4 ms·
The title of this article is too ironic not to comment on. I think it's interesting because a good title itself is intrinsically "clickbait" or begging you to
by nbardy 12y ago
The title of this article is too ironic not to comment on.
I think it's interesting because a good title itself is intrinsically "clickbait" or begging you to stop and look for more. From the Paul Graham essay to the header on a high school science fair board, titles are design to get your attention. The problem lies now with content which content created with greater attention to the bait than to the actual body itself. A good designed title is just that, until it lures you into content which does not live up to its billing.
If we can't trust titles what now do we use to decide what content is worth our time?
- Animats 12y agoThe title of this article is too ironic not to comment on. -- If we can't trust titles what now do we use to decide what content is worth our time? This guy's sites feed different titles to different readers, see who clicks through, and adjust accordingly. That could be detected by suitable anti-spam algorithms.
- rdrey 12y agoMany/most sites do A/B testing and there is nothing inherently wrong with it, so why would it be classified as spam?
- bduerst 12y agoI think what they're trying to say is that sites that specifically test just to garner clicks, as opposed to conversions & sales, could be deemed as being "spammy". In the content world, would you rather sites have good content or good traffic? The trend seems to be that these two are not always correlated.