Is there any documentation on what a clickbait title? HN has guidelines on what to do when the title starts with a number, but the only line about clickbaiting is kind of generic.[1] Personally, I'm not sure if "I'll know it when I see it" is the best policy for this, as different people have different opinions on what clickbait is.
And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the title, and not the actually content. That's hypocritical of me to complain about, though.
[1] "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
> different people have different opinions on what clickbait is.
Not really, there are just people who haven't seen a specific type of trick not used ad nauseam, while others have seen it a thousand times already.
"I'll know it when I see it" is sufficient here, since there's a wide variety of them and with enough experience they can be easily recognized.
In case you would like to have an easier way to learn it though:
Typically clickbait is when the article communicates something (anything, really) that could easily fit in the title itself, but refuses to do so. Advanced users compose titles that specifically pique curiosity in the average person.
I agree that it tends to be a "I'll know it when I see it" type thing, but if the title is as long or longer than it would be by "spoiling the surprise", then it's a good sign that it's clickbait. In this case, the article's title could have included "Me(/my)" and avoided dancing around the issue, so I think it definitely qualifies.
It's along similar lines to "Blah blah blah, and you won't believe what happens next."
It by definition is a slippery concept, since the whole concept of "bait" requires an element of deception.
Two quick rules of thumb will take you a long way though.
1) Titles where the reader is referred to in the second person, meaning they have the word "You" in them.
2) Titles that use imprecise emotional/colloquial phrases and speculation instead of the factual crux of the article. Doubly so when the title describes the feeling or consequence that the unstated subject will theoretically inspire.
If the title asks a question that can be answered in the title, then it is probably a clickbait title. It is generally accompanied by a title with the pronoun "you" (e.g. "you wouldn't guess") or exclamation of surprise at the contents of the article.
Here we see a fine example: "The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches that you probably haven’t considered". We have a one word answer "Me" and 'you' in the phrase 'you probably have considered'. The poster did a nice change to get the question answered before you need to read the article.
I'm not sure I understand all the rage here against "clickbait" titles. I generally reserve a few down votes for folks that come in simply to comment on whether or not the title qualifies as "clickbait" -- comments like these truly add nothing to the conversation.
One of the purposes of a title on the web is to convince you to click on it. Good titles drive traffic. I don't get why we all get so hung up on how titles are written. If you don't like how something is worded, don't click on it.
And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the title, and not the actually content. That's hypocritical of me to complain about, though.
[1] "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."