Yet, the top posts on LessWrong are pretty much always clickbaited, just in the LessWrong lingo. The Curated Posts seem to be some of the worst cases of this:
I find that LessWrong folk in general are really, really, susceptible to deception and manipulation when it’s done in their language.
I… really don’t see any clickbait here. If anything these titles feel bland to me (and indeed I think LW users could do much better at making titles that are more exciting, or more clearly highlight a good value proposition for the reader, though karma makes up for a lot).
Like, for god’s sake, the top title here is “Social status part 1/2: negotiations over object-level preferences”. I feel like that title is at the very bottom of potential clickbaitiness, given the subject matter.
These are the most obvious examples.
By ‘clickbait’, here I mean a title that’s more for drawing in readers than accurately communicating what the post is about.
Doesn’t mean it can’t be accurate too—after all, MrBeast rarely lies in his video titles—but it means that instead of choosing the title that is most accurate, they chose the most eye catching and baiting title out of the pool of accurate/semi-accurate titles.
I don’t really agree with this definition of clickbait. A title that merely accurately communicates what the post is about, is usually a boring one and thus communicates that the post is boring and not worth reading. Also see my comment here. Excerpt:
Similarly, a bunch of things have to line up for an article to go viral: someone has to click on your content (A), then like it (B), and then finally follow a call to action like sharing it or donating (C). From this perspective, it’s important to put a significant fraction of one’s efforts on quality (B) into efforts on presentation / clickability (A).
(Side note: If this sounds like advocacy for clickbait, I think it isn’t. The de facto problem with a clickbaity title like “9 Easy Tips to Win At Life” is not the title per se, but that the corresponding content never delivers.)
No, those are clickbait. 4 is straightforwardly misleading with the meaning of the word “hunt”. 2 and 3 grab attention via big dollar numbers without explaining any context. And 1 and 5 are clickbait but wouldn’t be if an arbitrary viewer could at any time actually do the things described in the titles, rather than these videos being about some competition that’s already happened.
Whereas a title saying “Click on this blog post to win $1000” wouldn’t be clickbait if anyone could click on the blog post and immediately receive $1000. It would become clickbait if it was e.g. a limited-time offer and expired, but would not be clickbait if the title was changed at that point.
Yet, the top posts on LessWrong are pretty much always clickbaited, just in the LessWrong lingo.
The Curated Posts seem to be some of the worst cases of this:
I find that LessWrong folk in general are really, really, susceptible to deception and manipulation when it’s done in their language.
I… really don’t see any clickbait here. If anything these titles feel bland to me (and indeed I think LW users could do much better at making titles that are more exciting, or more clearly highlight a good value proposition for the reader, though karma makes up for a lot).
Like, for god’s sake, the top title here is “Social status part 1/2: negotiations over object-level preferences”. I feel like that title is at the very bottom of potential clickbaitiness, given the subject matter.
Which of these titles are click bait?
I disagree with the thesis of some, but none seem like click bait titles to me.
My Clients, The Liars
And All The Shoggoths Merely Players
Acting Wholesomely
These are the most obvious examples. By ‘clickbait’, here I mean a title that’s more for drawing in readers than accurately communicating what the post is about. Doesn’t mean it can’t be accurate too—after all, MrBeast rarely lies in his video titles—but it means that instead of choosing the title that is most accurate, they chose the most eye catching and baiting title out of the pool of accurate/semi-accurate titles.
I don’t really agree with this definition of clickbait. A title that merely accurately communicates what the post is about, is usually a boring one and thus communicates that the post is boring and not worth reading. Also see my comment here. Excerpt:
Ok, so are these not clickbait then?
”Stop This Train, Win a Lamborghini”
“$1 vs $250,000,000 Private Island!”
“$1 vs $100,000,000 House!”
“I Hunted 100 People!”
“Press This Button To Win $100,000!”
No, those are clickbait. 4 is straightforwardly misleading with the meaning of the word “hunt”. 2 and 3 grab attention via big dollar numbers without explaining any context. And 1 and 5 are clickbait but wouldn’t be if an arbitrary viewer could at any time actually do the things described in the titles, rather than these videos being about some competition that’s already happened.
Whereas a title saying “Click on this blog post to win $1000” wouldn’t be clickbait if anyone could click on the blog post and immediately receive $1000. It would become clickbait if it was e.g. a limited-time offer and expired, but would not be clickbait if the title was changed at that point.