4 ms·

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

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.

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.