To be fair to Tibs, he doesn't just implement rules on his own. Everything goes through the mods and I'm pretty sure they take a vote.

(February 4, 2017 at 1:53 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 4, 2017 at 1:47 pm)Exian Wrote: Ah, thank you. I dig that rule. While I don't see anything seriously detrimental about clickbait, I really don't think manipulating people is necessary. Especially here.

Depends. In the job I did for the better part of 30 years it's draw them in with you headline and keep them with your intro. It's business as usual with journalism, which may be one of the reasons why I'm opposed to that rule.

I understand the benefits when you're trying to make a buck, but it doesn't add up when you play it out here.

Guy sees a headline in the checkout line: "Oh man, I need to read this!" He buys the mag and is dissapointed, but his money's spent either way.

Guy sees a headline on a link: "Oh that's juicy!" Clicks through and is dissapointed, but the ads already pay for the click.

AF member sees a headline: "I'm not sure what this is about, but I'll click through to see if it's something I want to contribute to" Clicks through and is dissapointed... leaves without contributing and only wasting their time. Poster doesn't benefit.

(February 4, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be fair to Tibs, he doesn't just implement rules on his own. Everything goes through the mods and I'm pretty sure they take a vote.

As a member, one still doesn't have to like it, only to accept it.

(February 4, 2017 at 2:04 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 4, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be fair to Tibs, he doesn't just implement rules on his own. Everything goes through the mods and I'm pretty sure they take a vote.

As a member, one still doesn't have to like it, only to accept it.

That's true.

(February 4, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Exian Wrote: I understand the benefits when you're trying to make a buck, but it doesn't add up when you play it out here.

Still the same. What some people call clickbait is drawing them in with me. If I ain't interested I quit anyway.

(February 4, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be fair to Tibs, he doesn't just implement rules on his own. Everything goes through the mods and I'm pretty sure they take a vote.

We do. Personally, I dislike clickbait subjects, but I think this is a difficult rule to get the implementation and enforcement correctly. I was skeptical, remain skeptical, and I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude on how it works out.

(February 4, 2017 at 2:05 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 4, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Exian Wrote: I understand the benefits when you're trying to make a buck, but it doesn't add up when you play it out here.

Still the same. What some people call clickbait is drawing them in with me. If I ain't interested I quit anyway.

Yeah, I mean, clickbait is only a minor inconvenience, but I'll appreciate the convenience of being able to evaluate my interest based on the headline alone, rather than being drawn in by the cliffhanger effect- "I don't know if I'm interested, better click through to find out."

(February 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm)Exian Wrote: Yeah, I mean, clickbait is only a minor inconvenience, but I'll appreciate the convenience of being able to evaluate my interest based on the headline alone, rather than being drawn in by the cliffhanger effect- "I don't know if I'm interested, better click through to find out."

It's implemented anyway, so it's a moot point, but I never did mind. Job well done was what I thought when I clicked on something that didn't interest me on second glance. My seconds aren't that precious that I couldn't spare that extra moment to see if they're leading me on.

To be fair, it is possible to make your thread title enticing and at the same time representative of what's inside.

For example:
"Guess who Trump Kicked off the National Security Counsel" would not violate the rule. It is enticing, and click-baity, but it absolutely tells us what this thread is about.

-however-

"What Trump did now..." (first line of post: "...will piss you off. He kicked the Chairman of the JCS off the NSC.") would violate the rule. Other than it being about something Trump related (i.e. 91.6% of recent threads), we don't know what the thread topic is.

Also, there is literally no punishment for this--we change the thread title, drop a speedbump, and everyone's on their way. The only time anything could come out of it is if you continue to make thread after thread with clickbait/vague titles even after staff has asked you not to. And even then, I don't think any member of staff would ever vote for a ban. Verbals and maybe an official if you're being an ass about it.

My topic titles are direct and to the point. I don't see why others don't do the same honestly.