So I've been thinking for awhile about clickbait, what it really is, and how often accusations of it come up in the comments section here and elsewhere. Even after all this synapse firing, I don't have a clearer understanding compared to when I started thinking about it, and the recent posting of the "human meat" article here on the Escapist compelled me to have us discuss clickbait in both an abstract and specific sense.
Now, I completely understand the accusation (in a derogatory sense) being leveled at those links from the sidebars of webpages that include wording like the title of this thread, as well as "that will blow your mind!" or "that are making people in [your local area] very angry!". The reason I get it is because it's hyperbolic and insulting to your intelligence, and you can be assured that the actual content doesn't match or even touch upon what little information is found in the title and picture.
Beyond that kind of thing, though...isn't the purpose of a headline to grab your attention and compel you to click on it in order to satiate your curiosity and learn more about the subject? In other words, I feel as if a headline writer has failed if they don't attempt to "bait" you into clicking on it. It seems like the line between "attention grabbing headline" and "clickbait" is very subjective, but the accusation often seems to be thrown out as if a distinctive and specific line has been crossed for a particular article.
Now, the reason I started this thread: the "human meat" article. When I saw that shit making the rounds on Facebook, I knew what the reality was and got a laugh at the amazing number of people either showing or feigning shock and disgust at the "findings" of the study. When I saw that the Escapist wrote a news article about it, it was immediately apparent to me that the editor also felt the same way, and saw it as a great opportunity to inject some humor/lightheartedness into the news and make a Soylent Green reference to make it clear how ridiculous it all was. It was eyecatching, and if I hadn't heard of the study before...I would like to think that the title and article were not seriously and sincerely trying to warn me that I may have potentially been eating people. I mean, if there was people in hot dogs, how completely fucking insane would it be to word the headline the way it was written?
Despite all of that, the article was apparently an example to be called out as "clickbait" (to be discouraged). Should the news here be presented with 100% seriousness at all times? Is anything labeled "news" not allowed to make a joke in order to show that the editor recognizes a ridiculous thing being passed as serious elsewhere, and refuses to acknowledge it seriously on their site? Do I not understand the internets? Am I angry that drivers in my area know this true secret that a local mom has been hiding that has to be seen to be believed?
tl;dr I don't know why some things get a Phoenix Wright "Objection!" finger point for being "clickbait" or even what clickbait must be outside of shitty web ads and let's plays that call episode #47 "eating babies!" for no reason. I need other minds and a larger context.
Captcha: success story. Nope. Not. At. All.
Now, I completely understand the accusation (in a derogatory sense) being leveled at those links from the sidebars of webpages that include wording like the title of this thread, as well as "that will blow your mind!" or "that are making people in [your local area] very angry!". The reason I get it is because it's hyperbolic and insulting to your intelligence, and you can be assured that the actual content doesn't match or even touch upon what little information is found in the title and picture.
Beyond that kind of thing, though...isn't the purpose of a headline to grab your attention and compel you to click on it in order to satiate your curiosity and learn more about the subject? In other words, I feel as if a headline writer has failed if they don't attempt to "bait" you into clicking on it. It seems like the line between "attention grabbing headline" and "clickbait" is very subjective, but the accusation often seems to be thrown out as if a distinctive and specific line has been crossed for a particular article.
Now, the reason I started this thread: the "human meat" article. When I saw that shit making the rounds on Facebook, I knew what the reality was and got a laugh at the amazing number of people either showing or feigning shock and disgust at the "findings" of the study. When I saw that the Escapist wrote a news article about it, it was immediately apparent to me that the editor also felt the same way, and saw it as a great opportunity to inject some humor/lightheartedness into the news and make a Soylent Green reference to make it clear how ridiculous it all was. It was eyecatching, and if I hadn't heard of the study before...I would like to think that the title and article were not seriously and sincerely trying to warn me that I may have potentially been eating people. I mean, if there was people in hot dogs, how completely fucking insane would it be to word the headline the way it was written?
Despite all of that, the article was apparently an example to be called out as "clickbait" (to be discouraged). Should the news here be presented with 100% seriousness at all times? Is anything labeled "news" not allowed to make a joke in order to show that the editor recognizes a ridiculous thing being passed as serious elsewhere, and refuses to acknowledge it seriously on their site? Do I not understand the internets? Am I angry that drivers in my area know this true secret that a local mom has been hiding that has to be seen to be believed?
tl;dr I don't know why some things get a Phoenix Wright "Objection!" finger point for being "clickbait" or even what clickbait must be outside of shitty web ads and let's plays that call episode #47 "eating babies!" for no reason. I need other minds and a larger context.
Captcha: success story. Nope. Not. At. All.
