Let's talk about clickbait and sources when posting
-
Clickbait:
I understand not wanting to "editorialize" the author's title, and it's even forbidden in some communities. That's fine, just include something in the text, or possibly append it to the end of the title in brackets. ie:
Scientists have unveiled the secret to long life using this one weird trick! [diet and exercise]
Probably 90% of articles I come across can be summarized in 1-2 sentences. I often find myself doing just that, in other people's posts, but putting it in the comments makes it far less visible.
Sources:
Please do not link your post to a source of a source. Sometimes I have to click 3 and 4 articles deep to find the original source. Many times they don't include the original source, or any other source to speak of, they just link back to their own publication a dozen fucking times. If you come across an article that links to another source, which also isn't the original source, and without adding meaningful context, just link to the original source, please.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Why put the summary in the comments instead of the post text?
-
Clickbait:
I understand not wanting to "editorialize" the author's title, and it's even forbidden in some communities. That's fine, just include something in the text, or possibly append it to the end of the title in brackets. ie:
Scientists have unveiled the secret to long life using this one weird trick! [diet and exercise]
Probably 90% of articles I come across can be summarized in 1-2 sentences. I often find myself doing just that, in other people's posts, but putting it in the comments makes it far less visible.
Sources:
Please do not link your post to a source of a source. Sometimes I have to click 3 and 4 articles deep to find the original source. Many times they don't include the original source, or any other source to speak of, they just link back to their own publication a dozen fucking times. If you come across an article that links to another source, which also isn't the original source, and without adding meaningful context, just link to the original source, please.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Let's also not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Aka. discredit any and all content just because of a clickbaity title.
Veritasium does a good deep dive into Clickbait:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng -
I wish I can upvote this 100 times.
I skip posts with articles that have 0 comments and wait for the smartiaian who will read the article and summarize the 2 sentences.
I like to browse by new, but that also means most things have no comments. Which sort do you usually use?
-
Why put the summary in the comments instead of the post text?
Because I am not OP in that situation.
-
Let's also not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Aka. discredit any and all content just because of a clickbaity title.
Veritasium does a good deep dive into Clickbait:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5SngI don't discredit them but I often avoid them, because they give me no reason to watch them.
-
I don't discredit them but I often avoid them, because they give me no reason to watch them.
If something is obvious click bait I do the same, but many legit authors use clickbait because it's needed in this attention economy.
(see the video link I posted above)
-
If something is obvious click bait I do the same, but many legit authors use clickbait because it's needed in this attention economy.
(see the video link I posted above)
I saw the video you posted when it was published several years ago. I don't care why they do it.
-
Oooh...
That was unclear. It sounded like you were talking about posting. -
Oooh...
That was unclear. It sounded like you were talking about posting.Fixed, thanks
-
I saw the video you posted when it was published several years ago. I don't care why they do it.
Your own posts have clickbaity titles.
https://piefed.social/u/artyomIt's sadly basically unavoidable
Why don't more distros use this method? (click here and find out)
-
Your own posts have clickbaity titles.
https://piefed.social/u/artyomIt's sadly basically unavoidable
Why don't more distros use this method? (click here and find out)
Your own posts have clickbaity titles.
No they don't.
It's sadly basically unavoidable
It's absolutely not. Even if it were, including context when sharing third party links is also not unavoidable.
Why don't more distros do this... (click here and find out)
You can't click it and find out, because I don't know. It was a genuine question. There's a picture explaining exactly what I'm talking about. I don't make money using this account, I have no motivation to use clickbait.
-
Your own posts have clickbaity titles.
No they don't.
It's sadly basically unavoidable
It's absolutely not. Even if it were, including context when sharing third party links is also not unavoidable.
Why don't more distros do this... (click here and find out)
You can't click it and find out, because I don't know. It was a genuine question. There's a picture explaining exactly what I'm talking about. I don't make money using this account, I have no motivation to use clickbait.
I agree adding context is great, ideally even add a summary so a person doesn't have to click.
"You can click it and find out."
