Posts
2
Questions
4
I’m having a real problem with placing custom Amazon affiliate ads into my website’s posts. I don’t get what the issue is and I can’t seem to resolve it
We have had the same issue so use the
wp-column and put them individually in columns. It takes more time but that is the only way we have been able to be successful especially for mobile phone display.
Yea, but there must be a solution, other sites use custom ads, so really want to know what the issue is :/
We don't have problem displaying the ads on a laptop, but on a mobile phone the last 2 in a ad row do not display.
Are you running an ad blocker on your browser? That will block Amazon ads. If you aren't sure, check on your phone or another, freshly downloaded browser.
Also, sometimes if the size you chose is too large for your blog width then it will not appear. Try some different sizes of ad units and see if they appear.
Hi Nathanniell, yea I have disabled that and even tried opening it in incognito mode. Still doesn't show. And sadly there are no ways to change the size.
i think it is to do with the fact that they are javascript ads....
and browsers think that loose java is bad on a page and doesn't show them ...
the code is there...press ctrl+u and inspect close to the above sentence and you see the [removed] code...( even in here they remove the code that says text/javascript....)
if i could make a suggestion....you are after adding a banner of ads ...so why not add three columns and add an amazon ad to each cell...
or if you want a more responsive hten ad inserter plugin can create an ad rotator....
add three ads and you can display them for a time period each...
just make sure they are all the same size image or it shifts hte text under the ads...
but it also keeps your pagespeed up as well....
it is frustrating, but maybe done to protect hte end user....
phil
just had a play with ad inserter plugin and you can create some interesting ads...
or for the time being use the block editor and add columns and insert an ad in each column...
I have had the same issue sometimes they work other times you add the code in and nothing appears.
The other day I used 7 custom ads with no problems today I tried two and nothing works.
So I had to resort to using either the text and images or images then add the text to that.
It really is an issue with either WordPress or Amazon not sure why this is happening really annoying.
Andre
Thanks for the reply. Well, they never work for me! Argh... Surely, this is something that needs to be fixed ASAP? I asked Amazon and they said it works on their end. So must be WP? I don't know. Just really need it resolved.
Yea they say that but I found the Custom ads seem to be working or not.
Some I found didn't work so I tried a different product and it worked so I don't think it is WordPress.
I have found at other times when you add the code to the Custom HTML then click the preview while still in the back office it doesn't show.
.
At other times when clicking the preview, it is there then you save the post and preview it live and it is not there.
I have also noticed that when you can preview it in the back office it comes up twice but only once live.
That is why when that happens I just use the image first then add the text link to that image.
I hate the look of that text and image they give as the custom ad looks great when it works.
So for me, it's either only the custom ads when they work, or as I said just use the image first then add the text link later. I know it is an extra step but at least if you have more than one product it doesn't look ugly having different versions eg text + image and custom ad to me that looks so unprofessional having mixed versions.
See more comments
Why won't custom amazon ads appear?
I’m having a real problem with placing custom Amazon affiliate ads into my website’s posts. I don’t get what the issue is and I can’t seem to resolve it
Hi, have you ever solved the problem? I am now also struggling with this. The screenshot may explain what is happening.
We have had the same issue so use the
wp-column and put them individually in columns. It takes more time but that is the only way we have been able to be successful especially for mobile phone display.
Yea, but there must be a solution, other sites use custom ads, so really want to know what the issue is :/
We don't have problem displaying the ads on a laptop, but on a mobile phone the last 2 in a ad row do not display.
Are you running an ad blocker on your browser? That will block Amazon ads. If you aren't sure, check on your phone or another, freshly downloaded browser.
Also, sometimes if the size you chose is too large for your blog width then it will not appear. Try some different sizes of ad units and see if they appear.
Hi Nathanniell, yea I have disabled that and even tried opening it in incognito mode. Still doesn't show. And sadly there are no ways to change the size.
i think it is to do with the fact that they are javascript ads....
and browsers think that loose java is bad on a page and doesn't show them ...
the code is there...press ctrl+u and inspect close to the above sentence and you see the [removed] code...( even in here they remove the code that says text/javascript....)
if i could make a suggestion....you are after adding a banner of ads ...so why not add three columns and add an amazon ad to each cell...
or if you want a more responsive hten ad inserter plugin can create an ad rotator....
add three ads and you can display them for a time period each...
just make sure they are all the same size image or it shifts hte text under the ads...
but it also keeps your pagespeed up as well....
it is frustrating, but maybe done to protect hte end user....
phil
just had a play with ad inserter plugin and you can create some interesting ads...
or for the time being use the block editor and add columns and insert an ad in each column...
