Because humans are novelty-seekers. Emily Yoffe, my former colleague at Slate, has written at length about what motivates our desire for new information. The Internet taps into our insatiable desire for more—more pleasure, more distraction, more news. When we get this new stimulus, dopamine leaks into our brain, making us want to dive even deeper into the web. And diving deeper means clicking further—slide after slide after slide.
Jonah Lehrer, the author of How We Decide, furthered Yoffe’s work and noted that we especially want to know more about that which we already know. The slideshow format is designed to exploit exactly this. Once we see one slide, we have enough background knowledge to want to see them all.
The pictures also are key. In the developer and web-design community, it’s well known that web readers’ eyes linger longer on articles and headlines with images attached to them. That same rule applies with a slideshow.
Some sites have capitalized on our psychological vulnerability more vigorously than others. The Boston Globe advertises its slideshows on every article page. (These slideshows range from the serious to the seriously mundane. In September, quarterback Tom Brady’s minor car crash merited a thirty-page slideshow, including photos of broken glass.) Time links to photo galleries from within articles—while you’re reading, a red link asks you to “See the aftermath of the [Pakistani] floods.” Entertainment Weekly runs multiple slideshows, like “MTV Video Music Awards: 26 Years of the Good, Bad and Ugly,” every day, filling its home page’s top-story slots with anodyne top-twenty-five lists.
Of course, not all slideshows are born with original sin. Half-naked photo galleries have as much in common with a serious visual essay as Maxim does with The New Yorker. So to make sense of the new slideshow economy, I surveyed the field and devised a rough taxonomy:
The Gallery
Aesthetically intriguing but editorially empty, the gallery is photojournalism’s most valuable contribution to the economics of web journalism. All slideshows are, in a way, galleries, but the true gallery is defined by its simplicity. The photos do the talking, which means they’re usually hyperbolic in their beauty, horror, or strangeness. Typical example: “PHOTOS: Astronauts’ Spectacular Twitter Pictures From Space,” The Huffington Post.
The Listicle
A gallery with more of an editorial bent, listicles are an easy way to trap the completist reader into clicking through the whole thing. Listicle creators are essentially modern-day collectors, assembling and categorizing disparate items to make a larger point. Typical example: “A Complete Guide to Justin Bieber’s Dance Moves,” Vulture.com.
The Countdown
Little more than a listicle with an extra layer of arbitrary opinion, the countdown is an adaptation of every “Best of” list that appears in magazines and on cable TV at the end of the year. When slides are placed in descending order, the slideshow takes on a narrative momentum, ensuring its audience keeps clicking. Typical example: “The 10 Best Sports Movies of the 2000s,” Bleacher Report.
The Timeline
Once again, an organizational framework is applied to the classic gallery, and once again it makes it a more propulsive read. Great timelines are trips through a past the audience either vaguely remembers, or that informs the zeitgeist of the present. Typical example: “The Secret Origins of Clippy: Microsoft’s Bizarre Animated Character Patent,” Technologizer.
The Aggregator
A visual display of the kitchen sink. When there’s a loose scattering of things to be presented, and no good way to present them cohesively, they may as well be presented visually. It’s an unadulterated play for your clicks with little editorial value. Typical example: “VOTE: Where Should Arianna Stop on Her ‘Third World America’ Tour?” The Huffington Post.
The Sex Show
The most noticeable slideshow on the web, and also the most virulent. As scanty as it is shameless, it’s often organized around a theme, celebrity, or body part, the sex show can range from scandalous to staid, depending on the site’s editorial tenor. Typical example: “Blake Lively’s Breast Looks,” Vulture.com.

>> Because humans are novelty-seekers.
I seek novelty: ways I can use Firefox to avoid all of that infernal clicking.
Here's one:
AutoPager :: Add-ons for Firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4925/
#1 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 02:10 PM
Are there not enough advertisements to put a unique ad in front of the same user 10 clicks in a row? There are only a finite amount of the "uniques" clicking links.
Keeping count of uniques and page counts are both remnants of pre-internet publishing and advertising. It differs not from magazine publishers who over-print their issues, to boost their numbers, only to send stacks by the truck load to the dump. Or to offer deep discounts on subscriptions, same thing: boost the numbers.
