  One of the first things The Oracle 's esteemed editors taught me in the spring of 2003 when I was first starting to be an editor was that it was bad to have huge swaths of text without any photos or art. I've found that many web logs and web sites have a very high text-to-image ratio; indeed, many web sites and logs don't even have images at all. This makes those sites hard to read and quite boring, which is acceptable from and expected of boring things like online texts, but should not be the case with web logs, which should be reader-friendly. urlLink The classified section from my newspaper--what I don't want my web log to look like.&nbsp; urlLink So I've decided to try to stick to a 150-300:1 word to image ratio for my web logs.
This will force me to post lots of images up to break up text, enhancing readability and increasing entertainment value. I'm sorry if you're on dial-up. What exactly does a 150-300:1 ratio mean? Basically, the ratio has two key impacts that I think will both be very positive, both arising from image granularity.
All posts will be more than 150 words, as it is impossible to have more than zero images and fewer than one image. Posts will have images interspersed in them that will ease the reading of text and provide a holistsic view of what I'm talking about. Note: word counts will be approximate (however many words I feel a certain post is), and I will count captions and the like as part of the word count as I see fit, on a case-by-case basis.
If I violate this principle, I will try to fix the violation, and barring that, I will do nothing. Another issue is that currently there is no way for you, the reader, to distinguish between copy and caption. I don't know if or how I'll be implementing some kind of copy-caption distinction in future. 
