The key element of most clickbait headlines is that it teases some interesting information, often making it look more interesting than it actually is, while at the same time omitting the key fact from the headline itself.
Just enough to make you curious, but force you to click if you actually want to get any information, and leave you with a nagging unpleasant feeling if you _don't_ click.
Typically, this will be a fact that would easily fit in the headline, and would make the headline a sufficient summary for a large number of readers to no longer feel the need to click through to get that one word out of the article.
For example (real HN post): "Bitcoin stealer infected 700 libraries of major programming language" -- if you don't click, you risk missing a critical security issue that affects you. If the authors put "Ruby" in the headline, 90% would know a) all they want to know about the incident b) that they're not affected.
A positive example: "CDC’s New ‘Best Estimate’ Implies a Covid-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%" -- a clickbait version of this would be "CDC’s New ‘Best Estimate’ Implies surprisingly low Covid-19 Infection Fatality Rate"
For the link posted here, the content of the article can't be easily summarized in one word, so I wouldn't call it clickbait, but the headline still matches the same structure clickbait headlines use, which makes people assume the worst. In particular, claiming that some finding is "surprising" seems to be a very common theme in clickbait: "YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT..." or "Ten facts about ... #3 will SHOCK you!" is the stereotypical clickbait headline.
Just enough to make you curious, but force you to click if you actually want to get any information, and leave you with a nagging unpleasant feeling if you _don't_ click.
Typically, this will be a fact that would easily fit in the headline, and would make the headline a sufficient summary for a large number of readers to no longer feel the need to click through to get that one word out of the article.
For example (real HN post): "Bitcoin stealer infected 700 libraries of major programming language" -- if you don't click, you risk missing a critical security issue that affects you. If the authors put "Ruby" in the headline, 90% would know a) all they want to know about the incident b) that they're not affected.
A positive example: "CDC’s New ‘Best Estimate’ Implies a Covid-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%" -- a clickbait version of this would be "CDC’s New ‘Best Estimate’ Implies surprisingly low Covid-19 Infection Fatality Rate"
For the link posted here, the content of the article can't be easily summarized in one word, so I wouldn't call it clickbait, but the headline still matches the same structure clickbait headlines use, which makes people assume the worst. In particular, claiming that some finding is "surprising" seems to be a very common theme in clickbait: "YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT..." or "Ten facts about ... #3 will SHOCK you!" is the stereotypical clickbait headline.