I have had the same issue sometimes they work other times you add the code in and nothing appears.
The other day I used 7 custom ads with no problems today I tried two and nothing works.
So I had to resort to using either the text and images or images then add the text to that.
It really is an issue with either WordPress or Amazon not sure why this is happening really annoying.
Andre
Thanks for the reply. Well, they never work for me! Argh... Surely, this is something that needs to be fixed ASAP? I asked Amazon and they said it works on their end. So must be WP? I don't know. Just really need it resolved.
Yea they say that but I found the Custom ads seem to be working or not.
Some I found didn't work so I tried a different product and it worked so I don't think it is WordPress.
I have found at other times when you add the code to the Custom HTML then click the preview while still in the back office it doesn't show.
.
At other times when clicking the preview, it is there then you save the post and preview it live and it is not there.
I have also noticed that when you can preview it in the back office it comes up twice but only once live.
That is why when that happens I just use the image first then add the text link to that image.
I hate the look of that text and image they give as the custom ad looks great when it works.
So for me, it's either only the custom ads when they work, or as I said just use the image first then add the text link later. I know it is an extra step but at least if you have more than one product it doesn't look ugly having different versions eg text + image and custom ad to me that looks so unprofessional having mixed versions.
See more comments
I have a post I wrote months ago, with the following stats: 8343 (avg) 1419 (traffic) 200 (QSR)
As you can see very competitive, but the traffic potential is just awesom
Hi Chris
Don’t become despondent about this at all . Focus on making sure all your content on your site have SEO scores of more than 90% by following the guidelines in the audit checklist. Also if you include multimedia it will help your rankings. Check on your competitors and see what their content difference is on similar topics.
But don’t give up and keep at it!
Thanks Janine, trying my best to not let it bother me and keep ion writing. I do always try to include lots of multimedia :)
Hey Chris,
There are literally So Many reasons that this may happen.
Firstly, and something I have mentioned many, many, many times on the plaform is that an article requires time to mature in the SERPs.
Realistically, you can never rely on an article staying put it one position in the short-term (or the long-term for that matter).
However, the search engines, and especially Google, seem to hit a "sweet spot" at around the 35-week mark.
This is NOT always the case, but its pretty good guide to live by.
Basically, by the 35-week mark you "should" have achieved 90% of the potential of your ranking and traffic for that article.
Therefore, it terms of rankings and traffic you may only be able to push it 10% "higher".
So, at this point in time, if you're ranking poorly, or not receiving any traffic, it could be time to review, rewrite, and update the article.
BUT, This isn't always the case.
That being said, there are cases of articles ranking well within a day of them being published, and staying there for good.
Then again, you could have an article that does absolutley nothing for 2-3 years, and then suddenly BOOM, it ranks well and produces an avalanche of traffic.
However, the "35-week rule" is pretty accurate in the vast majority of cases.
During this period Google is trying to find the right "ranking" at which to place your article.
So, you could immediately go to number one, drop to 87 the next week, fall completely out of the SERPs the following month, and then start steadily rising through the ranks, week after week.
The Number One reason for ranking is RELEVANCY.
How relevant is your article to a specific search topic?
This is how Google will choose to rank you.
That being said, rankings will also be impacted by authorativeness - have a number of high authority sites recently written articles on the same topic?
If so, they will typically leapfrog you in the rankings, thus pushing you further down.
Another factor is trustworthiness - have articles been written on the same topic suddenly been receiving lots of links, shares, and have people spending a longer time reading that article?
If so, this could once again could "push you down" in the rankings.
Have you made sweeping changes to your site?
Have you changed themes?
Has your site speed gone down?
Does the article not fit in with Google's current Core Web Vitals rollout (many people will see changes in rankings in June and July as Google rolls out this latest update)?
As I say, there could be many, many reasons.
That's why we're taught to produce content, and a LOT of of it.
In truth, we have very little control over where, when and why an article may rank.
Plus, you'll often find what you believe to be your best work ranks nowehere, and an article that you put no effort into, and that you believe stinks, suddenly ranks number one and produces a huge amount of traffic.
I get it can be frustrating.
