CLICKBAIT:
It means what you think it means: bait for clicks. It’s a link which entices you to click on it.
The “bait” comes in many shapes and sizes, but it is usually intentionally misleading and/or crassly provocative. Clicking will inevitably cause disappointment. Clickbait is usually created for money.
The second main variety is headlines to media sites which make money from page views. Common offenders are Buzzfeed, and Gawker and its affiliated sites. The headlines are designed to cause maximum provocation or interest, but as a result are frequently extremely exaggerated or flat out lies, and the articles themselves are often just as shoddy.
This article did not cause disappointment, and the story was neither “exaggerated,” nor “flat out lies,” nor was it “shoddy.”
My advice is to reconsider how much time you are allowing for your brain to absorb information. I am well aware that you will not take my advice.
Causing disappointment is subjective. I found it disappointing, because it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know or that a reasonable person wouldn’t be able to figure out on their own. If the title had said it was because they were no jail plea deals I wouldn’t have bothered clicking.
Thank you for the explanation though. I would agree that it isn’t a strong example of clickbait, and frankly it would be hard to write a perfect title in this instance - but that’s mainly because it’s a pretty weak story. I’m just slightly irked by the way it’s written, as if to imply there was more substance.
No idea why I am engaging with you, but:
CLICKBAIT: It means what you think it means: bait for clicks. It’s a link which entices you to click on it. The “bait” comes in many shapes and sizes, but it is usually intentionally misleading and/or crassly provocative. Clicking will inevitably cause disappointment. Clickbait is usually created for money. The second main variety is headlines to media sites which make money from page views. Common offenders are Buzzfeed, and Gawker and its affiliated sites. The headlines are designed to cause maximum provocation or interest, but as a result are frequently extremely exaggerated or flat out lies, and the articles themselves are often just as shoddy.
This article did not cause disappointment, and the story was neither “exaggerated,” nor “flat out lies,” nor was it “shoddy.”
My advice is to reconsider how much time you are allowing for your brain to absorb information. I am well aware that you will not take my advice.
Causing disappointment is subjective. I found it disappointing, because it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know or that a reasonable person wouldn’t be able to figure out on their own. If the title had said it was because they were no jail plea deals I wouldn’t have bothered clicking.
Thank you for the explanation though. I would agree that it isn’t a strong example of clickbait, and frankly it would be hard to write a perfect title in this instance - but that’s mainly because it’s a pretty weak story. I’m just slightly irked by the way it’s written, as if to imply there was more substance.