OK, if I'm understanding you correctly, you define clickbait as articles that don't deliver the legitimate content promised in the headline, regardless of whether the headline is sensationalized or not.
Does that mean that the fisherman who puts bait on a hook, catches a fish, but then provides the fish with a full meal and lets it free is not baiting the fish?
Anyway, I appreciate your explanation, and it definitely made me think. I would have to agree that feature articles like this one making their titles more enticing is not clickbait, it's just good creative writing.
But if this was a news article I would remain as stubborn in my original opinion!
Good question on the fish, I suppose that quite stretches the metaphor :). I suppose if I were the fish I’d still be traumatized after being yanked out of the water and provided a solid meal.
On feature vs news titles I’m totally with you and your point is very much taken. Yes it is a problem from that perspective when only the title is syndicated without the context of what type of article it is. For example the Washington Post runs a column that is a satirical take on the news, written with a straight face. Google News syndicates it as news with no differentiation, and I kept having surreal “wuh??” moments until I started recognizing the author. I guess we need more metadata besides title and source. Thanks for a good discussion.
Does that mean that the fisherman who puts bait on a hook, catches a fish, but then provides the fish with a full meal and lets it free is not baiting the fish?
Anyway, I appreciate your explanation, and it definitely made me think. I would have to agree that feature articles like this one making their titles more enticing is not clickbait, it's just good creative writing.
But if this was a news article I would remain as stubborn in my original opinion!