7 ms·

s/best/highest engagement/ These are not the same. The fact that they're so commonly conflated is a major problem.

passivate 6y ago
I'm curious, what other metrics would you use to judge them? Isn't the whole point of a headline to get you to read the article?
- fake-name 6y ago
  The point is getting someone to read the article doesn't make a headline "good", it just means someone read the article. You could have a "good" headline that catches the attention of a large number of people who don't really care, or a "bad" headline which catches the attention of a small number of people to whom the article is very relevant and really care. Which do you want to optimize for?
  - fastball 6y ago
    But nobody said this was how you write the best articles.
    - fake-name 6y ago
      But they did say it was about how to write the best headline.
      - jpttsn 6y ago
        If I see an article about “the best fishing rod”, I’ll assume it’s in the context of catching fish, not being a fish.
        datavirtue 6y ago
        Yeah, but these days it will probably be about a guy named Rod who is the best at fishing...but not really.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Right, but headlines don't really have a "quality" to them outside of attracting readers. So "best" is in fact "highest engagement", when it comes to headlines.
        colpabar 6y ago
        I disagree. In my opinion, an ideal headline should be a condensation of the content into a few catchy words. If engagement is all that matters, is "READ THIS ARTICLE OR YOU WILL DIE!!!" a good headline?
        fastball 6y ago
        An irrelevant headline will not drive engagement, so no.
        Spooky23 6y ago
        Depends on the context.
  - passivate 6y ago
    But you didn't answer my question. What other evaluation metrics are you proposing? >The point is getting someone to read the article doesn't make a headline "good", it just means someone read the article. It actually does. The headline did its job. >Which do you want to optimize for? That is a false choice. Why are these the only two options?
    - zepto 6y ago
      Persuading someone to read an article which is irrelevant to them is likely a bad thing. Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better. A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric.
      - passivate 6y ago
        >Persuading someone to read an article which is irrelevant to them is likely a bad thing. You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points. >Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better. Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that? >A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric. Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine.
        zepto 6y ago
        > You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points. No. >Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better. Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that? This is meaningless to agree with or disagree with since the value of the results is what is in question. >A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric. > Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine. So you agree that the metric could be bad.
  - dev_tty01 6y ago
    Easy. I want a headline that accurately reflects the content of the article. That is my, and perhaps a few others, personal definition of a "good" headline. That is not being measured. Given that definition, I may not go read the article because it doesn't interest me. It is still a good headline. I didn't waste my time. On the other hand, if I am interested in the content, I would have read the article and would not be irritated that I had been mislead about the content. The metric being used in the article here in no way leads to this definition of a "good" headline. More likely the opposite.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  The point of a headline is to get you to view ads. The article is incidental. It keeps you on the page so more ads can be shown.
- uoaei 6y ago
  You seem to be implying that "only things which we can measure should be used for decision-making" and I would caution against that limitation for the reason that this is exactly how perverse incentives are realized. We are seeing it now when we conflate "good" with "gets engagement" or "makes money". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#Cobra_effec...
  - passivate 6y ago
    Nobody in this thread is proposing a solution. I would much rather discuss those.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  The NY Post is good at writing catchy headlines that attract attention. Yet the Wall St Journal exists. Why?
  - datavirtue 6y ago
    NY Post usually has solid content that matches the assumption taken by the headline. Can't say that for most of the major "news" domains.
  - passivate 6y ago
    Well, content is targeted by audience type, and the headlines reflect that?
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      Exactly. “One weird trick for maximizing return on equity” doesn’t really work for the WSJ. “Man bites dog” is appreciated by Post readers.
      - fakedang 6y ago
        "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is." "Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?" "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
  - hellbannedguy 6y ago
    And I still won’t buy a subscription. I’m waiting for the first paper to reinvent itself. Meaning the digital, and the print, is so good it will be something I need to subscribe to. Maybe those days are gone? I was just thinking would I pay for a HN subscription. A site I have viewed since day one. Right now—-no.
schemescape 6y ago
I’d take it one step further and say that following these tips makes what I consider to be the worst headlines. I’m surprised they left out the obnoxious “one weird trick” phrase ;)

I'm curious, what other metrics would you use to judge them? Isn't the whole point of a headline to get you to read the article?

