3 ms·

> How can a science-centric site get it so wrong? Write software that A/B tests various titles. Measure the income from advertising click-throughs. Expand to A

> How can a science-centric site get it so wrong? Write software that A/B tests various titles. Measure the income from advertising click-throughs. Expand to A/B test various articles as well, optimizing for appeal to the kind of bored person who is susceptible to ordering miracle skin-creams at 2am. Presto, crappy click-bait.

rbonvall 8y ago
Yes, article titles have evolved to be clicked.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Yet at the time science wonders why it's being questioned, it's authority, subverted, etc.? Isn't it obvious? Editorial: Perhaps instead of blaming the public, science should look in the mirror, as well as hold those between it and the public accountable for errors, inconsistencies, hyperbole, confusing correlation with cause, etc.?
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    This conundrum is no different than the moderation conundrum of social media. If you leave things to themselves and allow a social media forum to "evolve," it becomes a dumpster fire. If you leave a publishing journal to optimize for views and/or clickthrough revenue, it becomes a dumpster fire. If you don't want dumpster fires, somebody has to establish a set a of values and enforce them, even if they have "costs" in terms of popularity/clicks/attention.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Yes agreed. But my point is, between all the shady data practices within too many studies, and the click-bait "journalism", I find science's faulting of various non-believers (e.g., anti-vax, climate change is a myth, etc.) to be misplaced. That is, you can't do crap science and crap journalism and then blame the public their misunderstanding and/or lack of trust. It doesn't work that way.
      - selestify 8y ago
        Scientists aren't the ones doing crappy journalism
ORioN63 8y ago
How ads evolved to make humans their servants? or more accurate: How ads favourable to humans gained reproductive advantage.
- nine_k 8y ago
  "Favorable" is a bit of a values judgment; I'd say "attractive".

rbonvall 8y ago

Yes, article titles have evolved to be clicked.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
Yet at the time science wonders why it's being questioned, it's authority, subverted, etc.? Isn't it obvious? Editorial: Perhaps instead of blaming the public, science should look in the mirror, as well as hold those between it and the public accountable for errors, inconsistencies, hyperbole, confusing correlation with cause, etc.?
- braythwayt 8y ago
  This conundrum is no different than the moderation conundrum of social media. If you leave things to themselves and allow a social media forum to "evolve," it becomes a dumpster fire. If you leave a publishing journal to optimize for views and/or clickthrough revenue, it becomes a dumpster fire. If you don't want dumpster fires, somebody has to establish a set a of values and enforce them, even if they have "costs" in terms of popularity/clicks/attention.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Yes agreed. But my point is, between all the shady data practices within too many studies, and the click-bait "journalism", I find science's faulting of various non-believers (e.g., anti-vax, climate change is a myth, etc.) to be misplaced. That is, you can't do crap science and crap journalism and then blame the public their misunderstanding and/or lack of trust. It doesn't work that way.
    - selestify 8y ago
      Scientists aren't the ones doing crappy journalism

ORioN63 8y ago

How ads evolved to make humans their servants? or more accurate: How ads favourable to humans gained reproductive advantage.

nine_k 8y ago
"Favorable" is a bit of a values judgment; I'd say "attractive".