I also get why you targeted a competitive "phrase".
However, you can't pin all your hopes on one article ranking because, as I say, we have very little control over it.
There are those who can and will create a website, merely add 10 very highly competitive search-related articles, and aim to rank every single one.
There is a lot of on-page and off-page SEO work that goes into doing this.
They will rank all 10 articles and receive 30,000 visits a month to each article.
However, just the same as the rest of us, even with all the SEO work they put in, they know that for the first few months at least their articles will bounce around in rankings, never seeming to settle anywhere for two long.
A Website is still typically viewed as "new" for at least the first 12-18 months, and even at 2 years in some cases.
I would say give it time, BUT also check to see if there are any new articles around the topic that are ranking well.
Read them, see what they have provided that you haven't. This could give you a clue as to why you've had a drop in rankings.
But, as I say, don't put all your efforts and hopes into just that article.
Keep going, keep producing content.
You may also find that as your website hits the 300, 500, 1000 article mark you automatically start ranking very high for every article you write (this is also how an article that has been "dormant" for years suddenly comes to life).
Partha
The only thing I can say, Chris is a good answer from Andre; it's like a high street. Really everyone is after our attention. I suppose my one take is when my figures have crashed; I keep posting. It is the only way. I'm on a massive downturn at the moment after an all-time high.
The reason for my decline - content spend by big advertisers. They have several writers covering every base.
If there is any good to take from it, there is money in the niche.
My response better headlines, better research, and I'll keep posting. I totally get it, though. If you have not read some of Partha's posts, it could help. Good luck, Phil
Thank you Phil. I'm only managing 1 post per week, better than nothing though? Reckon it's enough for Google to still value my site?
it is what is called the Google dance and you can expect it to be a volatile page result until it finally settles where it will remain until something happens to knock it up or down. It can come down because someone elses post has knocked you off your perch . It can go up because someone else has been knocked off their perch. It does not get a stable rank immediately and that whats this dance process is about.
The more consistently you write and add content the more likely it is go up in rank. I wouldnt expect a stable position before six months it may be longer
See more comments
Article went from page 2 to page 6?
I have a post I wrote months ago, with the following stats: 8343 (avg) 1419 (traffic) 200 (QSR)
As you can see very competitive, but the traffic potential is just awesom
Hi Chris
Don’t become despondent about this at all . Focus on making sure all your content on your site have SEO scores of more than 90% by following the guidelines in the audit checklist. Also if you include multimedia it will help your rankings. Check on your competitors and see what their content difference is on similar topics.
But don’t give up and keep at it!
Thanks Janine, trying my best to not let it bother me and keep ion writing. I do always try to include lots of multimedia :)
Hey Chris,
There are literally So Many reasons that this may happen.
Firstly, and something I have mentioned many, many, many times on the plaform is that an article requires time to mature in the SERPs.
Realistically, you can never rely on an article staying put it one position in the short-term (or the long-term for that matter).
However, the search engines, and especially Google, seem to hit a "sweet spot" at around the 35-week mark.
This is NOT always the case, but its pretty good guide to live by.
Basically, by the 35-week mark you "should" have achieved 90% of the potential of your ranking and traffic for that article.
Therefore, it terms of rankings and traffic you may only be able to push it 10% "higher".
So, at this point in time, if you're ranking poorly, or not receiving any traffic, it could be time to review, rewrite, and update the article.
BUT, This isn't always the case.
That being said, there are cases of articles ranking well within a day of them being published, and staying there for good.
Then again, you could have an article that does absolutley nothing for 2-3 years, and then suddenly BOOM, it ranks well and produces an avalanche of traffic.
However, the "35-week rule" is pretty accurate in the vast majority of cases.
During this period Google is trying to find the right "ranking" at which to place your article.
So, you could immediately go to number one, drop to 87 the next week, fall completely out of the SERPs the following month, and then start steadily rising through the ranks, week after week.
The Number One reason for ranking is RELEVANCY.
How relevant is your article to a specific search topic?
This is how Google will choose to rank you.
That being said, rankings will also be impacted by authorativeness - have a number of high authority sites recently written articles on the same topic?
If so, they will typically leapfrog you in the rankings, thus pushing you further down.
Another factor is trustworthiness - have articles been written on the same topic suddenly been receiving lots of links, shares, and have people spending a longer time reading that article?
If so, this could once again could "push you down" in the rankings.
Have you made sweeping changes to your site?
