[humblebeekeeper]

There's:

1 header image

1 image showing in process

1 image explaining lightfastness

3 images explaining the importance of lightfastness

1 image explaining the measurement process

1 image linking to another article diving much deeper into the methodology

1 image linking to another article on a different color pencil concern (layering)

1 image representing each brand-line's lightfastness

Every single one of those images seemed relevant to the concept presented and clarified something that would have been difficult to articulate succinctly in writing. For example, the "how was this measured" is a lot easier to understand once you've seen the grid of squares before and after than it would be to try and articulate the fading of colors in small squares in text.

There's LOTS of individual images on specific brands, but given their wild degree of variance, I think it's really useful to perceptually see what's going on with each one.

I'm curious, where do you feel the images were "spammy"? It's a conclusion I heartily disagree with, but would love to understand.

[dcrazy]

I think gennarro is reacting to the very SEO-friendly organization of the article. Every content farm produces articles with this kind of flow, often with Wikipedia-style tables of contents at the beginning. But they do it because it’s very similar to the structure an actually informative article would take! So we can’t tell for sure whether the author adopted an SEO-friendly structure for her informative and original content, or if her content just happens to be a good model of the style that content farms have chosen to imitate.