3 ms·

Yes. "Dozens of endangered elephants killed by septacemia, scientists find" would be the non-clickbait title.

DonHopkins 3y ago
So you want a complete summary of the article in the title so you can discuss it without actually clicking on the link and bothering to read it? You're not even discussing the article, just its title. Shallow, boring, and formulaic. It would be more interesting if you were whining about the article's html formatting. Edit: How am I attacking the character of the poster? I described his post, not his personality or belief system. And now you're doing worse than what he's doing, posting uninteresting off topic personal attacks that aren't even true. If you don't have anything to say about elephants, then don't say anything. Your time would be better spend looking up and learning what the term "strawman" means.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the parent's tone (though I think "attack the character" is not really accurate). However: > Please do better. This specific phrase, especially as a standalone sentence, comes off as highly superior/patronizing. It's almost exclusively something you would say to a child, or as a humble resolution about yourself.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      [flagged]
- serf 3y ago
  >So you want a complete summary of the article in the title that's literally the point of an articles' title, the idea that you think it's somehow strange makes it seem as if clickbait strategies have become so ingrained as to appear invisible. Titles aren't meant to be gamified and reduced into the shortest possible quip that will produce hits, they're supposed to aid in summary of the content. They're supposed to be shallow and formulaic; they're a tool for indexing and summarization, not a tool for generative publicity. "Septicemia - possibly exacerbated by climate change - kills dozens of elephants." vs. "Scientists discover elephants TRUE KILLER, CLICK HERE NOW!" 'Shallow, boring, formulaic' is a good thing and it keeps with thousands of years of academic tradition and good sense.
- myself248 3y ago
  Yes. I always write the body/article/post first, then the summary/abstract, then the title/subject. If I save my reader a click because they can easily judge the article's relevance at a glance, good. That is the whole point of a title. The only people who should click in are the ones whose interest would actually be helped by the content. Attention-marketplace advertising has turned that on its head. Now the people who would actually be helped by the content will click in regardless, and the goal of the title is to waste the time of as many other people as possible, to pump those numbers up. It's vile.

So you want a complete summary of the article in the title so you can discuss it without actually clicking on the link and bothering to read it? You're not even discussing the article, just its title. Shallow, boring, and formulaic. It would be more interesting if you were whining about the article's html formatting. Edit: How am I attacking the character of the poster? I described his post, not his personality or belief system. And now you're doing worse than what he's doing, posting uninteresting off topic personal attacks that aren't even true. If you don't have anything to say about elephants, then don't say anything. Your time would be better spend looking up and learning what the term "strawman" means.

zmgsabst 3y ago
[flagged]
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the parent's tone (though I think "attack the character" is not really accurate). However: > Please do better. This specific phrase, especially as a standalone sentence, comes off as highly superior/patronizing. It's almost exclusively something you would say to a child, or as a humble resolution about yourself.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
serf 3y ago
>So you want a complete summary of the article in the title that's literally the point of an articles' title, the idea that you think it's somehow strange makes it seem as if clickbait strategies have become so ingrained as to appear invisible. Titles aren't meant to be gamified and reduced into the shortest possible quip that will produce hits, they're supposed to aid in summary of the content. They're supposed to be shallow and formulaic; they're a tool for indexing and summarization, not a tool for generative publicity. "Septicemia - possibly exacerbated by climate change - kills dozens of elephants." vs. "Scientists discover elephants TRUE KILLER, CLICK HERE NOW!" 'Shallow, boring, formulaic' is a good thing and it keeps with thousands of years of academic tradition and good sense.
myself248 3y ago
Yes. I always write the body/article/post first, then the summary/abstract, then the title/subject. If I save my reader a click because they can easily judge the article's relevance at a glance, good. That is the whole point of a title. The only people who should click in are the ones whose interest would actually be helped by the content. Attention-marketplace advertising has turned that on its head. Now the people who would actually be helped by the content will click in regardless, and the goal of the title is to waste the time of as many other people as possible, to pump those numbers up. It's vile.