Have you changed themes?
Has your site speed gone down?
Does the article not fit in with Google's current Core Web Vitals rollout (many people will see changes in rankings in June and July as Google rolls out this latest update)?
As I say, there could be many, many reasons.
That's why we're taught to produce content, and a LOT of of it.
In truth, we have very little control over where, when and why an article may rank.
Plus, you'll often find what you believe to be your best work ranks nowehere, and an article that you put no effort into, and that you believe stinks, suddenly ranks number one and produces a huge amount of traffic.
I get it can be frustrating.
I also get why you targeted a competitive "phrase".
However, you can't pin all your hopes on one article ranking because, as I say, we have very little control over it.
There are those who can and will create a website, merely add 10 very highly competitive search-related articles, and aim to rank every single one.
There is a lot of on-page and off-page SEO work that goes into doing this.
They will rank all 10 articles and receive 30,000 visits a month to each article.
However, just the same as the rest of us, even with all the SEO work they put in, they know that for the first few months at least their articles will bounce around in rankings, never seeming to settle anywhere for two long.
A Website is still typically viewed as "new" for at least the first 12-18 months, and even at 2 years in some cases.
I would say give it time, BUT also check to see if there are any new articles around the topic that are ranking well.
Read them, see what they have provided that you haven't. This could give you a clue as to why you've had a drop in rankings.
But, as I say, don't put all your efforts and hopes into just that article.
Keep going, keep producing content.
You may also find that as your website hits the 300, 500, 1000 article mark you automatically start ranking very high for every article you write (this is also how an article that has been "dormant" for years suddenly comes to life).
Partha
The only thing I can say, Chris is a good answer from Andre; it's like a high street. Really everyone is after our attention. I suppose my one take is when my figures have crashed; I keep posting. It is the only way. I'm on a massive downturn at the moment after an all-time high.
The reason for my decline - content spend by big advertisers. They have several writers covering every base.
If there is any good to take from it, there is money in the niche.
My response better headlines, better research, and I'll keep posting. I totally get it, though. If you have not read some of Partha's posts, it could help. Good luck, Phil
Thank you Phil. I'm only managing 1 post per week, better than nothing though? Reckon it's enough for Google to still value my site?
it is what is called the Google dance and you can expect it to be a volatile page result until it finally settles where it will remain until something happens to knock it up or down. It can come down because someone elses post has knocked you off your perch . It can go up because someone else has been knocked off their perch. It does not get a stable rank immediately and that whats this dance process is about.
The more consistently you write and add content the more likely it is go up in rank. I wouldnt expect a stable position before six months it may be longer
See more comments
I asked this question yesterday in the live chat and got varying answers. So, I just wanted to ask the wider community to got a broader perspective. I've been making the mista
Excellent and varied answers to your question, Chris! I learned a couple of things here too!
Jeff
I don't watch the KB size at all. As long as youre dot downloading and using some super high-res images from a DSLR camera or something you should be fine just getting a JPG of appropriate width/height fo your blog.
don't agree nathaniell...especially with the newer web core vitals coming up...your mobile speed will be low and you will not get the ranking boost from passing all three metrics...but then you get tons of traffic so it is less of a worry for you...
phil
Hi Chris, some awesome help from feigner. I looked at your two images at 97kb and 182 kb, personally, I would use the 97 kb image. There is really no significant loss in the details of the image. Also, it would be better for your site speeds.
All the best,
Michael
Thanks Michael. Yea as I said, 10kb would really kill the detail in my opinion. When you spend a long time making detailed and colourful diagrams, it doesn't feel great to compress them to the point they become pixelated.
but this is thinking what you think of it not your readers... are you doing this for you or your readers......
if your images are going to slow your site down to the point where it may not rank highly or visitors won't wait for the images to load then are they worth it....
think about what you are doing this for...to teach others, but if they won't see it then .......
just thoughts.....
Yes I totally agree with you. But... I also want to give a good image. Will there be a huge difference between 10kb and 97kb in terms of loading speed? I'd love to know from Google the exact answer and how much that would actually matter.
If there is a huge difference that will affect my ranking, I'd reluctantly put it down to 10kb. I'd much prefer to keep these kind of images looking 'professional' though. If I was looking at a site with pixelated diagrams, it would put me off immediately. I wouldn't stick around there. Would you? It looks poor and unprofessional in my opinion.
