Because they aren't as visually impressive?
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
47 points (94.3% liked)
Excellent Reads
1548 readers
1 users here now
Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.
Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.
Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.
Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.
Rules:
- Common Sense. Civility, etc.
- Server rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I just copied the original title. Yes, it's definitely because they're not as visually impressive
Exactly. To cite from the article: "...a historic monument that did not, honestly, look like all that much to me." "It mostly looked like a scrubby field with a gravel plant on the other side." "...not particularly photogenic piles of dirt..." “This isn’t the easiest World Heritage Site you’re ever gonna visit...” The archeological significance is probably really huge, but the visual impact is too low to make it as interesting to general public as the pyramids.
As others said in the article, I had no idea. Thanks for the good read!
I learned a lot! Glad you enjoyed it too
I tried to read the article, but the ads interrupted the read and I couldn’t get it back.