There is a (probably not entirely legal) consumer solution: http://unvis.it
"What the tool does is to try to capture the content of an article or blog post without passing on your visit as a pageview. Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention, so you can read and share the idiocy that it contains."
Isn't this just pushing the problem away from us? The problem being: Why do I still click on an article even if I know it will not be worth my time, attention and energy in any way.
"Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention". I don't see how this is true. The owner of the website might just think I don't pay with my attention. But I did.
This is hardly new. Slate's entire brand is built on these sort of contrarian, antagonistic viewpoints. A large portion of their content can simply be boiled down to "you're doing it wrong" or "something you like is terrible." They've followed this model for most of their 20-year existence.
This goes back well before Slate, though: The term "yellow journalism" was coined in the late 1800's.
And for a more modern take, just look at the magazines in the supermarket checkout line at any time in the past several decades. You've got the more "classic" tabloids with the equivalent of clickbait headlines about actors and entertainers. You've got the women's and men's mags telling you why you're not screwing enough or dressing/exercising/eating the right way. Then you have the more self-aware stuff like Weekly World News and The Enquirer with their UFOs and CIA abductions and Elvis sightings.
I find these "clickbait" stories to be the natural evolution of the same type of sensationalism that's been used to sell papers and magazines or get you to stick around for the full story at 11.
> "The Alabama Granny Murder-For-Hire Plot"
> "Attack Of The Kate Upton Clones"
> "The Internet Is Just Broken"
...oh wait, that last one...
It's not an issue with the internet, Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster style intriguing/bizarre stories have always been popular. Hyperbole brings people in, and it's not just about clicks – people will read stupid stories in The Sun or The Mirror depending on their political leanings, and feel entertained. Because they're fun, silly stories. I'd hate to write one myself but that's a personality trait I have, and not necessarily a positive one.
Also:
> Advertisers have wised up a little bit. There are now party tricks like branded content—wherein advertisers pay for stories that are sort of about their product, but are also about, say, travel or sports—and advertisers sometimes take into account unique visitors within specific demographics, based on age, race, and location.
> Tony Haile, the CEO of Chartbeat—the kings of metrics on the Web—tried to warn us about this last year.
I'm inclined to think this is a Daily Beast writer and Chartbeat being a bit cheeky! Hiding in plain sight. Not that I would begrudge them at all. It was a fun read. Although I disagree with the central premise behind writing it, most of the actual ideas seemed fine. Time on site is hardly a new concept though, and engagement in general has been somewhere on the priority list for (for example) Google for quite a while now.
Ironic that a story about clickbait is clickbait. As you get to the third or fourth paragraph it turns in to a plug for Chartbeat and simultaneously a hit piece for Vox.
The next evolution from clickbait lists is intentionally provocative stories like the one discussed here.
What alternative model can work aside from measuring pure clicks though? Even "the time on site" solution they mention here (if it were even workable) has problems, just because I spend a few minutes reading something doesn't mean it's high quality. Equally high quality content need not necessarily take a long time to consume.
I think the author made somewhat of a mistake in picking the article to point at that he did, if his goal was to start a real conversation. Bringing sexism into the fold will make people assume that this article is based on refuting sexism, which is going to create controversy that none of the actual points he made in the article need.
That said, I feel at least the latter 90% of the article is on-topic for HN.
The interesting question then is why do we have to find another model? Why are people so hell bent on creating content online? If the business apparently does not work, why not trying to make and sell flowerpots instead?
The business - using click bait headlines and outrage porn to generate ad revenue - does (or can, at least) work. TFA is complaining that this business model incentivises shitty content that makes people cross.
Incidentally, this is not a new or unexpected phenomenon, 'traditional' media marketing bods have understood the principle for decades - the noisier a channel gets the louder/shriller you have to shout to get people's attention.
Because the opportunity is there to develop a business that scales hugely - if model is sustainable. How many flower pots can you make? How many people might view your Youtube video?
It's an article about the monetization of web content, negative consequences of that system, and possible better alternatives. This is the bread and butter of Hacker News.
I've been involved in some discussion about these sort of topics (overzealous egalitarianism) on HN. It seems as though there is an audience for it. Nowadays HN seems to discuss "the weather of the internet" as much as it discusses startups.
Does not belong because you find it offensive? Or simply not relevant?
If the latter then I must remind you the Hacker News is not news about hackers but rather news hackers would find interesting. If the article doesn't gratify your intellectual curiosity then simply don't upvote it.
"What the tool does is to try to capture the content of an article or blog post without passing on your visit as a pageview. Effectively this means that you're not paying with your attention, so you can read and share the idiocy that it contains."