My offered non-clickbait title: "After over a decade, scientists discover Vibrio pectenicida bacteria was the cause of a mass sea star die-off spanning from Alaska to Mexico" I wish news would...
The culprit? Bacteria that has also infected shellfish, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.
[...]
But the latest study includes detailed analysis of this fluid, called coelomic fluid, where the bacteria Vibrio pectenicida were found.
My offered non-clickbait title: "After over a decade, scientists discover Vibrio pectenicida bacteria was the cause of a mass sea star die-off spanning from Alaska to Mexico"
I wish news would stop with clickbait titles. I know they think "oh well if we tell you what it is then you won't click on the article," but why do they want a bunch of people clicking on an article just to find out something and then leave? Yeah, I get it, so that they can shove a bunch of ads in your face before you find the answer, but they do realize that if the title wasn't clickbait, the people reading it would actually be the ones interested in the subject, and more likely to stay on the article reading in depth about it?
I don't know if they even care if anyone reads the article, the only goal is ad impressions. Soon all the articles will just be AI slop with maximum ad impressions, something akin to 'Ow my balls'
I don't know if they even care if anyone reads the article, the only goal is ad impressions. Soon all the articles will just be AI slop with maximum ad impressions, something akin to 'Ow my balls'
Due to AI summaries by Google (which are sometimes idiotic, but people still use them and they're only going to get better if Google wants it) and people using various AI chatbots as search...
Soon all the articles will just be AI slop with maximum ad impressions, something akin to 'Ow my balls'
Due to AI summaries by Google (which are sometimes idiotic, but people still use them and they're only going to get better if Google wants it) and people using various AI chatbots as search engines these types of websites are 100% going to become less profitable, not more. There has already been a significant reduction of traffic coming from google over most of the internet. If you're a legitimate service that people want to use, you can try supplementing the loss of revenue from non-ad sources, but if ads and clickbait are all you are, you are already starting to get screwed.
I really think the internet could use a micro-payment solution. 'Articles' are getting so low quality they are barely even worth reading, and now every site wants me to pay to read these crappy...
I really think the internet could use a micro-payment solution. 'Articles' are getting so low quality they are barely even worth reading, and now every site wants me to pay to read these crappy articles. I think there is a role for real journalism but how do they pay for it? If there was a 'click this to pay 5cents to read this article' and it appeared to be high quality and from a trusted source I would likely click that button. No way am I paying for a subscription though. I'm really sick of clickbait headlines and poor quality articles. 'Science' articles are unfortunately some of the worst, especially when it comes to topics like Cosmology. I'm getting tired of trying to explain to people... no.... the JWST has not overthrown all of our understanding of the universe for the 5th time this month. You won't learn that by reading the article, that's for sure.
Nebula seems similar to this - it's a subscription to the platform, yes, but there are many independent creators and they get paid based on view time of subscribers, so each video we watch is...
Nebula seems similar to this - it's a subscription to the platform, yes, but there are many independent creators and they get paid based on view time of subscribers, so each video we watch is equivalent to a micro-payment to that creator.
Kobo and Kindle "library" subscriptions are kind of similar, too - authors are paid essentially micro-payments based on either pages read or time spent with the book open.
Is there anything similar for text journalism? Like a group Substack subscription? Might be interesting.
I think it's just a matter of time and it's going to be one of the positive sides to AI adoption. Editor-checked clickable AI summaries without clickbait are getting more and more popular and what...
I wish news would stop with clickbait titles.
I think it's just a matter of time and it's going to be one of the positive sides to AI adoption. Editor-checked clickable AI summaries without clickbait are getting more and more popular and what I've seen so far works really well.
The downside will be more paywalls, but that is inevitable if we want to move away from ad-supported news and everything negative that this approach brings, and specifically with high quality reporting I don't even think it's a negative.
I suspect this has been A/B tested and if your metric is “clicks to load the article and ads”, clickbait outperformed. I also suspect the number of people who’d spend more time on the page because...
I suspect this has been A/B tested and if your metric is “clicks to load the article and ads”, clickbait outperformed. I also suspect the number of people who’d spend more time on the page because it’s more in-depth are way less numerous than clickbait visitors and the extra time they spend wouldn’t make up for the deficit in visitors. This group might even use adblockers a lot more than the clickbait population. In the end they do what’s “rational” for their metric: ads shown/revenue. And it’s not what we want.
My offered non-clickbait title: "After over a decade, scientists discover Vibrio pectenicida bacteria was the cause of a mass sea star die-off spanning from Alaska to Mexico"
I wish news would stop with clickbait titles. I know they think "oh well if we tell you what it is then you won't click on the article," but why do they want a bunch of people clicking on an article just to find out something and then leave? Yeah, I get it, so that they can shove a bunch of ads in your face before you find the answer, but they do realize that if the title wasn't clickbait, the people reading it would actually be the ones interested in the subject, and more likely to stay on the article reading in depth about it?
I don't know if they even care if anyone reads the article, the only goal is ad impressions. Soon all the articles will just be AI slop with maximum ad impressions, something akin to 'Ow my balls'
Due to AI summaries by Google (which are sometimes idiotic, but people still use them and they're only going to get better if Google wants it) and people using various AI chatbots as search engines these types of websites are 100% going to become less profitable, not more. There has already been a significant reduction of traffic coming from google over most of the internet. If you're a legitimate service that people want to use, you can try supplementing the loss of revenue from non-ad sources, but if ads and clickbait are all you are, you are already starting to get screwed.
I really think the internet could use a micro-payment solution. 'Articles' are getting so low quality they are barely even worth reading, and now every site wants me to pay to read these crappy articles. I think there is a role for real journalism but how do they pay for it? If there was a 'click this to pay 5cents to read this article' and it appeared to be high quality and from a trusted source I would likely click that button. No way am I paying for a subscription though. I'm really sick of clickbait headlines and poor quality articles. 'Science' articles are unfortunately some of the worst, especially when it comes to topics like Cosmology. I'm getting tired of trying to explain to people... no.... the JWST has not overthrown all of our understanding of the universe for the 5th time this month. You won't learn that by reading the article, that's for sure.
Nebula seems similar to this - it's a subscription to the platform, yes, but there are many independent creators and they get paid based on view time of subscribers, so each video we watch is equivalent to a micro-payment to that creator.
Kobo and Kindle "library" subscriptions are kind of similar, too - authors are paid essentially micro-payments based on either pages read or time spent with the book open.
Is there anything similar for text journalism? Like a group Substack subscription? Might be interesting.
Don't leave me hanging, I want to know more!
Idiocracy- Ow My Balls!
Similar joke:
Simpsons - Man getting hit by football
I think it's just a matter of time and it's going to be one of the positive sides to AI adoption. Editor-checked clickable AI summaries without clickbait are getting more and more popular and what I've seen so far works really well.
The downside will be more paywalls, but that is inevitable if we want to move away from ad-supported news and everything negative that this approach brings, and specifically with high quality reporting I don't even think it's a negative.
I suspect this has been A/B tested and if your metric is “clicks to load the article and ads”, clickbait outperformed. I also suspect the number of people who’d spend more time on the page because it’s more in-depth are way less numerous than clickbait visitors and the extra time they spend wouldn’t make up for the deficit in visitors. This group might even use adblockers a lot more than the clickbait population. In the end they do what’s “rational” for their metric: ads shown/revenue. And it’s not what we want.
Wow Ive been following this story for my entire adult life, from the start when they noticed the whole kelp forest was gone. Science takes so LONG