Wait? What's that? You mean you said/did something that was not truly indicative of who you are to make a point or get attention? What a crazy thought. I wonder if I could ever apply that kind of wisdom to other peoples actions? Welp? Nope. They're just plain racist. You're almost certainly the only one clever enough…

Actually, I think it's pretty clear YOU are the racist.

That should be obvious. To get silly reactions from people who think simulated racism is more scary than simulated murder. It works. And that's what is scary.

I can't tolerate your tolerance of shit that I don't tolerate.

Except it's not. Clickbait has long had a very specific meaning of a very non-mundane headline masking a very mundane article.

That is simply untrue. All headlines are, of course, designed to get your attention... but not all headlines are overtly dishonest in the process.

Think of it more as "click-bait-and-switch" because that is generally what people mean when they use the term. Writers can spend all the time they like thinking up elaborate…

Agreed. Just because people misuse the term that doesn't mean the term is never accurate/appropriate. I've read so many bait-and-switch articles here on Gawker, I find it hilarious to see this article here.

Many people seem to have a problem with Gawker sites and misleading headlines. You seem to have a problem with people calling that clickbait. May I suggest the term clickbait-and switch?

Or you could just say it's clickbait.

Why? "Clickbait" is much easier to say, and it's a widely known enough term that people know what you mean when you say it. I do think the term is overused and often used in a meaningless way, but it's a much pithier way of conveying exactly that information without having to use a whole sentence.

So you, a journalist, get to sum up the content of your speech in a pithy but possibly misleading fashion for the sake of expediency, but people on the internet don't?

Why? Why use a long description when a simple word might suffice? Clickbait is clickbait is clickbait. To be honest all your replies seems to me to be a panties-in-a-twist reaction to having been called out. Not that you would have been alone in this is Gizmodo.

Why? The one reason I can see for it in the article boils down to it being a derisive and snarky way to make the same criticism, and you as an employee of Gawker have absolutely zero grounds for trying to tell people not to act in that fashion.

Exactly.
My takeaway: Learn how to write attention-grabbing, but accurate headlines.
Yes, there IS something called clickbait, and it's silly and unprofessional.

I read EXACTLY the following:

What makes something clickbait is the disingenuousness of it. That the author clearly doesn't even believe the thing he or she is writing, but rather following a formula calculated to produce a response (the click, the angry replies, the viral spread). It's something that Gawker and Deadspin regularly purvey. And…

For an organization whose bread and butter is ridiculing established media (often justifiably so), you guys sure are thin skinned.

No. I will not shut up. There's a difference between writing a good headline and the "Most amazing story you'll see all day!" garbage HuffPo (and Gawker sometimes) is known for. That is the fucking worst.

But but but journalists have been doing it forever, so they can't be blamed!

Sensationalized headlines used to make not-so-life-or-death stories sound like its LITERALLY LIFE OR DEATH is lame click baity garbage used to drive eyes to stories that don't deserve it.