My website consists of thousands of photos online that people can see. The photographer creates the photos using the highest quality settings possible and then uploads them. Then my php scripts use compression to generate the photos online at acceptable quality and therefore make users wait substantially less time for photos to display.

So far, everything is good until recently the photographer told me a number of people requested the ability to download the photos at the same quality the photographer used.

I then begin to offer the downloads direct as JPEG images with these HTTP headers attached to indicate the photo is an actual download:

content-disposition: attachment; filename=Photo.jpg
content-type: image/jpeg
cache-control: max-age=864000,must-revalidate
content-length: 1111

Of course 1111 is replaced with the actual file size of the highest quality photo itself.

I begin to think this is the reason my adsense earnings on the site are stuck at under 10 cents a day.

So my question then is whats the best way to serve a ridiculously high quality image online as a download without requiring manual intervention and without making google think that I'm trying to offer a poor user experience as a result of linking to unoptimized large image files?

The only thing I'm thinking is to use PHP to create a gzipped version of it and offer that as the download but I'm not sure if the entire world or if mobile devices can support actual gzip files.

Any ideas?

  • What is your train of thought regarding effecting Google Adsense? How do you feel that Google could consider UX to be poor? There are plenty of image sites on the web and I assume some of them make money. Mostly Adsense is highly dependent upon text content for bidders. Higher bids go to sites with search results for money terms that can attract users interested in whatever. For example, a site with information on using and maintaining commercial computer systems or computer security as well as international travel information or lifestyle could get higher bids.
    – closetnoc
    Jul 9 '15 at 16:42
  • I think its all about overall speed because if super high quality pictures are constantly served, then the server is worked harder and that makes the experience slower for the rest. As with optimized images, the server doesn't have to work so hard and can then serve more requests in a shorter time. I'm sure advertisers would love seeing ridiculously fast websites. Jul 9 '15 at 16:49
  • Got it! I would make sure your HTML pages are fast. If you link the images externally so that it is not embedded in a HTML page, then I think you are fine. That would be standard and customary.
    – closetnoc
    Jul 9 '15 at 16:52
  • Do you even want these "ridiculously high quality images" crawled by Google?
    – MrWhite
    Jul 9 '15 at 17:03
  • @w3d said it before I could. Why not just exclude the high quality images from being crawled?
    – JCL1178
    Jul 9 '15 at 17:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.