Why is it that every time you find an article that you like and that sounds interesting, moments after clicking on it you realize that its just a video? For some reason this seems to happen to me quite a bit, and while I don't mind the video, sometimes I just want a transcript of the video. What happens if I don't have my speakers or headphones? I mean come on its not rocket science to have a link at the bottom to a .txt file that would have the transcribed contents of the video. Unfortunately that's probably not why they decide to omit it. I'm betting its clearly NOT an oversight on their part, but rather its intentional. Why? Because they are probably paid by on a click-by-click basis by someone who does advertising on the lead-in of the video (I mean article) that you are actually interested. Either way its incredibly annoying, I just want to read what happened rather than be told by someone or to actually watch it most of the time. Its kind of like that whole book better than a movie thing, well it holds true here too.
Here's a great example, MSNBC.com had a headline today of:
"For First Time a Vaccine Helps Prevent HIV", but when you click it all that comes up is a video...why?
One other thing, why is it that whenever you click on an article that that you're hoping has a picture of something that drove you to click on it in the first place, the article never has the picture? Just yesterday I clicked on an article that said giant squid attacking Oregon beaches, I'm like, "Hell yes I want to see giant squid". Unfortunately for me the writer of the actual article must have thought, "Nah, no one's gonna need or even want to see these squid, they'll be way more awesome in their imaginations than actually seeing a picture of them." Here's a good example of how a picture or even a movie in this case would be BETTER than words. In my mind these giant squid are 30-40 feet long and are ravaging the shipping industries of the coastal Oregonian cities. In reality, these may be no larger than 2 foot calamari, how would I know though they neglected to add any visual evidence of THE GIANT SQUID! There should be some sort of requirement when it comes to these thing for Christ's Sake!
For instance, the link on the Register-Guard Newspaper website says, "Jumbo squid hit Oregon Beaches," and take a gander at it...not a single picture. I'll just have to assume the following artist rendering depicts these "jumbo" squid well enough...
Here's a great example, MSNBC.com had a headline today of:
"For First Time a Vaccine Helps Prevent HIV", but when you click it all that comes up is a video...why?
One other thing, why is it that whenever you click on an article that that you're hoping has a picture of something that drove you to click on it in the first place, the article never has the picture? Just yesterday I clicked on an article that said giant squid attacking Oregon beaches, I'm like, "Hell yes I want to see giant squid". Unfortunately for me the writer of the actual article must have thought, "Nah, no one's gonna need or even want to see these squid, they'll be way more awesome in their imaginations than actually seeing a picture of them." Here's a good example of how a picture or even a movie in this case would be BETTER than words. In my mind these giant squid are 30-40 feet long and are ravaging the shipping industries of the coastal Oregonian cities. In reality, these may be no larger than 2 foot calamari, how would I know though they neglected to add any visual evidence of THE GIANT SQUID! There should be some sort of requirement when it comes to these thing for Christ's Sake!
For instance, the link on the Register-Guard Newspaper website says, "Jumbo squid hit Oregon Beaches," and take a gander at it...not a single picture. I'll just have to assume the following artist rendering depicts these "jumbo" squid well enough...
No comments:
Post a Comment