It is my understanding that posts with images generate longer time
on page and more engagement. People like pictures, and are afraid of “walls of text”.
I haven’t seen the data, but this is what I have been told, and it’s quite plausible. I don’t use header images on posts on my own site because I agree with you, but unfortunately oftentimes things that seem bad or ugly are such a way for a good reason.
It’s the same thing about big ugly pancake buttons and people’s close up faces on landing pages.
Yep. I hate stock imagery, because it’s 100% overhead and conveys nothing of value, and by dint of its uselessness and irrelevance, cases where imagery is relevant are less likely to be heeded; but because of human psychology, stock imagery works.
By “irrelevant” I mean irrelevant to the content, which is entirely accurate. It’s psychological trickery in the presentation of the article, not part of the content.
I haven’t seen the data, but this is what I have been told, and it’s quite plausible. I don’t use header images on posts on my own site because I agree with you, but unfortunately oftentimes things that seem bad or ugly are such a way for a good reason.
It’s the same thing about big ugly pancake buttons and people’s close up faces on landing pages.