Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Lazyloading images with a noscript fallback. Should I expect any damage in the SERPs? The site is completely thumbnail based. Also should I put a smaller image size in the noscript fallback to increase crawlability? We have nearly 1mil thumbs so it's a decision I'm hesitant to do. The reason why I'm thinking about it in the first place is because we're upping thumbail size about 50% which will add 10% of pagesize.

share|improve this question
You're making references to a particular implementation(eg. the noscript comment; not all involve that) without actually telling us which you're using, which makes it kind of impossible to address. On the other hand, what @YardenST said overall. – Su' Aug 5 '12 at 18:36

When using lazy image load make sure:

  1. Use a technique that keeps the SRC attribute of the tag so it will be transparent to search engines bots. (Many plugins use data-src.) Just like the when you use <a> tags for Ajax, you should keep the original href so bots can crawl the target location.
  2. Use image site maps.
share|improve this answer
what about a noscript tag for the images? – surpr Jul 6 '12 at 18:42
you need to think this way: use normal tag images. if the client can run JavaScript, run the script causing the lazy loading. this way you don't need the fallback. – YardenST Jul 6 '12 at 22:25

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.