6 ms·

Everyone critizes how Buzzfeed defines article's titles and here it is: BBC using the same tricks to get some extra trafic

carlio 11y ago
The BBC has been going in this direction for a while. Note how most of the articles feature single-sentence paragraphs - turns out that's the easiest way to get people to stay involved. A lot of articles feature 6-7 images now too. The football(soccer) 'opinion pieces' are always about the top clubs and especially Man Utd, because that will get the most shares and readers. They're becoming as guilty as everyone else.
- meigwilym 11y ago
  To be fair, short paragraphs has been the BBC's style of online news for years. This story from 2005, for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695495.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695495.stm Edit: clarity
- tormeh 11y ago
  As long as the information communicated is good, then I'm all for a more attention-deficit-friendly format.
notahacker 11y ago
Nah... this is pretty standard headline writing. If anything, it's a relatively informative headline for a blog piece since it reveals both the magnitude of the stock price crash and how the revelation that brought it about was initially transmitted, which is the subject of the article. The headline-writing innovation popularised by Buzzfeed et al is the particularly nauseating habit of revealing absolutely nothing about the content of the article other than the emotions it's supposed to provoke, which usually turns out to be a gross exaggeration of the article's actual emotive pull. This Man Read a Headline. What Happened Next Will Blow Your Mind Most of the other 30 Tricks to Pull In Viewers used by Buzzfeed have been around for years, if not decades.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > absolutely nothing about the content of the article other than the emotions it's supposed to provoke, which usually turns out to be a gross exaggeration of the article's actual emotive pull. Furthermore, at least according to the BBC article, this tweet was responsible for the massive crash, in that the crash only happened after that tweet revealed the source (and investors panicked when they saw that the info came from a reputable source). That chain of causality may be up for debate, but the facts reported in the article at least support the headline. The reason Buzzfeed & co. are so reprehensible is that the articles themselves often don't match the headlines they use[0]. I always feel cheated when I read one of those articles, because it's a bait-and-switch. [0] It's not surprising that Buzzfeed headlines don't match the contents, since AFAIK they A/B test headlines and location (on the frontpage) obsessively. It's hard to optimize for both clicks and relevance when you generate headlines algorithmically, and it's pretty clear which one they care more about.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    My favourite[1] example of this is Givemesport, which matches incredibly misleading linkbait headlines with URLs and on-page headlines that usually accurately summarise the actual content of the article. Hence "Brendan Rodgers fires another warning to Mario Balotelli about his Liverpool future" goes to the following URL givemesport.com/569986-brendan-rodgers-mario-balotelli-is-doing-his-best-for-liverpool and you can avoid having to read a lightweight article advertised as "This proves Chelsea will rule the Premier League for a long time" by noting it points to givemesport.com/569959-chelsea-stars-win-fa-youth-cup-for-second-time-in-a-row or "Barcelona star Lionel Messi did this after being insulted by fan by noting it goes to givemesport.com/569113-lionel-messi-smirks-after-espanyol-fan-insults-him [1]OK, not my favourite; I blocked them from my Facebook feed
untog 11y ago
Not quite, IMO. This headline actually contains all the relevant details - one tweet knocked $6bn off the value of Twitter. The clickbait headline would be "You won't believe what this one tweet did to Twitter's stock", or "Twitter's stock lost $6bn in one day - the reason why will blow your mind"

carlio 11y ago

The BBC has been going in this direction for a while. Note how most of the articles feature single-sentence paragraphs - turns out that's the easiest way to get people to stay involved. A lot of articles feature 6-7 images now too. The football(soccer) 'opinion pieces' are always about the top clubs and especially Man Utd, because that will get the most shares and readers. They're becoming as guilty as everyone else.

meigwilym 11y ago
To be fair, short paragraphs has been the BBC's style of online news for years. This story from 2005, for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695495.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695495.stm Edit: clarity
tormeh 11y ago
As long as the information communicated is good, then I'm all for a more attention-deficit-friendly format.

notahacker 11y ago

Nah... this is pretty standard headline writing. If anything, it's a relatively informative headline for a blog piece since it reveals both the magnitude of the stock price crash and how the revelation that brought it about was initially transmitted, which is the subject of the article. The headline-writing innovation popularised by Buzzfeed et al is the particularly nauseating habit of revealing absolutely nothing about the content of the article other than the emotions it's supposed to provoke, which usually turns out to be a gross exaggeration of the article's actual emotive pull. This Man Read a Headline. What Happened Next Will Blow Your Mind Most of the other 30 Tricks to Pull In Viewers used by Buzzfeed have been around for years, if not decades.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> absolutely nothing about the content of the article other than the emotions it's supposed to provoke, which usually turns out to be a gross exaggeration of the article's actual emotive pull. Furthermore, at least according to the BBC article, this tweet was responsible for the massive crash, in that the crash only happened after that tweet revealed the source (and investors panicked when they saw that the info came from a reputable source). That chain of causality may be up for debate, but the facts reported in the article at least support the headline. The reason Buzzfeed & co. are so reprehensible is that the articles themselves often don't match the headlines they use[0]. I always feel cheated when I read one of those articles, because it's a bait-and-switch. [0] It's not surprising that Buzzfeed headlines don't match the contents, since AFAIK they A/B test headlines and location (on the frontpage) obsessively. It's hard to optimize for both clicks and relevance when you generate headlines algorithmically, and it's pretty clear which one they care more about.
- notahacker 11y ago
  My favourite[1] example of this is Givemesport, which matches incredibly misleading linkbait headlines with URLs and on-page headlines that usually accurately summarise the actual content of the article. Hence "Brendan Rodgers fires another warning to Mario Balotelli about his Liverpool future" goes to the following URL givemesport.com/569986-brendan-rodgers-mario-balotelli-is-doing-his-best-for-liverpool and you can avoid having to read a lightweight article advertised as "This proves Chelsea will rule the Premier League for a long time" by noting it points to givemesport.com/569959-chelsea-stars-win-fa-youth-cup-for-second-time-in-a-row or "Barcelona star Lionel Messi did this after being insulted by fan by noting it goes to givemesport.com/569113-lionel-messi-smirks-after-espanyol-fan-insults-him [1]OK, not my favourite; I blocked them from my Facebook feed

untog 11y ago

Not quite, IMO. This headline actually contains all the relevant details - one tweet knocked $6bn off the value of Twitter. The clickbait headline would be "You won't believe what this one tweet did to Twitter's stock", or "Twitter's stock lost $6bn in one day - the reason why will blow your mind"