When planning a landing site for each rover mission, NASA considers a variety of factors and makes a best-guess as to the fruitfulness of each site from a scientific perspective.
Clearly a team of brilliant scientists has not failed to consider the possibility of exploring these strange spidery features, but they have decided against it for the time being.
It doesn't really make sense to assess their "strange priorities" as an outsider looking in with very limited knowledge as to how their decision making process actually works.
Yeah; just for starters, such a sandy area seems like a serious risk on its own to a rover, never mind the risk actual geysers would pose. The geysers are interesting, but are they worth jeopardizing an entire rover expedition for?
There is, to a first approximation, no atmosphere on Mars. To a slightly better approximation, there is an atmosphere on Mars, but only enough to cause trouble, not enough to actually be useful for anything.
On the other hand, the loss of a rover to one of these plumes could itself provide interesting information: It would conclusively prove that they occur explosively, and if we can photograph the rover afterwards then the displacement of an object with known mass would let us gauge the amount of force these things exert.
Clearly a team of brilliant scientists has not failed to consider the possibility of exploring these strange spidery features, but they have decided against it for the time being.
It doesn't really make sense to assess their "strange priorities" as an outsider looking in with very limited knowledge as to how their decision making process actually works.