Live data from Hacker News

We Analyzed 100M Headlines

buzzsumo.com

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#21
Human consumption of clickbait seems to have strong similarities to our outsized appetites for fat and sugar. In regards to the tempting foods, these cravings are presumably artifacts of slow evolution; we evolved to an environment where we should seize every opportunity to consume these scarce, high-energy foods, and we have not yet adapted to the new reality where many people have plenty to eat.

I wonder if there's some similar primitive drive behind the unhealthy appetite for clickbait; a yearning for information that may help us to survive and reproduce. Some of the high-performing headlines seem to frame the information as something that will affect the reader personally.

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#23

Fascinating, if not depressing analysis of clickbait. I guess one of the sad takeaways is that people want to be told how to react when they read something (make you cry, give you goosebumps, shocked to see).

[deleted]

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#24
post #22

The analysis of clickbait has a clickbait title itself, they even added brackets which are believed to increase CTR.

Sincere question: What is wrong with clickbait if the article fulfills the promise? The title here seems to be what the article is about.

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#25
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…

Sortition. Rule by random citizen.

One of the best articles I've read in the past decade:

"If you can't choose wisely, choose randomly"

https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#26
post #22

The analysis of clickbait has a clickbait title itself, they even added brackets which are believed to increase CTR.

Sincere question: What is wrong with clickbait if the article fulfills the promise? The title here seems to be what the article is about.

It's a cheap shot. It demonstrates a lack of integrity or character.

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#27
post #9
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…

Here, I have a proposal for you: Imagine a world government wherein the killing, torture, and imprisonment of people is illegal, as the core clause of the state. In this state, the core clause does not permit the interests of the state over those of the individual; the state exists to support an individual. Imagine a political party which comes to power through the co-option of the public sphere to support the above…

Sounds like a useless government. I mean, if such a state can't kill or imprison people, how are they going to get other people to comply with their laws? And if they can, why would any other government cede the ability to do so themselves?

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#28
This is valuable information, though depressingly presented.

The article reminds me strongly, and for similar reasons, of Clay Johnson's The Information Diet, a book I found overall tremendously disappointing -- this review describes most of the reasons:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/254961608?book_show_ac...

In particular, Johnson keeps presenting the situation of low-quality information as a matter of choice, whilst flagrantly ignoring two of the massive elephants in the room:

1. Search-engine and social-media rankings drive much of the engagement. A slight tweak to those algorithms can ... make Upworthy downworthy:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=upworthy

2. Agnotology. Culturally-induced ignorance, or slightly less charitably, those with more money than God lying to the world loudly enough to prevent any other message from being heard. The story of corporate-financed disinformation, and the persistence of it, even to the very same individals and organisations, over numerous campaigns -- lead, asbestos, tobacco, CFCs, nuclear power, and now fossil-fuel carbon emissions -- is absolutely depressing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

And if you think the practice is new or particular to the present, it's not. There's a delightful little book, the transcript of a speech, by Hamilton Holt, Commercialism and Journalism. It's the text of an address he gave at U.C. Berkeley in 1909, on the phenomenal growth of the publishing industry, and of the advertising which fueled it. He quotes an anonymous publisher:

"There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilivy, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

https://archive.org/stream/commercialismjou00holtuoft#page/2...

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#29
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…

Sortition. Rule by random citizen.

Sounds nice but pretty much guarantees that anything of any serious complexity will get contracted out (or hired in) to an increasingly entrenched oligarchy.

Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines

#30
post #22

The analysis of clickbait has a clickbait title itself, they even added brackets which are believed to increase CTR.

That's clearly intentional, in fact there's a section titled "How Did We Decide On The Headline For This Post?"
Post reply on HN