I completely agree. While sitting in my basement in a t-shirt and sweatpants, I happened upon a very interesting headline on Hacker News... (I'll stop, I'm no good at it)
I found it really excruciating to read this article. I realize that there's a sort of formula for telling a story in news magazines (and I appreciate that it is an art form), but it drives me crazy when the story is more about the interview circumstances and less about ... anything, really.
... Then I realized something that I've found unique about Hacker News over the last several years: The submitter added the bit about "how he's coping with his new reputation". So I can neither fault FT for writing a story, nor can I fault the submitter for finding something about the story that I'd find interesting (to the contrary, I greatly appreciate the service).
Perhaps it's a new startup idea (or an old one done in many different ways [newser or even wikipedia]) ... the point in more than 200 characters and less than 4 paragraphs. Bonus if it includes customization to the reader's interests.
I think the thing about this story clickbaitable is nothing about what surrounds the noun, Sean Parker. It's the noun, Sean Parker. Sean Parker is an enigma the hacker community wants to know about, because he has been insanely successful and at once is largely anonymous.
So, I will click a post that says "Sean Parker's drooling habits" little because of what surrounds it - I will click it because have strong interest in finding out more about the noun, Sean Parker, without caring much at all about the totality of the title.
The more I know about the noun, the less I click on the titles (especially as they parse down to less interesting things), but the less I know, the more likely I am to click something as snore-inducing as "Lunch with Sean Parker".
All of you thinking about this is such a long article with no meat, why he describes food so much, hold off a bit. This is THE format of the column, he does this every week with interesting people (mostly in showbiz), its just relevant to HN due to Sean Parker.
I guessed that from the format of the article and from its original title, which as I pointed out is unusually accurate: the person being interviewed is secondary, after the lunch.
It's a strange argument, though, to say that criticism must be less valid because they do this every week.
This is just the Financial Times article series which is actually called "Lunch with the FT". The idea is to have an interview while having lunch with various people and it is included in their weekend edition.
As a regular FT reader I actually enjoy them, including the descriptions about lunch.
I found it really excruciating to read this article. I realize that there's a sort of formula for telling a story in news magazines (and I appreciate that it is an art form), but it drives me crazy when the story is more about the interview circumstances and less about ... anything, really.
... Then I realized something that I've found unique about Hacker News over the last several years: The submitter added the bit about "how he's coping with his new reputation". So I can neither fault FT for writing a story, nor can I fault the submitter for finding something about the story that I'd find interesting (to the contrary, I greatly appreciate the service).
Perhaps it's a new startup idea (or an old one done in many different ways [newser or even wikipedia]) ... the point in more than 200 characters and less than 4 paragraphs. Bonus if it includes customization to the reader's interests.
EDIT: phrasing.