4 ms·
By forcing people to respond to or otherwise discuss the contents of the article instead of the headline.
by sn9 10y ago
By forcing people to respond to or otherwise discuss the contents of the article instead of the headline.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- theoh 10y agoActually it seems like dang was making a moralistic point that I'm not sure about. Sometimes a suggestive, catchy but perhaps uninformative title is linkbait (and should be replaced), but sometimes such a title is not "bait" but instead something we just have to accept as given? Hmmm.
- tomhoward 10y agoThere's a difference between piquing curiosity and exploiting emotions. Of course there's a grey area, and this story may be closer to the line than usual, but wherever the line is, it's fair enough for dang to judge that this title is on the right side of it. Personally I don't see how the title misrepresents the content in the article, or tricks anyone into reading something they'd be better off not to have read.
- jessriedel 10y agoThat would suggest removing all titles.
- baddox 10y agoThere is delightful irony in that statement in this comment thread.