4 ms·
Damn dude, awesome work finding this. Completely changes the dynamic of the accusation above. It seems NYT follows the "post now, edit later" approach
by quuquuquu 9y ago
Damn dude, awesome work finding this.
Completely changes the dynamic of the accusation above.
It seems NYT follows the "post now, edit later" approach
- ghaff 9y agoIn addition to the usual copyedit tweaks, headlines are the thing that editors are more likely to go in and make more attention-grabbing, even if they become less neutrally factual in the process. This isn't really anything new although of course historically it was done before the issue actually went to press.
- lftl 9y agoI wonder if it's even really about the editing process. It seems possible to me that they intentionally start with a more provocative headline to get more early traction for an article, and then switch to the more neutral title as an article gains views. I could even imagine it being A/B tested early to see which headline will get them the most shares.
- jknz 9y agoIt could be worse than "post now, edit later". The author could propose a list of a few possible headlines, say 10, each more or less urging/click-baity/informative. Then let an algorithm choose the most click-baity headline as visitors click on the headlines in ads or in Google news (using AB tests or multi-arn bandit algorithms). I don't know if any news site does this yet, but it could explain the increase of click-baity or uninformative headlines in Google news.
- gnicholas 9y agoWaPo AB uses a tool called Bandito to do just this: http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/02/how-the-washington-post-built-its-tool-to-re-engage-the-attention-of-distracted-readers-on-mobile/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/02/how-the-washington-post-bui...
- epistasis 9y agoArs Technica A/B tests their headlines.
- dekhn 9y agoall news sites do this now.