It's amazing to me that the best and most deceptive liars--marketers and advertisers--allow themselves to be so deceived by mere publishers. But it's all a part of the chain that ends with the consumer.
Time on site, and bounce statistics are both far more telling. They tell of the quality of the content, or at least of the experience. Even a slide show can be clicked through in a breeze. We're all speed readers, when it comes to the thousand words of a picture.
I'm in a start-up frame of mind. Consult me on some publishing ideas: jonathon [at] nationalheadquarters.org
#2 Posted by Jonathon, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 04:57 PM
You bury the lede near the bottom of your piece: That slideshows are mostly cotton candy that advertisers are not going to want to pay for. Advertisers aren't that dumb.
#3 Posted by HB, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 07:42 PM
Chadwick: I didn't mean that to come off as unduly harsh (another web trend). I think you hit the bullseye about the current rage in slide shows. But like it's a trick that will wear out pretty fast. Advertisers are already looking beyond basic pageview counts (hell, a bot can generate those). With slideshows, there's often no additional content for viewers to spend time with - just stretched out content that makes them click along. It seems a prime target for backlash from both viewers and advertisers.
#4 Posted by HB, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 07:57 PM
I clicked on the link to this piece, hoping to Tweet about it and/or send it directly to colleagues. But "laying around" in the first graf dashed all my hopes and spoiled whatever helpful content this might provide.
#5 Posted by Charlyne Berens, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 08:28 PM
This is all fine and dandy for the economics of newspapers ... but why are we using respected, experienced journalists to do this pandering? Let's not be mistaken -- this is advertising disguised as news. This is a job for the advertising department. It's a waste of a real journalist's talents to have them shooting 10 photos of a grade-school bazaar. Not to speak of the degradation.
#6 Posted by Bert Dalmer, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 09:48 AM
This reminds me of the story of a 6-year old child whose mother asked him to read his book out loud to her. He quickly looked through all the pages, studying each photo on the page then closed the book. HIs mom said, why didn't you read the words? To which he responded, "Mom, the words are for people who just don't get the picture".
I see a lot of irony in this piece. Newspapers and magazines, who produce most of the content that is aggregated into slideshows by all these websites, are laying off photojournalists at higher rates than writers at the same time as they are looking for more visuals. Sure photo galleries are looked down upon, especially by executives without a visual bone in their bodies and writers who just don't get that we live in the most visually literate society in the history of the world. And that we are looking at a screen, which is a visual medium in an of itself. The bottom line is that people like photos, instead of looking for ways to devalue this trend we as an industry should be hiring more visual people, photographers, artists, photo editors etc. and putting them in management position to help the industry improve its quality and visual content.
#7 Posted by edward, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 10:18 AM
Slide shows do generate more than 60% of traffic on some sites -- but the click-through rates on the ads are horrific -- because of the compelling user experience.
In essence, even ad sales people accept slide shows for the sheer tonnage of ad views -- but they are embarrassed when revealing to clients how few clicks these ads get.
The short-term gain in Page Views does not generate an equal amount of revenue per-page.
In short, it's a drug that we need to get off of.
#8 Posted by pk, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 10:25 AM
Take a look at this website and see the future.
www.poseymagazine.com
#9 Posted by JBB, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 04:02 PM
Can't stand the blasted slideshows. At least this is a cogent explanation of why we are subjected to them--the price to get to the good stuff. Well, page views verss uniques. Uniques won't measure stickiness.
#10 Posted by Jenny Frost, CJR on Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 09:50 AM
[...] ‘As page views became a priority, web editors had to decide when slideshows morph from fun novelty to craven solicitation’ [...]
http://www.berfrois.com/2010/12/page-views/
#11 Posted by Russ, CJR on Thu 9 Dec 2010 at 06:38 AM
How about we make every paragraph a new page? That will inflate the number even more. Or, we could look for a better metric to gage engagement with our readers.
#12 Posted by Mark Hinojosa, CJR on Tue 8 May 2012 at 11:00 AM