Because if they weren't effective, we wouldn't call them "click-bait." (In other words, because you've tautologically defined "effective" as "getting you to cli

Because if they weren't effective, we wouldn't call them "click-bait." (In other words, because you've tautologically defined "effective" as "getting you to click.") Behind the headline is a pretty shallow analysis. The author does not meaningfully distinguish between headlines that hide the core piece of information ("This One Weird Trick...") and headlines that bluntly state or exaggerate the core piece of information ("Headless Man In Topless Bar"). The author does not attempt to distinguish between aggressively conversational or casual headlines (a post internet phenomenon) and headlines written in a stiffer newspaper style or an explicityly hype-y tabloidy style. Nor does the author explore why his/her examples of "yellow journalism" headlines are all date from at least the early part of the 20th century — why did they then disappear for more than half of it, and why are they back now? Lastly, the author does not distinguish between negative costs of "clickbait" headlines (squandering of reader time) and the benefits (enticing headlines arguably fuel crowdfunding systems like Kickstarter and independent, specialized news hubs like subreddits and HN).