Not every article needs an illustration.
Forcing illustrations into every online article is a silly practice.
Pictures and text often complement each other well. You have an article about something, and the picture shows this thing and in many cases helps to understand it better. But in the web, this logic is no longer adhered to, because at some point they decided that illustrations are necessary for absolutely all texts. It may be a celebrity who is remotely relevant. Stock photography of a man with some kind of facial expression. Sony logo, which is simply the word SONY . I thought for a long time and came to the conclusion that this is stupid. I understand that the principle of “pictures → clicks” is holy for the industry, but it seems that some publishers have lost their sense of self-esteem. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then it is difficult for me to understand the value of the article, illustrated with a stock photo.
As in many other problems, the main fault seems to lie on social networks. Until the mid or late 2000s, the main source of traffic for individual articles was the main page of the site. These pages usually mimic the front pages of newspapers. There, the main articles - those that are worth spending time creating original artistic illustrations - were accompanied by pictures. Other articles had only a headline. Over time, the infinite size of the Internet has lowered the bar of which articles deserve artistic illustrations, but still not every article was accompanied by the KDPV.
Then Facebook and Twitter changed the industry in the traditional sense of “everything got worse.” Now, if a user has published an article on his website, then a thumbnail is used as a preview. If the article did not have this, social media still used something to their liking - usually a distorted version of the site’s logo or some other image from the same page, for example, a smaller copy of the image for another article. If the social media site could not find any pictures at all, then it displayed only the title. Websites are afraid that they look unprofessional - or, even worse, boring - and lose potential clicks. Even the fucking Economist now publishes a picture in every article on his website.
')
I think it is completely optional. If I read the news about how Donald Trump is a cruel and insensitive slug, I do not need to see his photo. If a new picture has appeared, which gives an additional context about what new he has done to destroy our future, then put it without question. Otherwise, I already know what it looks like.
Even worse is the Facebook article. Trump's photos are funny, but Mark Zuckerberg just always looks like Justin Timberlake's cousin, who served in the Red Army. However, like Trump, Facebook struggles to destroy everything that remains good, so Zuckerberg often appears on the news. And each time the news sites have to put his picture in the beginning of the article. Because an article without an illustration is unthinkable, websites feel the need to upload another photo of Mark in the same T-shirt on a blue background, for fear that you just have to publish the Facebook logo.
It looks like a preview if the article does not have an illustration, so Facebook pulls another image from somewhere on the page. Illustration: Hanson O'Haver / The Outline
For crime stories, the practice is even more alarming. There is some strange discord in how new articles about Harvey Weinstein [a Hollywood star accused of sexual harassment - approx. lane.] still accompanied by his photographs on the red carpet. What purpose do these illustrations serve? At the moment, everyone already knows what he looks like. I think we should look at him and think: “So this is how the accused of sexual crimes looks like.”
Of course, most inappropriate illustrations are not too terrible. Photo office park in an article about the business. Or cars in the article about traffic. Or a woman with a salad, laughing alone .
Incompatible with the logic itself unshakable belief that people will not read articles without pictures. Of course, an interesting illustration may attract readers, but most of these pictures are uninteresting. And even if it's a little better for business, is it really worth the trade-off? The situation is reminiscent of supermarkets with huge queues, because there are few cashiers; Yes, theoretically it is more profitable, but you have to pay for it in a terrible atmosphere.
This is what happens if Facebook cannot find which picture to insert. Illustration: Hanson O'Haver / The Outline
I don’t blame bad editors for choosing these photos, what else can they do? They were told to find something. If you edited articles for digital media, you probably spent some time scanning the collections of Getty Images or Shutterstock, or (accept my condolences) the Creative Commons section on Flickr. This deadly assignment serves as a reminder that we are all ultimately content farmers involved in commercial activities. But is it possible to use the time spent searching for these images for something else - not to mention the cost of their licenses?
Adults do not need pictures to help read. I understand that the refusal to place the illustrations at the beginning of each article at first glance seems like a very serious step, but as soon as some bold sites go for it, others will quickly follow suit. Publishing a general photo of a mobile phone in an article on mobile phones is simply insulting. For clarity: I am not an iconoclast. Pictures can serve as an excellent addition to the article; the problem is that now it has become a mandatory practice. Not every article needs an illustration.
