The title is click-bait-adjacent, but I don’t think it’s ‘the bad kind of click-bait’. The bad kind is where the title could have been a lot more informative, but they purposefully chose not to so you’d have to click through. e.g. one I remember recently was something like “Russia announces the fate of the American on the ISS”—it could have been “Russia will not strand the American on the ISS” (which is also shorter than the original title!) but then the key question would be answered so folks wouldn’t feel the same need to read the article. Whereas for yours, I don’t see a good way to either a) answer the question it raises without also making the title unreasonably long, or b) remove the click-baity ‘unanswered question’ feel without also making the title a less good indicator of the post contents.
Yeah, I guess that sums it up and explains why I felt a little bit uneasy with it. After taking Lsusr’s comment into account, I think the title would have been more like “Why a No-Fly-Zone might benefit Putin, and Why Zelenskyy keeps asking for it”.
How do you feel about click-bait-adjacent titles? I can’t make up my mind.
I think that proposed title is better, though that’s primarily because it’s more accurate and a little shorter, not because it’s less click-baity.
As for how I feel about it… the same worm can be ‘bait’ if attached to a hook, and ‘free food, thanks!’ if thrown in the water? In this particular case I’m completely fine with your title—you raised an interesting seeming-paradox about a topic I already care about, and then followed through quite well. I don’t know how well that turns into an actionable rule though—you can’t know in advance that I (or your median reader or whatever) will appreciate the post and endorse-with-hindsight having read it? But I’d say there’s no need to change your style for now until/unless you get complaints.
The title is click-bait-adjacent, but I don’t think it’s ‘the bad kind of click-bait’. The bad kind is where the title could have been a lot more informative, but they purposefully chose not to so you’d have to click through. e.g. one I remember recently was something like “Russia announces the fate of the American on the ISS”—it could have been “Russia will not strand the American on the ISS” (which is also shorter than the original title!) but then the key question would be answered so folks wouldn’t feel the same need to read the article. Whereas for yours, I don’t see a good way to either a) answer the question it raises without also making the title unreasonably long, or b) remove the click-baity ‘unanswered question’ feel without also making the title a less good indicator of the post contents.
Yeah, I guess that sums it up and explains why I felt a little bit uneasy with it. After taking Lsusr’s comment into account, I think the title would have been more like “Why a No-Fly-Zone might benefit Putin, and Why Zelenskyy keeps asking for it”.
How do you feel about click-bait-adjacent titles? I can’t make up my mind.
I think that proposed title is better, though that’s primarily because it’s more accurate and a little shorter, not because it’s less click-baity.
As for how I feel about it… the same worm can be ‘bait’ if attached to a hook, and ‘free food, thanks!’ if thrown in the water? In this particular case I’m completely fine with your title—you raised an interesting seeming-paradox about a topic I already care about, and then followed through quite well. I don’t know how well that turns into an actionable rule though—you can’t know in advance that I (or your median reader or whatever) will appreciate the post and endorse-with-hindsight having read it? But I’d say there’s no need to change your style for now until/unless you get complaints.
Thanks for your feedback :)