How is that not clickbait? -
Clickbait:
I understand not wanting to "editorialize" the author's title, and it's even forbidden in some communities. That's fine, just include something in the text, or possibly append it to the end of the title in brackets. ie:
Scientists have unveiled the secret to long life using this one weird trick! [diet and exercise]
Probably 90% of articles I come across can be summarized in 1-2 sentences. I often find myself doing just that, in other people's posts, but putting it in the comments makes it far less visible.
Sources:
Please do not link your post to a source of a source. Sometimes I have to click 3 and 4 articles deep to find the original source. Many times they don't include the original source, or any other source to speak of, they just link back to their own publication a dozen fucking times. If you come across an article that links to another source, which also isn't the original source, and without adding meaningful context, just link to the original source, please.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Hard agree. I tend to ignore posts that only provide a link and nothing else.
At the very least highlight something of the text in the post description that is worth reading to create a discussion, and then give us your two cents in the comments.
-
I agree adding context is great, ideally even add a summary so a person doesn't have to click.
"You can click it and find out."
How is that not clickbait?"You can click it and find out." How is that not clickbait?
Read it again. You missed a letter.
-
"You can click it and find out." How is that not clickbait?
Read it again. You missed a letter.
Oh my bad lol, didn't have a close enough look at that post
-
Clickbait:
I understand not wanting to "editorialize" the author's title, and it's even forbidden in some communities. That's fine, just include something in the text, or possibly append it to the end of the title in brackets. ie:
Scientists have unveiled the secret to long life using this one weird trick! [diet and exercise]
Probably 90% of articles I come across can be summarized in 1-2 sentences. I often find myself doing just that, in other people's posts, but putting it in the comments makes it far less visible.
Sources:
Please do not link your post to a source of a source. Sometimes I have to click 3 and 4 articles deep to find the original source. Many times they don't include the original source, or any other source to speak of, they just link back to their own publication a dozen fucking times. If you come across an article that links to another source, which also isn't the original source, and without adding meaningful context, just link to the original source, please.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
I hate this on gaming communities:
This fast-paced shooter is reinventing the format, taking the Steam charts by storm!
Just tell me the fucking name of the game so I can tell if I've already heard of it or if this is actually new information.
-
Hard agree. I tend to ignore posts that only provide a link and nothing else.
At the very least highlight something of the text in the post description that is worth reading to create a discussion, and then give us your two cents in the comments.
Oh yeah, and the posts with just a youtube link and a title that doesn't adequately describe it drive me nuts.
ETA 1min later I see the perfect example https://lemmy.zip/post/58083735
-
Oh yeah, and the posts with just a youtube link and a title that doesn't adequately describe it drive me nuts.
ETA 1min later I see the perfect example https://lemmy.zip/post/58083735
On the other end of the spectrum are post descriptions that copy the entire article and you’re met with a giant wall of text. It’s about curation, folks!
-
I like to browse by new, but that also means most things have no comments. Which sort do you usually use?
Top 12h. It gets boring sometimes though.
-
Clickbait:
I understand not wanting to "editorialize" the author's title, and it's even forbidden in some communities. That's fine, just include something in the text, or possibly append it to the end of the title in brackets. ie:
Scientists have unveiled the secret to long life using this one weird trick! [diet and exercise]
Probably 90% of articles I come across can be summarized in 1-2 sentences. I often find myself doing just that, in other people's posts, but putting it in the comments makes it far less visible.
Sources:
Please do not link your post to a source of a source. Sometimes I have to click 3 and 4 articles deep to find the original source. Many times they don't include the original source, or any other source to speak of, they just link back to their own publication a dozen fucking times. If you come across an article that links to another source, which also isn't the original source, and without adding meaningful context, just link to the original source, please.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
I agree, but that requires effort and that's a big no no.
I blame this on the initial sentiment that to make the threadiverse grow it needed content, no matter the quality so people reposted from other places, recycled old content and posted non news everywhere. That seems to be stuck and now we get this instead of content that can actually pull people to the fediverse... And people upvoting anything.
