A Public Service Announcement to those who have Blogs

[James81]

Sticking random pictures in your post that really have little or nothing to do with the post itself is an INSULT to the reader's intelligence.

I find myself annoyed when I go onto a blog and each post is riddled with stock photos that are there to just break up the text.

Your readers aren't ADD ridden lunatics. Some of us read and read a lot. The current book I'm reading is a 1000 pages long. Do you really think I'm going to get bored with a 1000 word blog post? Only if the quality of writing sucks or the content is tired or boring.

So, peeps, please stop throwing random, lifeless pictures into your blog posts. I know people recommend it, but it's totally not necessary. Look at Steve's blog.

[MyEyeIsOpen]

James, you have every right to be annoyed by the practice, that's your prerogative.

I've done pretty extensive research into this, and found that people, on average, read much longer if the text is broken up in various ways, including with pictures, related or not.

Steve's style works, I suspect, for historical reasons. If Steve were starting from nothing today, I think he'd have to adjust.

[James81]

Originally Posted by MyEyeIsOpen

I've done pretty extensive research into this, and found that people, on average, read much longer if the text is broken up in various ways, including with pictures, related or not.

Just to be clear, I never said that people shouldn't break up the text in certain ways. I just said that pictures are an insult to a reader's intelligence UNLESS the picture is very specific to the content.

Also keep in mind that I'm making this thread from a reader's perspective and not from a bloggers/writer's perspective.

Also take note that if your content is compelling and interesting, people WILL read. I think it would behoove people to focus MORE on creating a good hook in the first paragraph than it would to use gimmicks to get people to continue reading. I've had people comment on my blog about how they usually just skim but when they started reading my posts that they read it all because they were compelled to read it and thought it was interesting.

Now, I'm not patting my own back, I'm just reinforcing the idea that you don't have to use a gimmick such as a picture to compel readers to read. If you notice, I use quotes and bold titles to break up longer blog posts. I also use shorter paragraphs. I think these are FAR more effective writing devices than inserting pictures randomly throughout.

And finally, take notice of the energy that you expel in finding a good picture for your blog post. Sometimes it takes a little while to find the right image that *kinda* works (yes, when I first started blogging, I would try to insert pictures in my posts as well). Now imagine focusing all of that energy and time in writing a good hook and making sure the writing flows well and the content is interesting.

Originally Posted by MyEyeIsOpen

Steve's style works, I suspect, for historical reasons. If Steve were starting from nothing today, I think he'd have to adjust.

Steve's style works because Steve provides quality content and is a good writer. Period.

[Karanime]

Cracked.com

That is all.

/<3

[James81]

Originally Posted by Karanime

Cracked.com

That is all.

/<3

Key words being "relevant to the content of the post/website."

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by MyEyeIsOpen

Steve's style works, I suspect, for historical reasons. If Steve were starting from nothing today, I think he'd have to adjust.

I absolutely agree.

I've always wondered how he can get away with such a plain site. But he got "hooked into the web" a long time ago.

If you made an exact clone of his site, point for point, it probably wouldn't take in today's web.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

I absolutely agree.

I've always wondered how he can get away with such a plain site. But he got "hooked into the web" a long time ago.

If you made an exact clone of his site, point for point, it probably wouldn't take in today's web.

Steve started his site in 2004. The internet had been around for 10 years on a grand public scale at that point.

People don't need a lot of BS gimmicks to hook them. I know I'm not the only one out there who is annoyed by all the crap we have to filter out to get to the "good stuff" of a website. One of the HUGE reasons why I was attracted to this site (in 2009 nonetheless ) was because his site is jam packed full of quality and in depth content with very little BS.

If you were right, then people simply wouldn't read books.

[ellie]

Originally Posted by MyEyeIsOpen

James, you have every right to be annoyed by the practice, that's your prerogative.

I've done pretty extensive research into this, and found that people, on average, read much longer if the text is broken up in various ways, including with pictures, related or not.