So how do I get the balance? Know what I mean?
i understand... so test it ...if you are only adding the one diagram then that will be ok... it is when you start loading up your articles with lots more diagrams that your speed will start to suffer....
it is the balance of attitude...size versus quality you , as you are doing, need to address...
thinking about how you create your images, the colours, angles of arrow etc that will allow you to reduce them in size....
but the images i looked at with the size of 10kb were still readable and i was able to see instantly what you were trying to put across..
testing ti you can use the sitespeed feature within your sitemanager area..
goto websites>>sitemanager>>details and scroll down to the pagespeed insights box and click on refresh and see the score... ideally you want it to be above 90 especially for mobile as this is what google takes first....
if you need to test it again then click on the G at hte end and you will be taken to google's pagespeed insights and you can retest it if the refresh doesn't work....
you will get some variation due to network loading and other things so it is worth testing it at least twice to see what differences there are....
some are suprised...others are pleased...i hope yours is in the latter....
Thanks Phil, I'm going to work on this :) My mobile speed is poor and I did not realise how badly this would affect my ranking until yesterday! What about using an image optimiser plugin like Kraken?
it may not just be your images that are slowing your site down, but they are a big part of it....
and it is on a page by page basis that google will test your site...so every page will need to be quick...
kraken is adequate...but reducing hte images size yourself lets you determine what sort of quality you have ...or you can let the plugin take over and not worry about the quality....
it is frustrating that not more emphasis is put on all of this in the training, but i hope with hte new training coming out sometime that some of these things will be addressed...
good luck and shout if you get stuck
Thanks Phil, yes I just checked a post with Google's PageSpeed Insights and the score is poor. Although it keeps changing. First it was 36, then 78, then 70. Why is it inconsistent?
There are loads of reasons and things I'm clueless about like:
First Contentful Paint
Speed Index
Largest Contentful Paint
Time to Interactive
Total Blocking Time
Cumulative Layout Shift
Like you say, I wish this was mentioned in the training. If it was I would have sorted this out from the very beginning!
welcome to the web core vitals the new trio of ranking boosting....
lcp, tbt and cls are in effect hte main three that will come into play over the next 6 months or so... it doesn't mean that quality content wil not rank, but that if you are 'in the green' with all three of these you may get a boost in rankings....
why does it jump in speed...
you are on a shared hosting so there is a lot going on... and it may be the first time that you have visited the page after hte timeouts so you are caching ( storing) it again....
i tend to look at hte problems with hte first time look the 38 and see if there is something you can do about it...
you need to go to an incognito window to see sort of true speed results, but this is one of the things i am investigating...how google will be testing your site and how you can see the same results...take your speed as the average between 70 and 78....so room for improvement....
but as i say you can obsess over these or create quality content and have every thing as small as possible ... you will still rank for it...
so don't stop creating content...these issues can be worked out....
there are a lot of bits that are missed due to the training being slightly old at the moment, but hopefully are being addressed either in new training or by members...
a progressive jpg is one that shows low res to start with to speed up page loading and cleans up ...
amazon are using them now ...when you first jump on hte site hte product image goes from low res ot high res....
depends on the size of the image
just as an experiment can you view and download these two images and see the difference for a blog....
then look at hte file size ...
Can't see the option in my export for a progressive jpeg. I tried to export one of large png images down, but as i use a gradient background for one my detailed diagrams, converting it to a size of 127kb makes the background pixelated :/ It's ok at 182kb.
if you really think that will bother your viewers then slow your site down....
i really had to look to see the step in the background ..you tend to be looking at what the image is showing...but....
or use a flatter background rather than a gradient....
i just dropped it down to 25kb and yes you can see the step...at 50 kb i couldn't....
Yea, I can just change it to a solid background. Don't have any option to convert to a progressive jpeg, even with GIMP, which is a pretty versatile piece of software. Will sticking to a regular jpeg be ok?
will be no probs
here's the one i took down to 25 kb
again if it is a solid backdrop hten you could take it down again and make it 10kb or so.......
Thanks, I think you lose quite a bit of detail with a file size that low. Like the audio interface in the middle for example, I do want it to look 'professional quality'. I guess I'm quite attached to these diagrams, as I spent a lot of time on them. I have many, all aimed to help beginners. Which converter are you using?
i used to use paint but am trialling a new free software called riot....
for your images i would do a front and back shot so showing where the midi interface goeas along with the speakers...
this way you don't have as much going on in the image and the items can be bigger...
and how do you plug in the guitar and keyboard into the same socket??
