> By presenting a mystery without any reason why else you might be interested other than the fact that it _might_ be a mystery. In the article, they claim it w

> By presenting a mystery without any reason why else you might be interested other than the fact that it _might_ be a mystery. In the article, they claim it was a mystery and have a link to a previous story they published in September about said mystery. > If the article turns out to be something uninteresting or something not to do with the headline, then the reader has wasted their time and the author and the website is being dishonest and being rewarded for it by clicks. That's about the nicest concise definition of clickbait I've ever read! It's also exactly the reason why this article does not qualify as click bait: 1. The answer is interesting to anyone who cares about elephants (and if you clicked the headline link I assume you care about elephants) 2. The answer in the article is literally the answer to the headline. Please consider the distinction between a) annoying headline links that require you to click to get the answer, and b) clickbait-- by your own definition-- which leaves you with uninteresting/non-relevant content to what was claimed in the link If you overload clickbait to mean both things, you might erroneously reply with a buffer too large for the type of definition you meant and accidentally pad with private key material