They are all so light in relevance that the content would be better if there were no imagery at all. None of these articles are improved by having a stolen staged image of a bike thief in them.
Might as well draw a picture of a bike in MS paint. Same effect.
I think that a picture is easier to get at first glance than the words.
Let's pick an article at random: "End of UK lockdown may mean a rise in bike thefts". You most likely need a few seconds to read and understand that the main topic of the article is bike theft and start to visualize it. I mean, chances that you start reading the title and think "it is about covid" and as you read the end, you think "no, it is about bike theft". Put a really obvious and staged picture of someone stealing a bike and you instantly get it.
Kind of the same reason why we put icons next to text in software UI, even though it is redundant.
I understand what you’re saying but perhaps the reader should be required to put the effort in to read 11 words rather than seeing a shorthand and jumping to conclusion!
I am strongly in favor of the least effort principle. So if an article can spare me a second of effort, I take it. I particularly appreciate it when a journalist
recognizes that their readers attention is precious and gets to the point without wasting it. (I know, ads, but that's another subject)
By least effort, I don't mean that people should make no effort, but I don't want to force them just because it feels virtuous. In the case of an article, ideally, it should follow a progression. The illustration is the first step: it is quick, and intuitive, enough to know if want to continue or not. Then there is the title, intro, the article itself, and the references. This way, I can spend as much effort as I want, but I am not forced at any point.
So, for example.
1- Illustration of a bike thief: This is about bike theft, I am interested, let's see (alternatively: I don't care, I don't have a bike anyways, let's see the other news)
2- Title: This is about bike theft after the UK lockdown, ah, interesting, I didn't think about that (alternatively: meh, I heard enough about that lockdown)
3- Article: That's a good overview of the situation, but I'd like to learn more (alternatively: fine, that's all I need to know)
In my opinion the least effort principle here undermines the actual purpose of the article though. It’s not about being virtuous it’s about them actually taking the time to understand 11 words without shortcuts which you may get wrong.
11 word headlines are already a shortcut and there is a point where more shortcuts are just taking the piss. Besides, on the internet I’ve probably already committed to clicking on an article before I see most illustrations.
I think illustrative pictures should always add to an article, not be a shortcut to decide interest.
“This public square on Franklin Street is the number one place to have your bike stolen in London” not “remember what a bike looks like?”
The “only respond to the headline” problem HN has is an extended version of the problem.
Makes me wonder if perhaps one day there could come an irreversible fashion of, well, illustrating the illustrative nature of stock photos like that by uniformly pushing them through your publication's style-GAN. Almost surprises me that this hasn't happened yet.
Absolutely, I occasionally have to buy stock photos and am shocked at how overpriced and cheesy they are. On the flip side you've got hordes of quite talented wannabe influencers putting our content for nothing. There's surely a market to be made there getting reach and money to the influencers and imagery to publishers.
