3 ms·
Based on your first example, I know what happened and can make an informed decision about whether I need or want to know the details of how it happened. I'd arg
by _Algernon_ 4y ago
Based on your first example, I know what happened and can make an informed decision about whether I need or want to know the details of how it happened. I'd argue that that is not click bait, as it leads with the most important piece of information first. The title could further be improved by writing "Nixon resigned because of XYZ", but that would be nitpicking.
The most beneficial title from the reader's perspective is a title which allows the reader to quickly decide whether they need to know the information and informs the reader with the necessary information as efficiently as possible. Hence the now long dead practice of writing in the form of an inverted pyramid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)).
- maxbond 4y agoThe inverted pyramid isn't dead. Blog posts are more like feature articles. Feature articles never followed the inverted pyramid. Do you feel this article did something wrong? Because from what I'm hearing it seems like you're saying it wasn't to your taste, which is entirely valid but a different matter.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- _Algernon_ 4y agoI'm making an argument that the article is click bait, which it is. I'm not sure where you see a value judgement about whether click bait is wrong in my comments, or why you are defensive about it on behalf of the author? I don't like click bait. I voiced that opinion. That's all.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]