It's not supposed to elicit a specific emotional reaction. Some people might get angry, others might just find it ironic or sad. I linked to a serious article about a real crime story, and the title is not misleading, so I don't think it qualifies as clickbait. Making interesting and informative titles is supposed to be one of the jobs of a journalist.But then isn't that just clickbait that you've created?
It doesn't diminish its clickbaitness, for it's not it not a quality of the situation described but of the name given to the situation. The clickbaitness may or may not be increased by the fact that the stated qualities of the stabbed man have nothing to do with the situation. Like Eliezer Yudkowsky said, "People go funny in the head when talking about politics".I linked to a serious article about a real crime story, and the title is not misleading, so I don't think it qualifies as clickbait.
Clickbait doesn't have to attract people for money purposes. You wanted people to click this topic and check it out, so you changed the title around to something more racy that has nothing do with the actual story at hand. Now are you trying to make money for The Washington Post? If not, this is clickbait for a non-monetary purpose.
Yeah? You don't post links so that people can check them out? My title is more factual than the original one, how can you say that it's got nothing to do with the story? I posted the link to wikipedia because it's obvious from reading its description that what I did can't be described as clickbait. You guys keep using words without knowing what they mean, shame on you.You wanted people to click this topic and check it out
you changed the title around to something more racy that has nothing do with the actual story at hand.
If not, this is clickbait for a non-monetary purpose.