Three myths about image optimization

Every audit we run turns up some version of this. A few things about image optimization that get repeated more often than they get checked.

Real-world numbers from actual visitors matter more than a score produced on a fast laptop. It is the sort of thing that looks like polish right up until it costs you an enquiry.

“It only matters for big sites”

Images are usually the largest thing on a page. In practice this is a scheduling problem more than a technical one. It is the sort of thing that looks like polish right up until it costs you an enquiry.

“We can deal with it after launch”

Sometimes true, usually expensive. The teams that handle this well are rarely the ones with the biggest budgets.

“Our platform handles it”

Serving a 3000px image into a 400px slot is pure waste. In practice this is a scheduling problem more than a technical one. Budget a little time for it every quarter and it never becomes a project of its own.

How to tell if yours is fine

Speed is a feature people notice only in its absence, and then they leave rather than complain. Three things worth confirming about image optimization before you move on:

• Someone can say what the current setup is without going to look
• Serving a 3000px image into a 400px slot is pure waste — and you know whether that is true here
• There is a way to tell whether the last change to this helped

Worth checking on your own setup before it becomes someone else's problem to fix.