That’s how I feel all-too often when I’m trying to write a post, edit, check comments, or whatever I do to spend so much of my time here, and the site slows down or comes to a halt. It’s about as much fun as a car doing that on the freeway. CC has had a tendency towards slowness from pretty early on, and there is a valid reason: we’re chock-full of big pictures. Large images take huge amount of memory and bandwidth, as our hosting service is always so eager to point out. Even google keeps telling me CC might be losing ad revenue as a result of it. So here’s the question: do you click on our pictures, in order to see them in their full size?
We’ve already limited image uploads to 1200 pixels,which is what the picture above has. If you (left) click on it, its full size will instantly burst up on your screen. That means that even though the (unclicked) pictures are much smaller on the regular page, the server has to load up the large pictures on your device every time the post is read, awaiting your click to pop it up instantly. That is a huge amount of info to be served, especially if it’s not being utilized (188.6 KB, in the case of this particular 1200 pixel picture. The exact amount varies, depending on the image content).
Here’s the same picture, reduced in size before uploading to 550 pixels, which is the correct sizing for the post as it appears on our pages. If it’s clicked, the same size appears. It has 58.9 KB, or less than a third of the digital info as the one above.
I have typically uploaded my images at 800 pixels, like this one. It does allow for a meaningful enlargement if clicked, but obviously not as big as the 1200 version. It takes 98.5 KB, just a bit over half of the 1200 pixel picture. That’s a substantial reduction in bandwidth-hogging, for a modest reduction in picture size.
So the big question is: how many folks actually click on our pictures? And if any do, how big is big enough? And if we didn’t offer any enlargement at all (middle picture), would that be a problem?
Our total file size is getting huge (Ed Stembridge has the exact number), and our only options to improving site loading are to pay for a higher level of hosting, or cut down on image files. What say you?
Update: paying for a higher level of hosting is not really that expensive or a problem; but it would be good to know that it’s worth it if folks are clicking the pics.
1961 Ford Starliner story here
I enlarge the pictures when I want to read the copyright on some of the older automobile ads you post.
I normally view the site on my iPad. Sometimes it’s a bit slow to load up, but there’s no problems afterwards. The pictures go up to full size instantly, and navigation is quick as well. I don’t often click on the photos – with the iPad I can easily expand a part of the picture I want to view with more detail. I look at Curbside Classics every day – I’ve always loved old cars and the stories behind them, and I photograph them as well. Great site.
I generally don’t click on the pictures-having smaller sized images would be fine with me.
Have you considered using something like MaxCDN + WP total cache? That could quickly solve your issue once and for all.
That or moving off a hosting provider and onto a VPS. I love linode (.com) for that and have a work linode 1024 tuned to where it could support 200 concurrent users on one of the WordPress sites it hosts.
Yep, we already use both.
I, too, click on the pictures and ads. But the site is kinda slow, and I am on Verizon FIOS myself also. Smaller large images would be fine if it speeds it up. Just my $.02 worth….
I haven’t noticed any issues with loading speed.
Regarding photo sizing, the photos I post to Flikr that eventuallty make it here are all 1100 pixels max width. Any I attach to a reply post I keep to 800 pixels, and 800 for the article images would be fine with me. I click on photos to see the larger versions only about ten percent of the time; usually pix with distant details or brochure images with small-sized text.
No problem with the speed over here either.I see bigger most of the pictures to
check the details and I think it will be nice if they opened in a new tub so I wouldn’t
have to click back to the article.But the bottom line is you do what you have to keep
CC going for all of us.
The site is rarely slow for me and I really like the big images. If the images load slower they are worth the wait. I use Chrome, XP and a 42″ monitor. I don’t comment on many subjects I really enjoy because the users here have already said it better. A lot of car sites have blowhards and trolls. This site is like a grownups only car sanctuary.
Change the format if you must, run JC Whitney ads if that’s what it takes. But please keep the wonderful and varied content.
Pixel structure is only part of the “size” of a file; there is also the filesize itself. A 1200×800 .RAW image can be many megabytes, whereas the same image but in a more compressed .jpg/.png can be a tenth or so of that without any noticeable loss in detail. I always take time to compress my pictures in my stories so they can be full screen and rich in detail but light on server-load.
I have a speedy connection and newish devices, so have never had an issue with loading times.
The restriction on number of files allowed on the server is certainly odd, and I understand you have to deal with that, but proxy images in the article and even larger linked files would certainly be my preference. I click for full-size images regularly, and have a 2560x1440px display. So as far as I’m concerned, no image is too big!
I appreciate the site, the work that goes into it, and the request for input.
I never noticed the slow speed to be honest with you. As for clicking to enlarge the pictures I’ve done that a few times but they don’t get that much larger. If the large pics are slowing down the system for some folks or going to cost most money to keep I’d get rid of it. Suggest going with the largest fixed photos you can, if they will not be enlargeable. Sounds like that wouldn’t slow things down much. Great site Paul.
The site never felt slow for me and I really enjoy the big pictures! I click approximately 70% of them when I read an entry. Please stick with the full size.
I’m the classic lurker but now that I comment I just like to add I love this site. I discovered it a few months ago and now check it out on a daily basis.
Nils, Berlin, Germany
I never click on the photos to enlarge them. I am interested in the text rather than spending lots of time looking at the photos.
I’ve never experienced any problem with speed (on CC that is).
I rarely click on images but when I do I really appreciate big pictures that fill up the screen. Usually I open them in a new tab. I only visit CC from my home computer with big screen and good internet connection. I’m only here when I have plenty of time so I wouldn’t mind waiting for the full-sized picture to load.
Great site, keep it up!
Is there a reason why some comments have REPLY buttons next to them and some not? I know that has to be a small annoyance to some when trying to reply and matching your comments to the particular text you are commenting about.
Apparently there are limits to how many sub-threads WP can accommodate. Otherwise, the comments would get narrower and narrower.