Let's talk about clickbait and sources when 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.
-
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=S2xHZPH5SngVeritasium does a good deep dive into Clickbait:
Veritasium is owned by an private investor firm and has his own problems with propaganda.
-
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.
As much as I dislike ai, this is why I enjoyed the short lived “Artifact” news website (Yahoo bought them out). Their feed had a feature where you could report a click bait title and it would use ai to turn it into a normal sentence. If enough people clicked it, that would become how it was seen by people. I really dislike people using the click bait title on the fediverse, but it’s a symptom of the internet today as a whole.
-
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=S2xHZPH5SngVeritasium's newest video was so clickbaity. I watched for 15 minutes and he didn't get to the part where he explains the title. I quit watching when he interviewed a professor at a university in Israel. Those universities design weapons for mass murder of civilians.
-
As much as I dislike ai, this is why I enjoyed the short lived “Artifact” news website (Yahoo bought them out). Their feed had a feature where you could report a click bait title and it would use ai to turn it into a normal sentence. If enough people clicked it, that would become how it was seen by people. I really dislike people using the click bait title on the fediverse, but it’s a symptom of the internet today as a whole.
I've got posts taken down because I made up a descriptive non clickbait title. The mods didn't like it.
-
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've noticed that trend, especially with high-volume posters
Some things are posted with substance and other times it's just a link to a pic of a random artefact in a museum. Ok, it's cool looking but is it significant? Not that that matters but if you're going to post something at least include why. Other than "I hit random"
-
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 wish I can upvote this 100 times.
That wouldn‘t be very democratic now, would it?
-
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.
You didn‘t say the name either.
-
I've got posts taken down because I made up a descriptive non clickbait title. The mods didn't like it.
Do you have some examples?
