Interesting article, but the subject of the article (the amazing images) are only shown in tiny thumbnails, with no links to the full-size images. Seems to sort of defeat the purpose.
An entire article about digital camouflage and they offer one measly 245 px wide photo 3/4 down the article. The linked article about the Chinese military parade only featured 1 decent image. sigh
How can you have an article about how things look without plenty of pictures? This article has one picture at the start to catch your attention but it isn't a picture of anything that's specifically referred to in the text.
> I know it's buried deep, but it's kind of weird for the reporting to not even show an image of the area?
It’s something I have seen becoming the norm nowadays. Articles about art or photographs without a single image. Political articles about borders without a single map. Articles about some thing some scientist has done, maybe with a picture of the scientist, but not of the actual thing. And it’s not a technical limitation of the medium; most articles will have numerous (but irrelevant) images.
I suspect that SEO measurement has told people that it doesn’t matter what images an article has, as long as it has some images, optimally interspersed with the text. Spending any money on getting relevant images thus becomes an unnecessary expense. Readers will still click on the article (because of the click-bait headline), and will still read (or at least scroll through) the article if the text is broken up by images by an optimal amount.
reply