Pictures and text often complement each other well. You have an article about something, and the picture shows this thing and in many cases helps to understand it better. But in the web, this logic is no longer adhered to, because at some point they decided that illustrations are necessary for absolutely all texts. It may be a celebrity who is remotely relevant. Stock photography of a man with some kind of facial expression. Sony logo, which is simply the word SONY . I thought for a long time and came to the conclusion that this is stupid. I understand that the principle of “pictures → clicks” is holy for the industry, but it seems that some publishers have lost their sense of self-esteem. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then it is difficult for me to understand the value of the article, illustrated with a stock photo.
As in many other problems, the main fault seems to lie on social networks. Until the mid or late 2000s, the main source of traffic for individual articles was the main page of the site. These pages usually mimic the front pages of newspapers. There, the main articles - those that are worth spending time creating original artistic illustrations - were accompanied by pictures. Other articles had only a headline. Over time, the infinite size of the Internet has lowered the bar of which articles deserve artistic illustrations, but still not every article was accompanied by the KDPV.
Then Facebook and Twitter changed the industry in the traditional sense of “everything got worse.” Now, if a user has published an article on his website, then a thumbnail is used as a preview. If the article did not have this, social media still used something to their liking - usually a distorted version of the site’s logo or some other image from the same page, for example, a smaller copy of the image for another article. If the social media site could not find any pictures at all, then it displayed only the title. Websites are afraid that they look unprofessional - or, even worse, boring - and lose potential clicks. Even the fucking Economist now publishes a picture in every article on his website.
')
I think it is completely optional. If I read the news about how Donald Trump is a cruel and insensitive slug, I do not need to see his photo. If a new picture has appeared, which gives an additional context about what new he has done to destroy our future, then put it without question. Otherwise, I already know what it looks like.
Even worse is the Facebook article. Trump's photos are funny, but Mark Zuckerberg just always looks like Justin Timberlake's cousin, who served in the Red Army. However, like Trump, Facebook struggles to destroy everything that remains good, so Zuckerberg often appears on the news. And each time the news sites have to put his picture in the beginning of the article. Because an article without an illustration is unthinkable, websites feel the need to upload another photo of Mark in the same T-shirt on a blue background, for fear that you just have to publish the Facebook logo.
It looks like a preview if the article does not have an illustration, so Facebook pulls another image from somewhere on the page. Illustration: Hanson O'Haver / The Outline
For crime stories, the practice is even more alarming. There is some strange discord in how new articles about Harvey Weinstein [a Hollywood star accused of sexual harassment - approx. lane.] still accompanied by his photographs on the red carpet. What purpose do these illustrations serve? At the moment, everyone already knows what he looks like. I think we should look at him and think: “So this is how the accused of sexual crimes looks like.”
Publishing a general photo of a mobile phone in an article on mobile phones is simply insulting.
Of course, most inappropriate illustrations are not too terrible. Photo office park in an article about the business. Or cars in the article about traffic. Or a woman with a salad, laughing alone .
Incompatible with the logic itself unshakable belief that people will not read articles without pictures. Of course, an interesting illustration may attract readers, but most of these pictures are uninteresting. And even if it's a little better for business, is it really worth the trade-off? The situation is reminiscent of supermarkets with huge queues, because there are few cashiers; Yes, theoretically it is more profitable, but you have to pay for it in a terrible atmosphere.
This is what happens if Facebook cannot find which picture to insert. Illustration: Hanson O'Haver / The Outline
I don’t blame bad editors for choosing these photos, what else can they do? They were told to find something. If you edited articles for digital media, you probably spent some time scanning the collections of Getty Images or Shutterstock, or (accept my condolences) the Creative Commons section on Flickr. This deadly assignment serves as a reminder that we are all ultimately content farmers involved in commercial activities. But is it possible to use the time spent searching for these images for something else - not to mention the cost of their licenses?
Adults do not need pictures to help read. I understand that the refusal to place the illustrations at the beginning of each article at first glance seems like a very serious step, but as soon as some bold sites go for it, others will quickly follow suit. Publishing a general photo of a mobile phone in an article on mobile phones is simply insulting. For clarity: I am not an iconoclast. Pictures can serve as an excellent addition to the article; the problem is that now it has become a mandatory practice. Not every article needs an illustration.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/342356/
All Articles