
Psychology of Clickbait - cryptoz
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/psychology-of-clickbait/
======
exodust
Contrary to the article's claims, I click and visit the clickbaiters less and
less. "Annoying but it works"... I disagree. For editorial content to work, it
should appeal to long term readers.

Also, "psychology of clicbbait" isn't a clickait headline as they seem to
suggest. Edit.. I see now they were referring to their own rather different
headline, which I wouldn't have clicked on at all.

~~~
coldtea
> _Contrary to the article 's claims, I click and visit the clickbaiters less
> and less. "Annoying but it works"... I disagree._

You're just a different audience. It's not Bieber or Kardassian's ass that
gets your clicks, but "This programmer's crazy FP trick has OO proponents
worried for their jobs", "7 things I like about Haskell", etc...

~~~
exodust
You've touched on a grey area of clickbaiting, where the headline isn't too
bad because at least it describes the content....

* Programmer (good to know it's a programmer's trick, we've established a character and identified role)

* crazy (thinking outside box,)

* FP (specific info about the trick)

* worried for their jobs (the only useless part of headline but suggests the trick saves time).

So all up, not such a bad title.

A proper Clickbait headline tells us nothing, for example (loads up
yahoo.com)... "#1 reason not to buy a new computer".

~~~
coldtea
> _A proper Clickbait headline tells us nothing, for example (loads up
> yahoo.com)... "#1 reason not to buy a new computer"._

I don't think that's a valid dichotomy.

The essence of the clickbait is the psychological manipulation to click, not
that it reveals little about the subject. While some clickbait headlines tell
little, the format you analysed is standard clickbait practice (e.g.
variations of "this NN-year old woman found this strange anti-aging trick that
has the cosmetic industry worrying", "the one easy trick you wont believe for
improving your eyesight", etc).

The second important part is that the content is typically useless/trite.

------
inanutshellus
I've considered making a browser plugin that'd hide CNN articles automatically
if they fit certain criteria (in order of annoyance):

* Is a video-only "article"

* Ends with a word in all caps (Brittany Wore THIS)

* Asks a question (Are You Dying Right Now?)

* Goes to an affiliate network (text spam)

~~~
inanutshellus
oh, and contains the words "surprising" or "weird" or "trick" of course :P

------
cygnus_a
for me it's more like... boobs? why'd they put boobs in the thumbnail? the
article isn't even... I ... I might as well see if there's a bigger picture of
the boobs

~~~
Bulkington
Exactly. Breasts are the original and ultimate click bait for a large segment
of human population.

[http://www.livescience.com/23500-why-men-love-
breasts.html](http://www.livescience.com/23500-why-men-love-breasts.html)

------
richardboegli
I think they copied this video? 4 ways you've been click baited!? It was
published a month ago

[http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/665808](http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/665808)

------
fbbbbb
Articles with lists, are like a self contained series of short clickbait
articles.

------
destroythecore
Most people do not even realize it is bait.

------
leeoniya
uBlock Origin prevented 43 requests on this page. whoa, Wired!

</aside>

~~~
pen2l
39 for me. But on the plus side, it's pure bliss:

[http://i.imgur.com/JhEobs1.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/JhEobs1.jpg)

[http://i.imgur.com/hjyRkkD.png](http://i.imgur.com/hjyRkkD.png)

I've custom-added to uBlock even the "see also" links from all websites. It
means yes that I'm not "accidentally" discovering articles on wired, but at
some point I decided it's okay. I'm probably not going to miss big things by
doing this... (if Wired does come out with a great article, I'll probably get
linked to it by someone somewhere).

I feel somewhat guilty that I do this to every site, it seems almost parasitic
and not entirely in the spirit of the social contract. I think I'll give them
$10 or something.

~~~
username223
Ah, good old OutBrain...

As time goes on and users (including myself) filter out more of the garbage, I
have less of an idea what web pages actually look like to the average user.
Hooray for Standards and the Open Web!

~~~
manyxcxi
Seriously. When I use my wife's laptop my first thought is "why do all these
pages look so different?"