fake-name 6y ago
The point is getting someone to read the article doesn't make a headline "good", it just means someone read the article. You could have a "good" headline that catches the attention of a large number of people who don't really care, or a "bad" headline which catches the attention of a small number of people to whom the article is very relevant and really care. Which do you want to optimize for?
- fastball 6y ago
  But nobody said this was how you write the best articles.
  - fake-name 6y ago
    But they did say it was about how to write the best headline.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      If I see an article about “the best fishing rod”, I’ll assume it’s in the context of catching fish, not being a fish.
      - datavirtue 6y ago
        Yeah, but these days it will probably be about a guy named Rod who is the best at fishing...but not really.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Right, but headlines don't really have a "quality" to them outside of attracting readers. So "best" is in fact "highest engagement", when it comes to headlines.
      - colpabar 6y ago
        I disagree. In my opinion, an ideal headline should be a condensation of the content into a few catchy words. If engagement is all that matters, is "READ THIS ARTICLE OR YOU WILL DIE!!!" a good headline?
        fastball 6y ago
        An irrelevant headline will not drive engagement, so no.
        Spooky23 6y ago
        Depends on the context.
- passivate 6y ago
  But you didn't answer my question. What other evaluation metrics are you proposing? >The point is getting someone to read the article doesn't make a headline "good", it just means someone read the article. It actually does. The headline did its job. >Which do you want to optimize for? That is a false choice. Why are these the only two options?
  - zepto 6y ago
    Persuading someone to read an article which is irrelevant to them is likely a bad thing. Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better. A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric.
    - passivate 6y ago
      >Persuading someone to read an article which is irrelevant to them is likely a bad thing. You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points. >Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better. Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that? >A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric. Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > You're conflating content targeting with headline writing. Those are two separate points. No. >Just because you don’t have a good metric for something doesn’t mean that what you can measure is better. Certainly, if a metric is 'bad' in that it is not producing results, nobody wants to waste their time and keep using it. However, the engagement metric is producing results for many folks. Do you disagree with that? This is meaningless to agree with or disagree with since the value of the results is what is in question. >A metric can simply lead to bad results, and thefore be a bad metric. > Anything "can" lead to anything. That doesn't really make for much of a discussion without data to examine. So you agree that the metric could be bad.
- dev_tty01 6y ago
  Easy. I want a headline that accurately reflects the content of the article. That is my, and perhaps a few others, personal definition of a "good" headline. That is not being measured. Given that definition, I may not go read the article because it doesn't interest me. It is still a good headline. I didn't waste my time. On the other hand, if I am interested in the content, I would have read the article and would not be irritated that I had been mislead about the content. The metric being used in the article here in no way leads to this definition of a "good" headline. More likely the opposite.
ModernMech 6y ago
The point of a headline is to get you to view ads. The article is incidental. It keeps you on the page so more ads can be shown.
uoaei 6y ago
You seem to be implying that "only things which we can measure should be used for decision-making" and I would caution against that limitation for the reason that this is exactly how perverse incentives are realized. We are seeing it now when we conflate "good" with "gets engagement" or "makes money". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#Cobra_effec...
- passivate 6y ago
  Nobody in this thread is proposing a solution. I would much rather discuss those.
Spooky23 6y ago
The NY Post is good at writing catchy headlines that attract attention. Yet the Wall St Journal exists. Why?
- datavirtue 6y ago
  NY Post usually has solid content that matches the assumption taken by the headline. Can't say that for most of the major "news" domains.
- passivate 6y ago
  Well, content is targeted by audience type, and the headlines reflect that?
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Exactly. “One weird trick for maximizing return on equity” doesn’t really work for the WSJ. “Man bites dog” is appreciated by Post readers.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is." "Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?" "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
- hellbannedguy 6y ago
  And I still won’t buy a subscription. I’m waiting for the first paper to reinvent itself. Meaning the digital, and the print, is so good it will be something I need to subscribe to. Maybe those days are gone? I was just thinking would I pay for a HN subscription. A site I have viewed since day one. Right now—-no.

schemescape 6y ago

I’d take it one step further and say that following these tips makes what I consider to be the worst headlines. I’m surprised they left out the obnoxious “one weird trick” phrase ;)