Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi there, Thanks for the question! I can certainly speak to Keyword Explorer's numbers and how we arrived there. We use a number of sources for our volume data, including Keyword Planner, but oftentimes you will see large discrepancies because our data goes through a disambiguation process. As you noticed, Google Keyword Planner currently bundles similar keywords into one overall volume metric. Most people want specific data rather than a grouped number, so we strive to separate out the individual keyword volumes. You can read more about that here: https://moz.com/blog/google-keyword-unplanner-clickstream-data-to-the-rescue The trouble is that often times you will have one keyword that is responsible for upwards of 95% of the traffic. So, when the data is separated out, it makes the less-trafficked keywords look suspiciously low when in fact their traffic volume is more accurate in our tool. We have a few additional articles that discuss our volume data compared to Keyword Planner: https://moz.com/blog/google-keyword-planner-dirty-secrets https://moz.com/blog/moz-keyword-explorer-vs-google-keyword I hope that helps clarify things!

To be clear - specifying the image dimensions on the HTML has no effect on what size of image is downloaded from the server. It serves only to specify the space on the html page that should be reserved for the image display when it does finally load. So it gives s the impression of faster speed by keeping the page from redrawing once the image dimensions are actually known by the browser.