4 ms·

These kinds of comments are driving me crazy. I rarely see articles on HN anymore, good or bad, where people in the comments aren't fussing about "clickbait". C

These kinds of comments are driving me crazy. I rarely see articles on HN anymore, good or bad, where people in the comments aren't fussing about "clickbait". Call it substanceless, call it sensational, call it fluff, but at this point clickbait is virtually an empty term, a thought-terminating cliche. Much like "fake news", it metastasized beyond the useful meaning it used to have to a cliche used to dismiss things people don't like. More to your point, if I'm going to take the accusation of "clickbait" seriously, the article elaborates on what the headline says, and substantiates it. It doesn't mention the contaminant, but that doesn't make it "clickbait".

superbatfish 7y ago
One piece[1] on the meaning of "clickbait" described it as follows: >When we talk about clickbait internally, we tend to focus on the idea of under-delivering on a misleading headline. The risk that a reader will feel she has been duped into clicking. To your point, it also says: >Others often seem to be using "clickbait" as a free-floating term of derision. There are many reasons one might dislike an article but calling it clickbait has become an all-purpose way of expressing that disapproval. So which of those best describes this BuzzFeed article? I don't think the headline is misleading, but BuzzFeed definitely under-delivered by not mentioning the contaminant. They showed their hand by not even acknowledging that they are missing that important detail. Honestly, it's shameful. It's like they have so little respect for their readers that they think their readers won't notice that the most important detail in this story -- mentioned in the headline, no less -- is missing. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8033937/clickbait-explained https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8033937/clickbait-explained

4 ms·

These kinds of comments are driving me crazy. I rarely see articles on HN anymore, good or bad, where people in the comments aren't fussing about "clickbait". C

by overthemoon 7y ago

superbatfish 7y ago
One piece[1] on the meaning of "clickbait" described it as follows: >When we talk about clickbait internally, we tend to focus on the idea of under-delivering on a misleading headline. The risk that a reader will feel she has been duped into clicking. To your point, it also says: >Others often seem to be using "clickbait" as a free-floating term of derision. There are many reasons one might dislike an article but calling it clickbait has become an all-purpose way of expressing that disapproval. So which of those best describes this BuzzFeed article? I don't think the headline is misleading, but BuzzFeed definitely under-delivered by not mentioning the contaminant. They showed their hand by not even acknowledging that they are missing that important detail. Honestly, it's shameful. It's like they have so little respect for their readers that they think their readers won't notice that the most important detail in this story -- mentioned in the headline, no less -- is missing. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8033937/clickbait-explained https://www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8033937/clickbait-explained