Hi Phil, that's just the header image at the start of the post. Further down in the past is the image of the back of the audio interface. All of that is detailed in my post. I actually also have separate post that goes into detail about audio cables. https://chrissoundlab.com/audio-cable-connector-types/
See more comments
Which image file type and size should I use?
I asked this question yesterday in the live chat and got varying answers. So, I just wanted to ask the wider community to got a broader perspective. I've been making the mista
Excellent and varied answers to your question, Chris! I learned a couple of things here too!
Jeff
I don't watch the KB size at all. As long as youre dot downloading and using some super high-res images from a DSLR camera or something you should be fine just getting a JPG of appropriate width/height fo your blog.
don't agree nathaniell...especially with the newer web core vitals coming up...your mobile speed will be low and you will not get the ranking boost from passing all three metrics...but then you get tons of traffic so it is less of a worry for you...
phil
Hi Chris, some awesome help from feigner. I looked at your two images at 97kb and 182 kb, personally, I would use the 97 kb image. There is really no significant loss in the details of the image. Also, it would be better for your site speeds.
All the best,
Michael
Thanks Michael. Yea as I said, 10kb would really kill the detail in my opinion. When you spend a long time making detailed and colourful diagrams, it doesn't feel great to compress them to the point they become pixelated.
but this is thinking what you think of it not your readers... are you doing this for you or your readers......
if your images are going to slow your site down to the point where it may not rank highly or visitors won't wait for the images to load then are they worth it....
think about what you are doing this for...to teach others, but if they won't see it then .......
just thoughts.....
Yes I totally agree with you. But... I also want to give a good image. Will there be a huge difference between 10kb and 97kb in terms of loading speed? I'd love to know from Google the exact answer and how much that would actually matter.
If there is a huge difference that will affect my ranking, I'd reluctantly put it down to 10kb. I'd much prefer to keep these kind of images looking 'professional' though. If I was looking at a site with pixelated diagrams, it would put me off immediately. I wouldn't stick around there. Would you? It looks poor and unprofessional in my opinion.
So how do I get the balance? Know what I mean?
i understand... so test it ...if you are only adding the one diagram then that will be ok... it is when you start loading up your articles with lots more diagrams that your speed will start to suffer....
it is the balance of attitude...size versus quality you , as you are doing, need to address...
thinking about how you create your images, the colours, angles of arrow etc that will allow you to reduce them in size....
but the images i looked at with the size of 10kb were still readable and i was able to see instantly what you were trying to put across..
testing ti you can use the sitespeed feature within your sitemanager area..
goto websites>>sitemanager>>details and scroll down to the pagespeed insights box and click on refresh and see the score... ideally you want it to be above 90 especially for mobile as this is what google takes first....
if you need to test it again then click on the G at hte end and you will be taken to google's pagespeed insights and you can retest it if the refresh doesn't work....
you will get some variation due to network loading and other things so it is worth testing it at least twice to see what differences there are....
some are suprised...others are pleased...i hope yours is in the latter....
Thanks Phil, I'm going to work on this :) My mobile speed is poor and I did not realise how badly this would affect my ranking until yesterday! What about using an image optimiser plugin like Kraken?
it may not just be your images that are slowing your site down, but they are a big part of it....
and it is on a page by page basis that google will test your site...so every page will need to be quick...
kraken is adequate...but reducing hte images size yourself lets you determine what sort of quality you have ...or you can let the plugin take over and not worry about the quality....
it is frustrating that not more emphasis is put on all of this in the training, but i hope with hte new training coming out sometime that some of these things will be addressed...
good luck and shout if you get stuck
Thanks Phil, yes I just checked a post with Google's PageSpeed Insights and the score is poor. Although it keeps changing. First it was 36, then 78, then 70. Why is it inconsistent?