Steve's style works, I suspect, for historical reasons. If Steve were starting from nothing today, I think he'd have to adjust.

I agree! Personally I am a very visual person, so I gravitate towards blogs that have visuals, it stimulates me more. Before I started my recent blog, I thought about what I liked in a lot of the blogs I visited was the photos, and majority of the time photos chosen captivated me. I mean choosing the right photo or illustration, shows to me the creativity of the blogger. Unless the post I land upon is exceptional, i will tend to not read any further if there are no other visuals to entice me. Let me just say 9 out of 10 times you wont land on a post that tickles your fancy straight of the bat.

In my own blog I use random photos, or illustrations (all pretty much created by me) and I like it. If others don't like it, that's their issue. It's my blog I will do what I want with it.

I don't really care if I have followers anyway, it's merely for me to get those cycling thoughts out of my head and express myself.

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by James81

People don't need a lot of BS gimmicks to hook them. I know I'm not the only one out there who is annoyed by all the crap we have to filter out to get to the "good stuff" of a website. One of the HUGE reasons why I was attracted to this site (in 2009 nonetheless ) was because his site is jam packed full of quality and in depth content with very little BS.

His site is filled with good stuff. But in today's blogosphere, Steve wouldn't be able to attract social media traffic needed to grow.

Google isn't as forgiving today as it was in 2004.

[Cochonette]

I agree with the OP. Steve's posts are broken up in some way. He divides every post up into sections with headers.

Plus, his content is amazing and absolutely riveting. Haven't found anything quite like it. But the other two of my favorite blogs (which are political blogs) also don't use a lot of images (only one of them uses images at all).

[ssandra]

You have different people.

Different things work for different people.

Some people like pictures, some people don't.

Some blogs have pictures, some blogs don't.

Seems pretty balanced to me

[Trezker]

I find it really frustrating with unrelated pictures in an article.
Only use a picture if it is neccessary to clarify something being described directly before or after the picture.

Otherwise I'm going get interrupted by it, wonder wtf that picture is trying to say and then I forget what the bloody article was about.

If you want to break up your text, use paragraphs and sections please. And if you're too wordy for the value of the article, shorten it.

[EasyBlue]

I agree with James81. When I see those blogs all I can think is "Wow, this author thinks if they stick enough generic stock photos into this post, it will somehow increase their traffic by 200%." The photos aren't there to benefit the reader in any way, so why are they there?

It always seems like some cheap SEO trick, like perhaps giving those images related ALT values will help the site's SEO? Regardless, it feels like it's solely for traffic purposes.

Sub-headings are a nice way of breaking up the text, and giving the eye a rest.

[Explinfin]

I too find it annoying when I see this, and I see it a lot!!

I dont even like putting any images in my posts. Text rocks!

[ellie]

All I can say is "go the visuals"

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

His site is filled with good stuff.

Which is enough.

But in today's blogosphere, Steve wouldn't be able to attract social media traffic needed to grow.

Why? People want valuable content. Steve provides that. If Steve would start today the competiton would be bigger, granted, but that doesn't mean a text only site with great content wouldn't get a lot of attention.

Google isn't as forgiving today as it was in 2004.

Google doesn't care. It measures interesting content plus # site visits.

I agree with James81 that pics that have nothing to do with the content only distract. For me it diminishes the value.

[andrew]

I was just thinking this the other day. It's almost like a negative anchor now, every time I see pro stock photos in a blog, I instantly get a cheesy feeling.

In my posts, I pain to search over the internet to find an original photo (usually flickr) that is creative and catches the reader (also links back to the indie photographer). It gives a large, single image to associate to the post topic and breaks up a lot of the text. Most text heavy sites are a strain, even with good typography.

Albeit I'm a designer, so I understand these concepts, but most writers don't. I don't know about anyone else (maybe it's just me designing sites for 8 years), but it's super easy at a quick glance to distinguish a unique site/content, and a lame throw up site with generic content just for some adsense (with all the random stock photos). Anybody else find they just skip sites that look like that?