I wish there was a scale that quantifies the degree to which an article headline struggles to attract clicks at the expense of accuracy. Looking further, I fin

I wish there was a scale that quantifies the degree to which an article headline struggles to attract clicks at the expense of accuracy. Looking further, I find that the JPL source article (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia26634-curiositys-chemcam-views-a-rock-shaped-like-coral/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia26634-curiositys-chemcam-...) used a similar headline, perhaps a bit less click-baity. I grant that the term "dendritic," which conveys the intended meaning without sensationalism, might be too technical for a wide audience. But "dendritic" doesn't suggest a living organism to the degree that "Shaped Like Coral" (from the JPL headline) does. And in retrospect the JPL headline begs to be turned into "... multi-billion-year-old 'coral' on Mars". But I wait with bated breath for the next iteration, titled "Scientists Baffled By Coral Reef on Mars!"