There are loads of reasons and things I'm clueless about like:
First Contentful Paint
Speed Index
Largest Contentful Paint
Time to Interactive
Total Blocking Time
Cumulative Layout Shift
Like you say, I wish this was mentioned in the training. If it was I would have sorted this out from the very beginning!
welcome to the web core vitals the new trio of ranking boosting....
lcp, tbt and cls are in effect hte main three that will come into play over the next 6 months or so... it doesn't mean that quality content wil not rank, but that if you are 'in the green' with all three of these you may get a boost in rankings....
why does it jump in speed...
you are on a shared hosting so there is a lot going on... and it may be the first time that you have visited the page after hte timeouts so you are caching ( storing) it again....
i tend to look at hte problems with hte first time look the 38 and see if there is something you can do about it...
you need to go to an incognito window to see sort of true speed results, but this is one of the things i am investigating...how google will be testing your site and how you can see the same results...take your speed as the average between 70 and 78....so room for improvement....
but as i say you can obsess over these or create quality content and have every thing as small as possible ... you will still rank for it...
so don't stop creating content...these issues can be worked out....
there are a lot of bits that are missed due to the training being slightly old at the moment, but hopefully are being addressed either in new training or by members...
a progressive jpg is one that shows low res to start with to speed up page loading and cleans up ...
amazon are using them now ...when you first jump on hte site hte product image goes from low res ot high res....
depends on the size of the image
just as an experiment can you view and download these two images and see the difference for a blog....
then look at hte file size ...
Can't see the option in my export for a progressive jpeg. I tried to export one of large png images down, but as i use a gradient background for one my detailed diagrams, converting it to a size of 127kb makes the background pixelated :/ It's ok at 182kb.
if you really think that will bother your viewers then slow your site down....
i really had to look to see the step in the background ..you tend to be looking at what the image is showing...but....
or use a flatter background rather than a gradient....
i just dropped it down to 25kb and yes you can see the step...at 50 kb i couldn't....
Yea, I can just change it to a solid background. Don't have any option to convert to a progressive jpeg, even with GIMP, which is a pretty versatile piece of software. Will sticking to a regular jpeg be ok?
will be no probs
here's the one i took down to 25 kb
again if it is a solid backdrop hten you could take it down again and make it 10kb or so.......
Thanks, I think you lose quite a bit of detail with a file size that low. Like the audio interface in the middle for example, I do want it to look 'professional quality'. I guess I'm quite attached to these diagrams, as I spent a lot of time on them. I have many, all aimed to help beginners. Which converter are you using?
i used to use paint but am trialling a new free software called riot....
for your images i would do a front and back shot so showing where the midi interface goeas along with the speakers...
this way you don't have as much going on in the image and the items can be bigger...
and how do you plug in the guitar and keyboard into the same socket??
Hi Phil, that's just the header image at the start of the post. Further down in the past is the image of the back of the audio interface. All of that is detailed in my post. I actually also have separate post that goes into detail about audio cables. https://chrissoundlab.com/audio-cable-connector-types/
See more comments
I asked this question yesterday in the live chat and got varying answers. So, I just wanted to ask the wider community to got a broader perspective. For Google SEO, should I ad
Hi Chris, when it came to images I did not use hyphens. Your question made me do a search and I am sure you may want to look at the following link.
https://adolab.com/naming-images-for-seo/
Best wishes,
Michael
i don't think google worries about hyphens...
don't forget to use the alt text as well on every image
phil
Thanks Phil, I se the alt text :)
Yea, it just seems that a lot of people recommend using hyphens. Must be a reason? Or at least, maybe there was a reason in the past?
i think it was a past reason...hte same as using the dashes in hte html ...older operating systems really didn't like spaces in filenames and that has stuck....( dos and the like)
i suspect some systems still work like that.....
os maybe what the servers work on it doesn't like spaces...but i have had no problems so far...
See more comments
Should I use hyphens or no hyphens for image file names?
I asked this question yesterday in the live chat and got varying answers. So, I just wanted to ask the wider community to got a broader perspective. For Google SEO, should I ad
Hi Chris, when it came to images I did not use hyphens. Your question made me do a search and I am sure you may want to look at the following link.
https://adolab.com/naming-images-for-seo/
Best wishes,
Michael
i don't think google worries about hyphens...
don't forget to use the alt text as well on every image
phil
Thanks Phil, I se the alt text :)
Yea, it just seems that a lot of people recommend using hyphens. Must be a reason? Or at least, maybe there was a reason in the past?
i think it was a past reason...hte same as using the dashes in hte html ...older operating systems really didn't like spaces in filenames and that has stuck....( dos and the like)
i suspect some systems still work like that.....
os maybe what the servers work on it doesn't like spaces...but i have had no problems so far...
See more comments
Hi, have you ever solved the problem? I am now also struggling with this. The screenshot may explain what is happening.