I certainly hope homebound astronomers are not ignoring clusters. Although they can still be difficult to observe (to find anyway) they don't require much more technique than getting good collimation and focus. And they show all kinds of details.
When I worked in an astronomy store that sold telescopes in large numbers, a significant number of telescope purchasers were first time buyers.
Almost to a person, what they wanted to see was the objects photographed by the Hubble Telescope, i.e. nebulae and galaxies.
They always seemed crushed when I told them the reason they were imaged by the Hubble was because they were so hard to see from the Earth (slight exaggeration, I know)
and that colors in deep sky objects were the realm of photography, not visual observing.
When I started out, the emphasis was on double stars, planets, Moon, and the Messier objects, but I was warned that many of the Messiers would be small, faint, and hard to see.
And the drawings and sketches I could find in books were always poorer than what I saw, so I was always excited to observe more and never disappointed in what I could see.
It looks to me as if the Hubble telescope has completely ruined the expectations of new telescope buyers to expect completely unrealistic results from their scopes.
I tried to tell people to start with star clusters, double stars, planets, Moon and leave the nebulae and galaxies until they get to their second year of regular use of the scope and they have a lot of hours of
viewing through the eyepieces, but you can't tell a beginner not to want to see the Heart and Soul Nebulae just like he saw in an on-line image, even though you know that by the time they've looked
at a few dozen faint fuzzies the Messier objects will suddenly become brighter and more impressive.
I do wonder, though, whether being completely honest about what they will see in their new scopes from the backyard would completely discourage the purchase of a telescope in the first place.
What was it that kept all of us going to look at even more faint objects and be happy about seeing some details in those faint targets? I'm not sure.
And what is it about star clusters that they are so unexciting to so many beginners? I remember a night not too many years ago when I sat with another experienced observer looking at star cluster after star cluster
and remarking to each other about the shapes, the brightness ranges of the stars, the sizes and beauty of each cluster. Neither of us had spent much time on clusters for quite some time, but
the remarkable beauty and ease of viewing each one was simply entrancing.
I agree that I hope most beginners don't ignore star clusters, but I fear a lot of them do--even using the topic of this thread as an indicator.