lazy load
 

Between tons of stupid and useless threads, I hope someone smart will notice this one.
I was wondering, what is your opinion on the lazy load method?

After implementation, were there some difference?
Do visitors love it or hate it?
Were there drop in google image search traffic after implementation?

thanks

I don't have any stats to assist you, but if you use lazy load, that would mean visitors would spend more time on a single page rather than a shorter time, and that would mean less bounce rate. So I would imagine that lazy load is probably better. This is just my speculation though

That's the trick, everyone has a different view so I wanted to get a feedback from someone really into optimization of pages. For me, it is an irritating feature, confusing me as a visitor but some pages (depending on the number of photos) noticed 40% decrease in load time.

I think I will try it in some period and then compare bounce rate, time on site and load time with period without lazy load

Yes. Load time difference and additional code complexity.

Depends on implementation, current load times and actual site.

Could easily happen if not implemented well. Lazy load can kill your SEO if not implemented well.

I'd stay away from lazy load for now. I've been to sites where it fails to load as you scroll down and you have to reload the page and scroll all the way back to where you were before to get farther to where you wanted to go initially. Pagination works fine imo

We've been using lazy load for quite some time now and it works fine for us. If you want to load a page with lots of images then you really have to use it.

The main thing to remember is to put a <noscript> tag next to each image and in there you have you normal <img> tag which allows google to still crawl all your images

See the source code at https://www.tacamateurs.com/ to see what i mean

I have done split tests and there was no difference in conversions
so if you want to save bandwidth and make your site load faster it's a good option
best is to only lazyload the images below the fold

Depends on what kind of site we are talking about here. For a paysite I hate them - endless scroll of giant thumbs. Yuck.

But for a TGP like The Hun it can be quite useful.

If this an affiliate site we are talking about then I would definitely try it, especially if there were multiple Sponsors on the page. But in this scenario A-B testing is your friend. :)

Have luck!

Also important to differentiate between infinite scrolling and lazy loading.

Infinite scrolling - you never (or almost never) reach the bottom of the page. It always expands and loads more items as you get near to the bottom.
Example: Twitter, Facebook
I generally dislike it on most sites.

Lazy loading - the images only load when the user scrolls to that part of the page. Saves bandwidth and makes the page faster. Pages with lazy load are not necessarily huge.
Example: QZ.com, click an article and scroll to the bottom
I generally like it if executed properly.

It can be easy to confuse the two, since infinite scrolling sites utilize lazy loading. But a site with lazy loading doesn't need to have infinite scrolling at all.

“Lazy Load” sounds like a good name for a porn series . . .

I've always thought it was meant to reduce bandwidth usage.
Personally I hate sites that use this method. It's often making the stuff to load much later than my scrolling speeds, and sometimes shit is not loading at all. :error :error :error

^^^^^^^^^^

At my age, I'm just happy to still have a load. Oh, wait not that type of lazy load. :1orglaugh

I hate it as a surfer cause I want the content to be there when I scroll but I can see where it might help if you have surfers, not like me.

Yeah, I hate the cumshots that just trickle out like a mouse throwing up skim milk. Such a lazy load.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh . . .

I think it is suitable for sites like 9gag but beside that dont see point of it. And it is kind like automated drive of car where you dont have control compared to manual drive.

the point is to go easy on the servers and/or the users' bandwidth.
makes sense if loading is otherwise fast.
also depends on how much content the users see at first glance & the first-glance content's importance.

Related news from yesterday

Built-In Lazy Loading Lands in Google Chrome Canary
"Google has started rolling out support for built-in lazy loading inside Chrome. Currently, support for image and iframe lazy loading is only available in Chrome Canary, the Chrome version that Google uses to test new features"

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/new...chrome-canary/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Lazy Loading is extremely helpful if you want to keep bandwidth down. It only loads an item when it's really needed. In case of thehun that means it only loads thumbnails moments before they appear on your screen...

endless scrolling means you're adding content as you scroll down. Many sites these days prefer not to use this since it means less counted pageviews (=less impressions on the banners), but for the user it's a much better experience. Toughest part of endless scrolling is handling location when the user clicks 'back' to your site after they clicked on a link out...

When implemented properly both should not have a negative effect on your SEO traffic. Especially an endless scroll is easily implemented if you know a bit of coding. All you do is create an actual link to the next page. As soon as that's about to show you start loading it through an API and prepend it to the link. A search engine will actually follow the link (since the endless scroll isn't triggered when google bot loads your site), but the user gets freshly loaded content added. Another plus of using this method is that users without scripting enabled get the link which they can click