The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion

Opposed to them? Love them? Let your opinions fly.

Have any examples of good and bad uses of them? (Please include links)

I gotta be honest, I kind of hate them :P

Occasionally, they're fun. Too many really detract, though.

I enjoy them if used properly and not in every single review.

This is the only one I've really seen them used in:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I think they're pretty much unnecessary. If an image has to be used then I think it should be limited to one, small, image.

Honestly, 99% of the time they seem cutsey and unnecessary.

agreed.

I remember when goodreads first added this option, I thought oh no...

I still think that, most of the time.
An exception would be in a book of art, where artwork is posted, or a relevant photo of the author.

(I sound pretty conservative, eh?)
of course there are a few exceptional images in reviews, mostly very funny, that defy the above.

I find that graphic novel reviews without a good picture or two are often completely useless... it's hard to judge a graphic novel without seeing at least one or two panes.

Brian is actually the all time GR master of using images in reviews, he's turned it into a minor art form - example, his review of Twilight

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Aside from Brian's, images mostly set my teeth on edge because mostly they are lolcats and vomitously cutesy. I think it's an infection that spread from the YA crowd.

Brian's use of images gives me an alternative point of entry into his reviews.
You don't have to start reading in a linear, chronological, top down way.
You can wander around the page and soak up the feel of what he's on about, before you jump in.
Then you can start reading the text with a grin on your face.
It creates a second level of discussion that balances the seriousness of the subject matter or the review.
Plus, theoretically at least, you'd expect that the light-heartedness of the images would deter trolls, but that doesn't seem to have been the case.
At least, not all of them have been deterred.

Brian wrote: "You are too kind, Paul, but I would say my best use of images are not in my Twilight review, but rather my review of Papagaitaucher. That is, of course just an opinion.
;)"

I like pictures of birds. Sometimes more than words.

I usually don't mind images in reviews as long as they are related to the story or if it is used to bring out a point in a review. Most of the time, I love it whenever reviewers used images to make the review hilarious or creative.

Being on slow dialup when I do GR, I find images annoying, esp if they keep all the text from loading and are not appropriately compressed. The example above was particularly annoying.

I actually like images more than I thought I would, but only if it's doing something to enhance the text...like most of what Brian does, really. And the review has to still be about the review; as soon as it's about the pictures or the overall presentation, there's no point for me anymore.

I think this image justifies its presence in the "review," and it was made by the reviewer, besides:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Jessica wrote: "I think this image justifies its presence in the "review," and it was made by the reviewer, besides:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..."

Jessica, I totally agree with you about this image, but when I first saw it some time ago, I totally misinterpreted it.
I am not the only one to feel this.
The image was too small for me to "see" it properly.
Natalie's explanation of her intent is a beautiful piece of writing, but the size of the image prevented me from understanding her intent.

I think they are mostly fun, as long as they are in moderation. Actually, most of the time they draw me to that review and become new cyber stalk victims...er Followed? Best one ever: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I think images are kind of like sex scenes in films: if they are clearly needed and effectively incorporated, great. If not, though, the creator looks like a jerk who is taking the cheapest route to attention. Brian uses them to great effect. I, on the other hand, am clearly a jerk.

And cute animals--unless they're used ironically--suck. Let's try to move away from the whole cute animals thing.

I hate them. I rather a witty comment then a stupid cat image. This is a site about books... surely word art is something we all appreciate?

I don't hate them, but they are annoying sometimes especially when they load slow on an old computer. Sometimes I truly wonder why the poster posted it though as they can bear no relation to the text and seem to be just for attention grabbing. Sometimes they are hilarious.

Really, only a couple friends use them regularly -- or at all actually -- so I can't really be bothered by them. And sometimes they're great. I occasionally use images myself, but only stuff that's directly pertinent in some way: illustrations, other art by the author, alternative covers I want to display, paintings referenced in the text. I hope this doesn't annoy anyone.

Meh. It's a love-hate thang. Mostly because if I am being a 'like' prig I use pictures. Then I feel I need to go indulge in some Dreyers.

I love them so much. I use them all the time. It just the review more...fun for me.

I came across this car-crash discussion thread about images in reviews - it will be interesting for any one who doesn't know what an alt tag is, which I surely didn't.

http://www.goodreads.com/user_status/...

Oh, yeah. I saw that thread. That OP was kind of annoying.

Car crash discussion indeed.

I like when I use them in a pithy and clever way: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

gets my vote

Images can spice up most things, so I usually find it enjoyable.

I like them except when the entire review is made up of pictures with barely any words.