re-upload.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         eugbugposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ok, thanks for the feedback Christy. Looks like I've a lot of work to do!

         replyreport
         1. 97

            Glenn Stokposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Before you go crazy reducing the size of images, check your Google Analytics Speed reports.
            
            I check mine to see which hubs are loading slowly and I only work on those if they have oversized images. Google even gives suggestions for improvements.
            
            Under “Behavior” go to "Site Speed > Speed Suggestions"

            replyreport
            1. 96

               eugbugposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Ok, thanks Glenn, good advice!
               Two of my top traffic hubs have 54 and 45 photos, most of which are likely to be 1024 pixels wide (scaled from 1600 on upload).

               replyreport
2. 96

   eugbugposted 6 years ago

   Interestingly, a hub with only 18 images (which were heavily cropped), is the slowest loading at 29.9 seconds.
   Another odd thing is that Google Analytics Intelligence is telling me that one of my pages (the one with 45 images on it), had a significantly longer loading time for the month of August - approx. 26 sec as opposed to 15 seconds for July.

   replyreport
   1. 97

      Glenn Stokposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I guess it's possible that it was coming from a different server which was faster or slower. I believe that HubPages uses Amazon's Web Hosting Service, which uses redundancy to avoid down-time. Maybe the team can chime in on that.

      replyreport
3. 88

   Will Apseposted 6 years ago

   I wouldn't take automated reports from Google analytics too seriously unless you notice traffic issues. My big, image-heavy pages have always done fine.
   
   You can start to develop a kind of writerchondria if you are not willing to take stuff with a pinch of salt.
   
   Also, the whole page load thing is something to delegate to staff. It is so basic, they must monitor it all the time.

   replyreport
4. 96

   eugbugposted 6 years ago

   What connection speed do they base their load times on, or is it an average?
   Could this intelligence report simply indicate that there was a greater proportion of readers from a country with low connection speeds?

   replyreport
5. 89

   lobobrandonposted 6 years ago

   One of mine on GA says 71.86 seconds. That's impossible I'd ignore the GA speed analysis.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      eugbugposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, that's extreme! GA tells me that "1,507 of page views sent page load sample" since the start of July, which is less than 1% of views. Average load time for August was about 22 seconds, however average download time was about 0.33 seconds. Is a long load time due to users with older technology devices (slow processors, older graphics cards and low memory) ?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         lobobrandonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         No, no and no. I do not think this is right data. There is no way the average is that bad. Don't bother with it.

         replyreport