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

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