The end result is clickbait headlines that alienate visitors while they fight to grab attention.
If I sell widgets, then yes, I want as many as possible people to come and buy them, and I really only care about the colour of their money.
However when as a widget company I am advertising jobs, I really want only qualified candidates to apply. Otherwise I am drowning in people I just need to sort through, and reject - and when I reject them, they may stop buying my widgets.
In this situation, bounce rates (e.g. people leaving the site after viewing a job) and a lot of other common metrics are meaningless without far more context.
Having said this there is little you can do about this problem since any well advertised position will attract the unqualified since the cost is so low to just mass-blast your cv.
I have always wanted to have a fee (say $500) to apply for a position and refunded $1000 to the candidates that actually have the skills they claim and which match the job requirements. Real candidates would be rewarded for applying (easy $500) paid for by all the time wasters and dunning-kruger types. While this appeals to me I doubt this idea would be viable in the real world :)
For incentive reasons, the budget for this must come out of the hiring company's recruiting budget. Otherwise, it's a great way for unethical folks to extract money out of the applicant pool.
An alternative way is to set up some sort of competition with prizes, and then recruit from those who do well at it.
But as you can imagine, legit companies don't really want to do it, since their reputation can be besmirched. And shyster companies/recruitment agencies anecdotally played the system for profit.
Something like this does exist though in schemes like Amway and Tupperware. With Tupperware, to join, I read that you need to shell out $2500 for your own set of the product. Then, if you don't make the grade, you don't get that money back. Not quite the same, since you always get the job.
Unfortunately the company I'm at right now feels like this. The product team and CEO are obsessed with A/B testing, and don't have a more holistic approach to product development. This means that our competitors are out-innovating us in certain areas, and it's disappointing to watch.
Interestingly, the article's author works at Twitter.
I wonder if algorithmic solutions like randome restart or simulated annealing could improve the outcome of A/B testing, too.
And even when they do get the causality right, maybe big changes in production are likely to cause big changes in outcome - providing both greater potential reward and greater risk of losing everything.
Any sufficiently lucky contrarian is indistinguishable from genius.
Edit for clarity
It would be great if users were required to click on the actual article and wait a certain length of time before commenting.