It’s something I have seen becoming the norm nowadays. Articles about art or photographs without a single image. Political articles about borders without a single map. Articles about some thing some scientist has done, maybe with a picture of the scientist, but not of the actual thing. And it’s not a technical limitation of the medium; most articles will have numerous (but irrelevant) images.

I suspect that SEO measurement has told people that it doesn’t matter what images an article has, as long as it has some images, optimally interspersed with the text. Spending any money on getting relevant images thus becomes an unnecessary expense. Readers will still click on the article (because of the click-bait headline), and will still read (or at least scroll through) the article if the text is broken up by images by an optimal amount.

(Repost from three years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37167492>)

Thanks, I was thinking the same! This also has some good photos

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/08/archaeolog...

Pictures in this article:

https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/76901

Smallest picture possible for the largest mosaic. I guess they don't want to pay licensing fees for a useful amount of pictures.