Limitations on image compression (photo)?

Hi @derevnya

I hope you’re well today and thank you for your question!

There’s currently no such option as “file size” limits that could be defined and, I’m afraid, it’s not possible to set it up with the code too currently.

It could make quite a cool feature though so I’ve passed this suggestion over to our Smush developers team for further consideration, to see if we could implement such thing with one of future releases.

Best regards,
Adam

Hey @derevnya,

Erick here from the Smush Team.

I wanted to understand a little bit more about your request, more specifically the use case for this. Is it to preserve image quality so you would set up a threshold at 350kb? So if an image is big (let’s say 2MB), you compress it as usual with Smush and usually, wouldn’t drop so much that it’ll end being less than 350kb. But if an image is already 400kb?

Your suggestion is great, I want to make sure where the goal behind this request to discuss it further with our team. If you think an email would be better, you can message me at [email protected].

Cheers,
Erick

I read posts about SEO indexing in Google and Yandex and it says that images less than 350 are considered low quality and are not indexed and do not get into the search! It turns out that to increase my business and attract new customers to my site, Your image compression plugin is useless! It may be better to use a cache, but not compress images up to 150. I’m still studying this topic. What do you think?

Hi @derevnya

Thanks for response!

nd it says that images less than 350 are considered low quality and are not indexed and do not get into the search!

Hm… that’s interesting. I admit that’s the first time ever I hear such thing. I don’t know much about Yandex but Google certainly cares about image size in that sense that it wants it to be small to help with site performance. If you run PageSpeed on a page that has lot of images you may actually notice that very often Google itself suggests compression that results in images way smaller than 350kb. Google Search – if you search for images – will also return plenty of way smaller images.

I’m pretty sure this must be some misunderstanding there. Did you get that info from some up to date sources like some renown SEO site or some Google blog posts, if I may ask?

It may be better to use a cache, but not compress images up to 150. I’m still studying this topic. What do you think?

I actually thing that best is both: use cache as it’s always a great speed booster and compress images as much as possible (as long as quality is acceptable).

Best regards,
Adam

Thank you for using Smush. We are going to close this ticket for now because we have not heard from you in a while. If you still need support we can reopen the thread.

Cheers,
Predrag