I mean, I think everything you just laid out is effectively encapsulated by the fact that "neptunian desert" is in quotes, encouraging the reader to click throu

I mean, I think everything you just laid out is effectively encapsulated by the fact that "neptunian desert" is in quotes, encouraging the reader to click through to see the exact scope/scale of said desert. Or at least, that's what went through my mind when I opened the article. I made an assumption that there was either/both: 1. a lack of exoplanets identified at around the size of Neptune, or 2. a lack of planets in the rough orbital region around a given star analogous to the region occupied by Neptune in orbit around the Sun. and in order to clarify which of the two it was, I clicked on. --- tl;dr: still clickbait, but I wouldn't call it confusing and I would call it an effective summary for those in the field. --- edit: sctb evidently edited the title from the original to the neptunian desert title, which makes my comment seem largely out of place as I believed OP was commenting on the 'neptunian desert' title and had not seen the original title which was the subject of OP's comment. My comment can be disregarded, but I'm leaving it up for historical purposes.